Recently I have been assigned to a research project concerning cults and the effect that they have on society. Throughout my research I have constantly seen two groups that stick out, the Branch Davidians(Waco Massacre) and the Peoples Temple(Jim Jones and the Jonestown masscre). These groups have one thing in common: oppression from the U.S. government. Many say that the BATF( Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) were wrong in attacking the Davidians at Waco, and although I agree with them I believe that they were in the right when they said that the Davidians were a cult that needed to be stopped. By stopped I would normally think that they meant "arrest, convict, execute." but they just skipped phases one and two. They killed 84 men, women and children then were awarded for it. It is'nt right, the way we treat minority religions.

But it also is not right when these minority religions perform cultist acts. Cults are the most persuasive, deceiving and diabolical problems that society faces today and they can hide from persecution. They can get away from everything that they do by merely claiming to be a religion and as long as noone is killed or escapes and rats the cult out the authorities are powerless to disband them. They have alot to answer for and so do we for not acting to change this.

Questions to debate:

Should there be laws enacted to prevent the formation of cults?

Should there be laws that monitor minority religion activities?

If so why? If not, why not? (enjoy)

Should there be laws enacted to prevent the formation of cults?

The first problem I see is that this runs smack dab into the anti-establishment clause. In order to do this, government would have to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't a bona-fide religion or branch. If you do it based on size then the Shakers are probably a cult, if you base it on mental control over its membership then the Amish are probably a cult. No, it has to be based on wether members of the cult commit criminal acts at the behest of the sect leader. If its individuals commiting crimes you can prosecute them, if the entire sect is involved you can consider them a criminal enterprise and use RICO or other anti-gang laws.

Should there be laws that monitor minority religion activities?

Again, who decides what a minority religion is?. B'Hai, Zoroastrians, Wikkans would all seem to qualify. It would be a slippery slope.

If we were to base our movements against them on that we would never convict anyone. That in itself is the hardest challenge that we face. Cults hold such a powerful hold over their members that them testifying or even reporting the leader as making them commit criminal acts is highly unlikely. Although it might interfere with the Anti-Establishment clause, it is a necessary evil that we must use to flush out dangerous criminals such as these.

I'm not very familiar with the Jones case, but I see no reason why anyone in the Branch Davidian sect deserved execution. The cult was charged with weapons violation (weapons which had never been used to commit a crime, I might add). This is not an execution worthy offense (even in Texas).

Should there be laws enacted to prevent the formation of cults? No. That would be a violation of many fundamental rights we hold as Americans. Speech, religion, freedom of association, ect.

Should there be laws that monitor minority religion activities? I think if a cult is suspected of illegal activity, agents should monitor the suspected group's activities. Otherwise, we should leave them alone.

Allow me to enlighten you: Jim Jones was the leader of a religious cult that were called The Peoples Temple. Through manipulation and extreme control he forced 913 people to voluntarily commit mass suicide in Jonestown, Brazil. He convinced men, women and children to kill themselves. He convinced people that he was Christ in human form. He needed to be stopped.

I was a little harsh on the execution comment but that is the purpose of BATF(in my opinion). To arrest, convict and ruin lives, without just cause. I have learned that at gunshows that I go to you don't talk to anyone. They have agents that will strike up a conversation that will go somewhat like this: "Do you know anything about automatic weapons? Well I know about converter kits.... and this and that" and they will arrest you on conspiracy to create an automatic weapon. They are crooked and improperly handled the situation at Waco.

Whoa! Before I get around to answering your questions directly, let me start by answering them, perhaps indirectly, by correcting some of the record you have apparently gotten from a pro-Branch Davidian source.

First off, this group was pretty much left alone, up until a couple of people whom had recenty left the organization went to authorities, and alleged that Koresh's group had illegally obtained automatic and other weapons. There was certainly no ongoing, systematic government "oppression" of this group prior to their attempting to serve a search warrant on February 28th.

