The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Religious Cults and Government

JACQUELINE SPEIER: I am a victim of Guyana, but I am alive and very mindful of my responsibility to try and inform others about the tragedy. I hope this Committee, during the course of its investigation, will also be mindful of perhaps the singularly most important fact of Jonestown: it can happen again.

ROBERT MacNEIL: Jacqueline Speier, legal counsel to Congressman Leo Ryan, who was killed at the start of the Jonestown massacre in Guyaya. Good evening. Last November 905 members of the People`s Temple died by mass murder or suicide at their religious settlement in the jungles of Guyana. Hundreds of their bodies, shipped back by the U.S. Government, still await disposal. Three survivors have been charged with murder in Guyana, and the American government has brought suit to try and attach some of the cult`s reported riches to cover the public cost of cleaning up after the tragedy. But the bizarre and gruesome events in Jonestown have had another sequel: a surge of concern about other cults or new religious groups, and whether the law adequately protects people who join them from brainwashing, violence or even death. Today Republican Senator Robert Dole of Kansas opened what he called informational hearings on the issue. Tonight: the alleged dangers in religious cults, and the constitutional dangers of interfering with them. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, technically today`s hearing wasn`t a hearing, but it certainly seemed like one. The Senate caucus room in the old Senate office building was jammed and noisy, there was a waiting line for seats, cheers and boos when the crowd liked or didn`t like what they heard. Outside there were demonstrators, mostly complaining about what was happening inside. The issue, both inside and outside, was whether religious sects should be the business of the federal government, even in an unofficial, information-only hearing. Here`s a sampling of today`s testimony on both sides of that argument.

DAPHNE GREEN, Parent: I saw my daughter`s eyes, once opened to all, loving and expressive, now darting and piercing, and pleading with me to understand her fear. It was frightening, and I, her mother, was helpless.

FLO CONWAY, Sociologist: The issue being addressed here today is not one of religion or personal belief. Rather, it is a mental health problem with far-reaching medical, legal and social implications.

HERBERT RICHARDSON, Harvard Divinity School: Part of what is going on in this hearing today is an attack not on the cults but on religion itself and on the dimension of religious experience that is traditionally described as conversion and as an experience of God. But it seems to me that it is not the duty of government to try to adjudicate the rightness or wrongness of this particular disagreement.

Sen. MARK HATFIELD, (R) Oregon: It is increasingly obvious that the government need not and should not avert its eyes from every act done in the name of religion. I would remind the panel this morning that some of the most heinous crimes in history have been committed in the name of religion; in the name of the Christian religion, in fact. As the courts have often stated, though, the First Amendment is not an absolute. The invoking of a religious context does not sanitize every enterprise carried out in the supposed service of the Lord.

When illegal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, being agents of foreign powers, and misuse of tax-exempt status are practiced by any religious group, there must be a full and vigorous enforcement of existing laws.

NEIL SALONEN, Unification Church: Senator Dole, if we`ve done something wrong, then through the Justice Department or the executive agency let us be charged, let us defend ourselves, let us be judged and we`ll pay the consequences...

(Scattered cheers, applause.)

SALONEN:...but to be held up to public ridicule with no chance to adequately defend ourselves is morally wrong. We won`t tolerate it. We`ll vigorously defend ourselves. Historically, new religious movements have endured persecution and harassment. They`ve always been useful to stir up emotions by those who would lead a crowd. We feel that the name of our movement and the name of Reverend Moon has been smeared, and we will not rest until that name is resurrected and the true motivation of his accusers is exposed. This is our purpose in coming here today.

(Applause, cheers.)

LEHRER: The man who called today`s session and presided over it was Senator Robert Dole, Republican of Kansas, who had expressed concern about the subject before Guyana, conducting earlier hearings, in fact, in 1976. Senator, what was the purpose of your unofficial hearing today?

Sen. ROBERT DOLE: Well, I might say that in addition to myself we had Senator Zorinsky from Nebraska and four members of the House. We believe, after visiting about it, that it`s time we -- in some informal setting -- at least better informed ourselves and members of Senate and House staffs. We had about, I would guess, a hundred and some staff people present; during the course of the hearings about nine Senators were in and out and, I understand, eighteen House members. So it was really an information session for us.

