Brainwashing Cases and Freedom of Religion

What is the primary question addressed in this article? What can we learn from this article? Primarily this article delves into detail about certain court cases involving high tolerance sects, referred to as â€Å"cults† and ex-members attempting to sue said cult for various different reasons. The most detailed cases described by the author are of cases in which the plaintiff is accusing the so-called cult of brainwashing the person into joining; seen in cases such as George v. ISKCON (International Society of Krishna Conciousness) as well as Molko and Leal v. The Unification Church [Richardson (1990): 3, 8]. The foremost problem that this presents is whether or not brainwashing is a successful practice that members of sects or â€Å"cults† use to bring in new members. A key person in most cases using the accusation of brainwashing in order to bring a case against a cult religion is Dr. Margaret Singer [Richardson (1990): 3]. She has been used to examine plaintiffs for their emotional distress, symptoms of mental disorders, and come to conclusions if indeed they were brainwashed. Many psychologists and sociologists disagree with her positions, having posted amicus curiae briefs in appeals courts attempting to limit use of â€Å"brainwashing† accusations in cult cases. These scholars claim that psychologists like Dr. Singer ignore a large portion of studies done on new religions that reveal it is unlikely that new members are coerced into joining [Richardson (1990): 2-3]. It represents the research that scholars have put into participants joining new religions voluntarily, for whichever reasons they feel to choose using their free will. This includes the fact that in the 1960’s many people chose different lifestyles that some would refer to as â€Å"hippies† or â€Å"beatniks† instead of what they believe is a hypocritical path following the Second World War and other stresses of the world. The brief also applied that groups such as the Hare Krishna and Unification church have a small number of members and have high drop-off rates; which if brainwashing were true means that they would be expanding rather than contracting [Richardson (1990): 9-10]. The George v. ISKCON case was successful in collecting emotional distress damages and wrongful death of the father (who had heart failure soon after his daughter was returned), totaling $2. 9 million for the plaintiffs. However, now in many courts the position of brainwashing is not accepted as an argument for cult cases [Richardson (1990): 8-9]. What is the next question this article may lead one to answer? A tempting question that this article may lead one to think about is whether or not such circumstances as those presented in court cases against religious sects takes away from their freedom of religion. It does not appear that a Catholic church would be taken to court for handing out pamphlets to spread word of their religion, nor Jehovah Witnesses for walking door to door with the same idea. However, whatever methods smaller sects use to gain more members seem to ultimately deal with lost members claiming them to have used mind control or coercive persuasion to attract the member. In the George case, the claim was that since the Krishna sect helped hide the 15 year old girl from her parents, they were in a sense kidnapping her. This does not take into account that the girl was physically abused and mistreated by her parents, even chained to her bedroom to restrain her from trying different religious practices [Richardson (1990): 6]. While that may not necessarily make the Krishna sect heroic, it does seem to provide insight that the girl was unable to explore religious freedom. In essence, she was not given the choice by her parents of which religion she would like to join, which is exactly how it was argued that ISKCON had brainwashed her; by not giving her freedom of choice. This has to deal with the economics of religion philosophy that humans will make rational choices depending on their knowledge, tastes and preferences. Whether George made a rational decision to join ISKCON in the eyes of her parents, it was a decision she was not obligated to make. Three Finals Questions 1. Name and briefly explain three positions that Dr. Margaret Singer took in the George v. ISKCON case that seem to contradict popular psychologist and sociologist opinion. Singer claims that brainwashing and coercive persuasion used by the accused cults can be likened to that of Korean prisoners of war and those of Chinese Communist reformers. However, there is notable difference that ‘cult brainwashing’ uses psychological coercion while Korean prisoners of war were physically coerced through torture and other extremes. Singer even argues that psychological coercion is more effective despite tons of research that points the opposite [Richardson (1990): 10]. Singer discounts the impact on behavior from George’s parents’ negative reaction to her desire to join the church including the physical abuse she was given. Discredited ISKCON by not recognizing it as a religion having religious practices, that the case did not involve freedom of religion at all, despite the plaintiff George’s claim that she did convert to the religion. Did not accept that the plaintiff may have biases or ulterior motives for the court case, despite only spending a small session with her and claiming that she believes the plaintiff was â€Å"trying to be honest† with her [Richardson (1990): 4]. Does not believe the time in which a patient is examined after the ‘brainwashing’ event is important [Richardson (1990): 6]. 2. Explain what arguments were made by scholars in their amicus curiae briefs in the appeals of cult/brainwashing cases. The Scientific Community agreement argues that a large portion of studies have been done on new religions that reveal it is unlikely that new members are brainwashed [Richardson (1990): 2-3]. This represents the research that scholars have put into participants joining new religions voluntarily, for whichever reasons they feel to choose using their free will. The brief also applied that groups such as the Hare Krishna and Unification church have a small number of members and have high attrition (drop-off) rates; which if brainwashing were true means that they would be expanding rather than contracting [Richardson (1990): 9]. . Explain why these cases provide trouble for the perspective of freedom of religion. Unreliable sciences such as the psychology used by Dr. Singer tend to contradict the majority of scholarly research on small sects, including the study that youth who have joined such a group normally turn out to be in better psychological health individually afterward [Richards on (1990): 10]. It seems as though because of her reputation as a professional psychologist, Dr. Singer can claim whatever she wants to about a religion, using her bias or simply a lack of knowledge, and collect a paycheck for it. Krishna leaders of India fear that â€Å"paying such a large judgment would force the Hare Krishna to sell most of its United States assets, thereby severely limiting its activities here, or even leading to closure of its operations† [Richardson (1990): 9] Cases successful in accusing a small sect of brainwashing can send a negative view to the general population of cults. According to a Gallup Poll, more Americans in a nationwide survey would be less comfortable with sects or cults as neighbors than any other ethnic or religious group in the survey [Richardson (1990): 17]. The general population appears to fear what they believe is brainwashing being done to children of the society and wants to attack religions they are unaware of.