Cult Apologists

"Experts" Who Are "Far More . . . Balanced?"

In their defense against Alex Hannaford's article "Heritage of Abuse" in the Texas Observer, Homestead took exception to the experts he consulted. They recommended a list of "experts Hannaford could have consulted" who are supposedly "far more respected and balanced than Hannaford's cherry-picked choice." (Ed. I can't help but contrast Homestead's disparagement of Hannaford with the Amish--whose tradition Homestead chooses to identify with-- who forgave a man who murdered their children.)

When I looked up the "far more . . .balanced" names on this list I was more than a little mystified that Homestead would suggest these people be consulted. I think it would have been rather humorous if Hannaford had let these people weigh in on the situation and then point out the associations of most of these "experts" whose views "are held in far greater regard in academic circles." As you'll see, they are held in "far greater regard" by a number of dubious groups.

First up is J. Gordon Melton. He is probably one of the most prominent cult apologists. In 1995, Melton and fellow scholars erroneously defended the Aum Shinrikyo cult during the aftermath of the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway and "pronounced that Aum was the victim of 'persecution.'" He is also a well know defender of Scientology and the former Children Of God now known as The Family. Melton also denies that Jonestown was a cult but  rather "a respectable, mainline Christian group," and stated that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult.  He was also mentioned in a paper by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi calling out the "advocacy, apologetics, and propaganda" of those supporting NRMs [New Religious Movements]. (Source)

James Richardson defends Scientology and "is on the referral list of the scientology-run Cult Awareness Network" and also the referral list for The Family. In a published article on New Religious Movements Richardson did not include the People's Temple "because it is an atypical NRM."

David G.Bromley is officially recognized as a recommended Religious Resource by the Church of Scientology.

H. Newton Malony "has been a consultant and expert witness for several controversial new religious movements, including the Church of Scientology." (Source)

Dick Anthony "made $21,000.00 consulting on one civil case alone, without even appearing in court. That case involved a wrongful death claim filed against Jehovah's witnesses . . ." (Source) "Some of his clients" include the "Unification Church, the Hare Krishna movement, The Way International [and] Church of Scientology." (Source)

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi may indeed have been a good expert to consult. He presented a paper in 1997 titled Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research which "addresses the problem of collaboration, including a) financial arrangements between certain sociologists of religion and the New Religious Movements they studied, and/or b) the production of shoddy 'research' papers that might as well have been made-to-order Public Relations efforts for such religious movements." (Source)

"This document reports on a series of meetings and activities involving NRM scholars, NRM attorneys, NRM leaders, and some other scholars. . . The memo proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, not only behind-the-scenes contacts between scholars and NRMs, but the coordinated effort on the part of leading NRM scolars to work with NRMs." Beit-Hallahmi concludes that "leading members of the NRM research network regarded NRMs as allies, not subjects of study" and that "the scholars were more eager than the NRMs to lead the fight for NRM legitimacy." (Source)

It is not a question of some loose cannons on the margins of the research community. What we have is not an "activist" minority and a silent majority, but a supportive, collaborating majority. Our colleagues are entitled to many presumptions of innocence, but not just doubts but pieces of evidence are piling up. I personally feel embarrassed, ashamed, and betrayed. In light of what we have witnessed we are forced to re-read, our eyes fresh with suspicion, the whole corpus of NRM literature. (Source, emphasis added)

Voicing frustration over the consequences of this covertly organized NRM advocacy, Beit-Hallahmi alleges that "recent and less recent NRM catastrophes help us to realize that in every single case allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than any other accounts. Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers." He cites the People's Temple, Nation of Yahweh, Branch Davidians, Faith Assembly, Vajradhatu, and other recent examples as evidence. (Source) 

 The happy consensus, shared by colleagues I admire and to whom I will always be in debt, turns out to be, on closer examination, a rhetoric or advocacy, apologetics and propaganda. The advocacy and apologetics agenda creates an impoverished discourse, denying the madness, passion, and exploitation involved in NRMs, and leads to an intellectual dead end, The real issue is how a community of brilliant scholars committed itself to this kind of NRM advocacy. (Source, emphasis added)

Beit-Hallahmi concludes: "The solution to our integrity problem lies only in a painfully open discussion and full disclosure; open discussion of our collective deficiencies and failings, and a full disclosure of all financial ties with all organizations. In legitimate academic work, financial support is gratefully acknowledged. If you have reasons to keep your benefactors unnamed, you've got something to hide. . . Being a little more suspicious will keep us all not only a little more honest, but probably better scholars. (Source, emphasis added) 

 Organized efforts between NRM scholars and NRMs are then linked to groups such as the American Conference on Religious Freedom, Eileen Barker's INFORM (United Kingdom) [one of the CESNUR's director, August, 1998 - ndr], and the Association of World Academics for Religious Freedom (AWARE) in particular. (Source)  

Eugene V. Gallagher coauthored a book with James D. Tabor who is a recommended "religious resource" for the Church of Scientology.

Catherine Wessinger "seems to have ties to Lonnie Kliever and Gordon Melton--both of these men have often been recommended by the Church of Scientology as 'experts.'" (Source) She describes the Heavens Gate cult as "definitely Gnostic . . .very similar to Hinduism (and also Buddhism)" and said that "the outcome with Heaven's Gate certainly calls into question traditional Hindu beliefs and practices." (Source) As if Hindus routinely castrate themselves and commit suicide while waiting for a UFO to carry them away. Wessinger also sympathizes with People's Temple and blames the media on the deaths at Jonestown instead of a manipulative con man by saying, "they would still be here. But due to the attacks and investigations they endured . . ." (Source)

Eileen Barker "admit[s] receiving support from Moon's Unification Church" (Source) Barker was invited to Russia to champion the causes of the Moonies, Scientologists, Hare Krishnas, and Jehovah's Witnesses. (Source) Barker was specifically mentioned in Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's paper decrying the "advocacy, apologetics, and propaganda" of such research. (Source)

Massimo Introvigne is one of the co-founders of CESNUR along with J. Gordon Melton and Eileen Barker. (Source) He was at one time "listed among the 'professional referrals' of Scientology's so-called 'Cult Awareness Network,' but does not appear on the current version of that list." (Source) Introvigne was interviewed by Scientology's Freedom Magazine which called him "one of the world's leading authorities on religion and its societal impact."(Source) According to a paper by Dutch scholar Dr. Herman de Tollenaere called "Scholars or Apologists"

Often, outsiders criticize some people in CESNUR for having too close personal and/or financial ties to problematic religious organizations. (emphasis added)

CESNUR leaders have testified on behalf of groups like Scientology and the Unification Church (Moonies) in court cases. (Source, emphasis added)

Introvigne has "edited many collected works" and written "articles (mostly about Satanism), in which he defended sects such as Scientology, the Order of the Sun Temple, and Heaven's Gate." (Source)

Thomas Robbins is recommended by Scientology's Cult Awareness Network "for factual information on new religions."

Anson Shupe "was paid $500.00 per hour by Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon to testify against CAN in courrt" before the Cult Awareness Network was bought out by Scientology. Shupe later coauthored a paper with Scientologist Kendrick Moxon to dead agent the former CAN. (Source)

It appears that what we have here with almost all of the "experts" on Homestead's list is a conflict of interest whereby "a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possible corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization." Their opinions on New Religious Movements are far from unbiased.