LEHRER: Do you personally feel that Congress should do something, pass some laws or take some kind of action concerning these religious sects, or cults, as they`re called?

DOLE: Well, I`ve been trying to look at it from a very narrow perspective, and I understand all the emotion that surrounds any time you meddle with the religious clause of the Constitution. But I`m also on the Finance Committee, and we deal with taxes and we deal with tax-exempt status of so- called religious organizations; and frankly, I believe this is an appropriate area for us to look at. And I think...

LEHRER: In what way? Give me an example of where that would be...

DOLE: Well, we`ve had allegations, for example, about some of the activities of Reverend Moon. In other words, are they religious activities, or does this money inhere to his own individual benefit? If it does, then they`re not entitled to certain exemptions. And that`s an appropriate area for us, that`s a legislative area. I suggested to Senator Long, as I did to the chairman in 1976, the subcommittee chairman then, Senator Haskell, let`s take a look at it, but let`s face it, it`s a very delicate area; people would just as soon stand back and say, Well, there`s nothing we can do about in in the Congress.

LEHRER: But in areas other than taxes, charges have been made about brainwashing and that kind of thing. Do you think there`s a role there for the federal government to do something about that?

DOLE: Well, again, if it`s some illegal activity, yes. If it`s deceit or fraud or accumulating weapons; I mean, if it`s some clear and present threat, some criminal activity, I think anyone would agree that we`d have a right to look into it, yes.

LEHRER: Would that require new legislation -- anti-cult legislation, so to speak?

DOLE: I don`t know that it would be anti-cult, but it would apply to everybody, whether it`s the Unification Church or the American Legion. There are certain areas of criminal activity; I don`t know of anybody who was there this morning who indicated we didn`t have a right. I think Congressman Giaimo raised the question: you know, if we`re contacted by a constituent who says, Try to help find out about my daughter or my son who may be in, say, the Unification Church, are we required to say, "Oh, I can`t touch that because of the First Amendment"? The answer is no. I think we have a right to look into these matters.

LEHRER: Was there anything you heard at your hearing today that either changed your opinion in some way or enhanced what you already believed in terms of action the federal government could take?

DOLE:I think what we agreed, in a very brief comment I had with Congressman Giaimo and also with Congressman Ottinger, was we ought to get together now, the six of us who called this meeting, and talk about what we might do as a next step, if we do anything. And again, we`re not trying to inflame either side, but there is a problem. There are many frustrated parents, many frustrated young people; but you have to balance it, and we hope we had a balanced meeting this morning.

LEHRER: What do you say, Senator, to those who said to your face more or less today that what you conducted today was a witch hunt?

DOLE: Well, I think -- in fact, some indicated it was not a witch hunt. Certainly I would not be a party to that. But let`s face it, I think there was some intimidation I can, without naming -- I guess I shouldn`t even mention it, but I think there were maybe a couple of Senators who didn`t appear and who didn`t participate as joint sponsors because they were a little bit scared of the whole thing. And let`s face it, there were people all over the Capitol saying, Cancel the hearings. Press conferences were held; I was accused of nearly everything. But I will not be intimidated. We`re not trying to shake up the First Amendment. We are taking a look, and we`ll continue to take a look if there`s a necessity. Hopefully it`ll be constructive; that`s my only purpose.

LEHRER: All right; thank you, Senator. Robin?

MacNEIL: Do any of the new religious cults pose dangers like the People`s Temple, and do they have enough in common to justify examining them as a group? J. Stillson Judah, professor at the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley, California, has studied cult membership and motives across the country. He`s with us tonight in the studios of Public Television Station KQED in San Francisco. Professor Judah, just before we were on I overheard you saying you`d retired from that position and you now have a new one. What is the new one?

J. STILLSON JUDAH: Well, at the present time I am retired from the Graduate Theological Union, but I`m also adjunct professor at the Pacific School of Religion and am doing research in the various religious movements.

MacNEIL: Oh, thank you. I just wanted to get that straight. Now, we just heard a man in those hearings say all new religious groups have been persecuted. What is a new religious group and what is a cult, by your definition?