Further allegations by these two Davidian defectors, indicated that physical and sexual abuse of women and children was also taking taking place at the compound. These, allegations, along with other information obtained by the BATF, indicated to them that this was indeed a potentially violent group, with a large number of people, and that they needed to go into the compound in force, in order to execute the search warrant, and to arrest Koresh and his lieutenants, if necessary.

But the Davidians were tipped off, and as the BATF agents got to the main building, the Davidians opened fire, killing four agents and wounding 16 others in a gun battle that lasted 45 minutes.

By the way, contrary to your assertions that the FBI and BATF acted merely as executioners, this is simply not correct. After the initial gun battle, a standoff ensued that lasted for 51 days, and resulted in the release of more than 30 people, before the final seige on April 19th. If they had wanted to "execute" these people, they could have called in enough reinforcements to do that on the first day.

After it was all over, a Republican was hired by the House to investigate the incident, and we all know how much Republicans loved the Clinton administration. He found no fault with the actions of the BATF or the FBI, or the Attorney Generals office, at the time. He concluded, rightfully in my opinion, that the fault for the deaths on April 19 were strictly the result of Koresh and his lieutenants, and not of law enforcement.

Now, as to your questions:

Should there be laws enacted to prevent the formation of cults?

No. Absolutely not. First of all, what definition of "cult" are we going to use? There are a lot of religions out there, of a non-violent nature that could also be considered "cults". Are we now going to allow the government to decide what is a valid religion, and what is not? I don't think so.

Should there be laws that monitor minority religion activities?

Again, absolutely not. How would you monitor them? Send in law enforcement under cover? And you think that some of these groups are being "oppressed" by the government now?

No, there will always be someone inside the organization legitimately, who will become uncomfortable with activities inside such a "church", and will eventually go to authorities with their information, just as they did in the Branch Davidian case. Then the proper authorities can investigate legally, as proscribed by the Constitution.

If this were so where was this much needed defector at Jonestown? Why then did the BATF knowingly set fire to a building that they knew was full of flammable gas?

It seems to me that the government has thrown out the rule where they are supposed to preserve life. I am not saying that we need to butt into a religions business but I am not saying that we should sit idly as cults such as the Davidians and the Temple cause undue harm to their members.

Sorry, deathalive, I think you're all alone on this one.

Clearly, if there is good evidence that any organization has engaged in illegal activities, they should be investigated. But the evidence has to come first.

Nobody is denying that there are harmful and dangerous cults out there. But you have to have good reason to strongly suspect that they are harmful and dangerous before you can do anything about it.

Your own experience with the BATF should teach you something. Do you really want to be investigated by law enforcement just because you own a gun? After all, some people have used guns to commit crimes . . .

Should there be laws enacted to prevent the formation of cults? Sure, the lion's have been on a diet for the last millenia and a half, they could use some serious snackage.

Should there be laws that monitor minority religion activities? ALL religions are a minority. Not even the Roman Catholic Church, which has the greatest # of adherents in the US, constitutes a majority. So any such law amounts to monitoring all religious activity.

If so why? If not, why not? The First Amendment, that's why not.

btw, in your study of cults, don't forget Falun Gong(sp?), Charles Manson and the cult in Japan responsible for the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway.

I'm alone on a good number of issues right now so I'll jsut truck on through this one as well.

I am saying that cults are real and dangerous. They have brought about some of the worst crimes in history just like the ones that the Manson "Family" committed. These are organizations that can kill without remorse and without cause, homeland terrorists so to say. The thing that I am trying to say is that we need to get in and stop them long before the situation escalates to the point where we will have another Jonestown or Waco. These are groups that can force their members to commit heinous acts without consicious thought or knowledge of their actions.

There were thirteen guys around the year 25 A.D. who believed one of them was God incarnate. This certainly seems to meet your definition of a cult. I mean these people had to be brainwashed...right?