JUDAH: Well, a cult refers actually to many different things. I think the meaning that is most applicable here, however, is that it is a religion which arises during a period of cultural change to satisfy the needs of people at that particular time. It is usually a religion that is of short survival value, oftentimes does not continue on after the death of the founder, but it is a religion which is either imported or it arises indigenously within a culture, but at the same time it is a religion that is not part of the mainstream or the mainline religions of a particular culture.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, how many people do you estimate are members of such cults in America today?

JUDAH: Well, there have been various estimates that have been made. Certainly the estimate that has been heard most often is that there are probably about two to three million youth that are involved in cults, and up to perhaps twenty to twenty-five million people altogether. This, of course, includes adults who may also at the same time be members of mainline churches.

MacNEIL: I see. What is the turnover rate, have you found? How many stay and how many leave?

JUDAH: There`s a very high turnover rate in most of them. I notice, for example, in the case of the Unification Church, in a national survey I made, that fifty-five percent of those, at the time they were surveyed, had been in the movement for only one year. Now, this doesn`t give an exact figure as to the rate of turnover, but it certainly shows that it is quite a high one.

MacNEIL: Why do they leave?

JUDAH: They leave for various reasons. In many cases, of course, the discipline is entirely too severe; there may be personality differences that they have within the movement; they may be asked, in some cases, to do things which they do not feel that they want to do. But I would say that probably the greatest reason why they leave has been perhaps through the deprogramming process, which I think is extremely unfortunate.

MacNEIL: Let`s just define that. That is the efforts of people to, as it were, rescue or bring people out of cults and try and reverse the indoctrination that they`ve had.

JUDAH: That is correct.

MacNEIL: Have you in your studies found practices in these cults which would pose a danger to their members in terms of the civil rights of their members?

JUDAH: Of course, in any religion one has to realize that to the extent that a religion represents an ascetic type of religion with a strict discipline, there are bound to be perhaps mental health problems, certainly, in many cases. And this has been certainly the case down through the history of all of the great religions of the world. Certainly the psychologists have made a great deal of do about the mental health of the Christian saints down through history, and even Jesus Christ himself, of course, doesn`t have a very good mental health record as far as many psychologists are concerned.

MacNEIL: Have you found anything that would justify the Congress or the law enforcement branches of the federal government investigating or taking any action against these cults?

JUDAH: No, I actually haven`t, not as far as laws are concerned. I think that there are deceptive practices that have been carried out by, certainly, some of these religions, and I think that people should inveigh against those by means of public pressure. But the great problem is that if one makes a law against a particular cult for the processes that it is carrying out, this is also going to be a real threat, of course, to the religions of the mainline churches just as well.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We`ll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: Another man who has studied the issues involved here, but from a legal and constitutional standpoint, is Richard Delgado. He`s also from California, he`s a visiting professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA. But he`s in Washington, where he testified this morning at the Dole hearing. Mr. Delgado, in your opinion, does the First Amendment automatically give all religious groups immunity from government action as has been talked about?

RICHARD DELGADO: Absolutely not. Except insofar as it applies to religious belief, the First Amendment doesn`t provide any absolute standard of protection. More specifically, with regard to action or conduct in the world, the degree of protection afforded is an intermediate level of belief in which courts, when required to test these cases, weigh the legitimate interests of the state in protecting the public health, safety or welfare against the interests of the religious groups involved in carrying out the kind of behavior. So that the degree of protection is certainly not absolute by any means.

LEHRER: Do you feel that some of these cults have gone beyond the boundary of their legal protection under the First Amendment?

DELGADO: It`s fairly clear that they have. Consistent patterns appear in court cases and legislative hearings, reports, Attorney General investigations and studies of investigative reporters that indicate that the very stressful proselytizing practices and converting practices that are carried on are detrimental to the physical health, the psychological well-being and the autonomy of the individuals involved. On a broader societal level, the actions present dangers to societal institutions such as the family, and as we`ve seen, threats of violence and criminal activity.

LEHRER: All right. Well, in your opinion, how could the government act in these cases without diluting the First Amendment?

DELGADO: Well, I think that the mildest remedy that could be imposed would be a requirement of disclosure, so that no young person would be unwittingly recruited into one of these organizations and then suffer physical or emotional damage.

LEHRER: You mean like when you buy a house or something like that, you mean.

DELGADO:I think it would make sense, and would be analogous to consumer protection statutes that we already have in effect, to require that the proselytizer at the moment of the first contact with the young individual - - not during an idle conversation or not over breakfast with your wife or friend, but in the act of proselytizing -- explain one`s affiliation and identify the organization or cult and explain to the individual what his or her life would be like should he or she join.

LEHRER: All right; what else could be done?

DELGADO: There are other remedies that are also relatively mild. One would be a so-called cooling-off period, in which young people who were beginning to become involved in a religious organization or cult would be required, under penalty of a fine, to leave the organization for a short period of time -- a matter of hours, perhaps a day or two. During that time they could reconsider their situation, seek advice, get away from the constant round of pressure, sleep deprivation, inadequate diet, inadequate privacy; consider where they`re going, consider whether they want to return to the organization for additional indoctrination. And at the end of that time, if they desire to do so, they could.

LEHRER: And I noticed also another suggestion you had was a request for rescue form that would become part of this process. How would that work?

DELGADO: This would be a document similar to so-called living will -- that`s in effect in states that have a natural death act -- in which the young person would recite on paper that he or she did not desire to be a member of named organizations and should he or she find himself or herself in one of these organizations it would be against the will of the individual involved; and the document would also request a rescue. The purpose of utilizing such documents would be to give courts an indication of what the person`s wishes were at a time when he or she was free from pressure and deciding freely.

LEHRER: There are other things, too, I know, that you have suggested, but in general these and other things you think could be done without impinging on the religious freedom guaranteed under the First Amendment.

DELGADO:I think they would impinge on religious freedom, but I think that under the balancing test, considering the harms, the potential damage to the individuals involved as well as to society, they would meet constitutional standards.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: As we`ve already heard, other people regard any government interference with religious groups as a violation of First Amendment protections. That view is taken by the American Civil Liberties Union. Jeremiah Gutman is a member of the ACLU board, and he was also at today`s hearings. Mr. Gutman, would you regard what we`ve just heard outlined as an infringement of the First Amendment?

JEREMIAH GUTMAN: Clearly. To suggest that a person could not associate himself or herself with a group without subjecting himself or herself to a fine by staying in it is to interfere not only with the right of the person to exercise religious freedom but it is a simple interference with an associational right, which is also guaranteed by the First Amendment.

MacNEIL: You, I believe, are acting on behalf of some members of the Unification Church who are protesting through the courts at having been deprogrammed. Is that correct?

GUTMAN: That`s correct.

MacNEIL: Are you acting as a normal lawyer, or on behalf of the ACLU?

GUTMAN:(Laughing.) Well, not to say that acting on behalf of the ACLU is abnormal...

MacNEIL: I mean in a normal paid client relationship.

GUTMAN: (Laughing.) Yes, that is correct.

MacNEIL: Which is it? I`m sorry.

GUTMAN:I am acting on behalf of individual clients as a compensated attorney retained by them.

MacNEIL: If, Mr. Gutman, stories of brainwashing or compulsion were true -- and clearly some relatives of people in these movements believe them to be true -- how could those relatives rescue or protect members of their family as they see a need to do, without some assistance from the authorities? What would your advice to them be?

GUTMAN: The first advice is to attempt to understand one`s own children and attempt to understand why they have rejected the values that the parents wish they had retained, and attempt to communicate with them, and attempt to persuade; and even more, come with an open mind and be willing to be persuaded. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that a child may give some knowledge or insight to a parent. And for a parent to come to the child with the preconceived idea that the truth is with the parent and that the disagreeing child cannot possibly be right is to deny the autonomy and individuality to the child. Now, we`re talking about adults, we`re not talking about six-year-old people. We`re talking about people who are eighteen and over. Many of the people who have been so-called "rescued" by the professional thugs who call themselves deprogrammers are people in their thirties; the typical one is in mid-twenties.