I am not going to go into the differences and similarities between Jesus Christ and David Koresh other than to say you can claim followers of all religions, or for that matter political philosophies, are brainwashed. We have a 1st Amendment that allows the practice of all sorts of religions. Groups, religious or secular, should only be investigated when evidence of criminal activity exists.

While there are exceptions, cults are primarily dangerous to their own members. I do feel sympathy for the children but it is quite difficult to see actions such as what occurred at Johnstown and Waco in advance. In the absence of criminal activity cults should be left alone.

Ok. Let me get this one straight: We will arrest priests for "allegedly" molesting children, BUT you won't investigate a cult for knowingly psychologically, emotionally and physically depriving and abusing children? Tell me if I am right in assuming this is what your saying, you want to wait until after the crime to start taking names and starting trials? Sounds a little sketchy to me.

I remember Jonestown very well. I lived about 30 miles from the California compound. My middle brother was sent down to Guyana to recover the bodies.

I will have to agree with the majority on this. Because I have only one question how do you determine that it is a dangerous cult? Please give us a legal description that would allow the government to just go after the dangerous ones, and leave the peaceful people who happen to believe something different in peace. I am all for the protection of the people and their rights to believe in what they want. I just have a very difficult time in creating exceptions.

Anti-cult law

outside source on anti- cult laws

I invite all to look at these pages and you will see that some countries have wised up and with good reason. Our country is pretty quick to start revolutionary laws but I think we are little behind as this page clearly explains.

In short, Loreng 59, By legal terms a cult has yet to have definition. They are considered religions and are therfore generally left alone. I think that there need to be laws set in place to protect religions that are peace going and plainly not cults. Cults cannot claim religion because people believe in it. they are forced to believe in it, Brain washed and manipulated. They have their whole view of life Violently twisted and ripped apart until all they know is what the leader tells them is true. They need to be at the very least monitored for illegal activities and if there is even a theft I say claw through them just to make sure they are'nt trying to cover their tracks.

Er...we already have laws protecting children from abuse by their guardians. Yes, a crime must be committed or there must be evidence of a conspiracy to commit crime before starting trials. Are you saying we should try people based on a possibility they could commit a crime? Sounds a little sketchy to me.

Not try but at the least, investigate to ensure the child's safety. I am sure that there are countless children abused everyday by parents and it is far from right that we don't investigate when we know that something is happening. Teachers of elementary kids constantly see signs of abuse but don't say anything and I am always left wondering why. We know it happens, we see the signs. I am saying all we have to do is investigate and then if it turns out that the child really did fall down the steps or out of a tree just say we were wrong and move on. But no, people let their pride and unwillingness to fail get in the way.

Okay I went out a read the articles that you presented. First off I do not belong to any of those groups, nor am I a Christian. I have a lot a problems with the laws that France has in fact passed. Do I feel that it can be used to suppress religions that the authorities disapprove of, yes I believe that is very dangerous. Have they been used to suppress innocent groups, I don't know.

I think that without a legal definition that I could not in good conscience support any laws of that type. When depending on ones point of view there are main stream religions that could be considered cults.

I am very leary of attempts to impose somebody else's value of a religion on another. It doesn't matter to me the religion, because I feel that religion is a very personal matter and how the heck would I know whether somebody's view point is correct or not?

As much as I despise all religions as inherintly dangerous and evil, I would not support any anti-cult law. Simply because this allows an "established" religion to persecute a "new" religion. I could just see the glee in Jerry Falwell and Tom Delay's eyes as they make a call to the local constabulary about a new "cult" coming to town that doesn't jive with the bible!

In fact, Bob Barr, a senator ? from Goergia tried to have the military ban Wicca from military bases because it was "anti-christian".

I think the cults are far LESS dangerous to the general population than the "established" religiouns, and are only dangerous to thier members, rather than society as a whole. Like with cigerette smoking, drug addiction, gambling, they may be harmful to you, but they should be your choice and the goverment should get no choice!