MacNEIL: Can I ask you this about the People`s Temple? Were people wrong to be worried about the People`s Temple before Georgetown, and was Leo Ryan, the Congressman, wrong to be going there to investigate, as it were a representative of the U.S. Government -- or least of his constituents?

GUTMAN: Well, in retrospect it`s perfectly clear that there was cause for worry. I think very likely those who did the worrying didn`t have the facts and they were worrying for the wrong reasons. I think that the People`s Temple, insofar as I can tell, was being talked about as though it were a typical religious organization of a small kind, and within the framework of the religious cults as defined by Dr. Judah a few minutes ago. It turns out, now that the facts are in, that the People`s Temple may not have been a religion, may have been something else, may have been a political organization, a socialist utopian experiment.

MacNEIL: Well, how can people find out, if they`re prohibited by First Amendment protections, if the authorities are prohibited, from looking into and investigating these organizations?

GUTMAN: They cannot find out because the government is forbidden by the First Amendment to go into the affairs and beliefs of organizations unless there is a probable cause to believe that there`s some kind of criminal activity. Now, if there had been evidence that there was compulsion, that people were being taken or held against their wills, that weapons and drugs were being illegally dealt in and so on, criminal investigation would be perfectly appropriate. Earlier in one of your remarks addressed to me you said something about brainwashing and compulsion. Now, I don`t know what brainwashing is, but I do know what compulsion is. And of course anyone who is being compelled to stay within a group is being, in effect, kidnapped. And that`s illegal, and it should be. But we`ve just heard Dr. Judah saying that there`s a tremendous turnover of people who do in fact leave these organizations when they find that the demands made upon them are too high, that they have personality conflicts with the leadership or other members, or they refuse to carry on some activity that`s requested of them. Now, if people are free to leave under those circumstances -- and apparently they are in all of the organizations of which I have any knowledge -- then there is no element of compulsion.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, I think we`ll leave it there so Jim can pursue it. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes; first I want to come back to you, Dr. Delgado. You heard what Mr. Gutman says, that everything you outlined is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

DELGADO: Well, I don`t believe it is. He`s interested in autonomy negating influences such as coercion and force. Clearly, if those were found they would merit state interference. He overlooks that there is another equally tenable constitutional ground for interfering when there is another autonomy-negating influence, and that`s deception. For example, if I were to paint my car yellow and don the clothing of a taxi driver and take you for a ride, ostensibly to location B within the city, and in fact I take you across the state lines to a secret destination, that`s kidnapping just as well. You can restrain someone against their will in violation of the law and at the same time violate their autonomy by acting deceptively. And the problem is that many of these religious organizations are not at all above board with the young people on whom they fasten.

LEHRER: Senator, how do you feel about what Mr. Delgado laid out as possible things that the government could do?

DOLE:I have a little problem with -- you know, at first blush with what he says, and of course I`m surrounded by legal scholars...

LEHRER: Not completely surrounded, so go ahead.

(Laughter.)

DOLE: Well, on my left and right. And I`m the politician in the group, and we have to face it from that standpoint. I`ll have to confess, I haven`t studied Mr. Delgado`s proposal enough to know, but it seems to me that there is some agreement here that where there`s some criminal activity or there`s fraud or deception or coercion, kidnapping -- call it what you will -- then we have a right to investigate; and I`d just take it one step beyond that: in addition to that, there`s a clear legislative responsibility, as far as the so-called tax-exempt status, to take a look at that. So I think we`re on sound ground. I don`t suggest that we`re going to have an inquisition or witch hunt. But we`re going to take a look at it.

LEHRER: Dr. Judah, I`d like to come back to you, finally, to another point that Mr. Gutman made, which is, when Robin asked what does a parent do who is concerned about this, and he said, Try to understand your own children and listen. Is that the advice you would have, from a theological standpoint?

JUDAH: Yes. I think I would agree with that, and I would certainly not only try to understand the child and his particular position but try to give as much love to that child, and understanding, as possible under the circumstances.

LEHRER: But that`s it, as far as you`re concerned.

JUDAH: Yes.

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Well, thank you all very much, Mr. Gutman, Senator; and Professor Judah in San Francisco. Thank you for joining us this evening. That`s all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.