Cult Wars by Dr Eileen Barker
Posted: 16 Aug 2011A reasonable background to the tensions within society surrounding any discussion on cults and the dynamics between cultists, ex-cultists, anti-cultists and academics ... ones academic Stephen Mutch described as "sitting on a barbed wire fence".
It is said that Dr Eileen Barker of INFORM has been criticised for having taken a cult apologist stance or attempting to "normalise" or define cults and was largely responsible for promoting the idea of "new religious movements" rather than the negative label of cults. In this paper, she comments on the other sides in the debate, groups like FAIR and AFF and "cult watchers" and "the competition in the market place of ideas" about cultic religions.
My own personal criticism of INFORM was that despite being seen, and funded, to at least document cults accurately, in relationship to the Brahma Kumaris they did little more than repeat what the Brahma Kumaris claimed of themselves.
I thought they should have been more responsible to get to the hard edge of truth on the matter. What she describes, "to try to clarify complications, not sweep them under the carpet for the sake for clarification". Yet, historical facts about the BKWSU surely change the rational view of the Brahma Kumaris from being 'perfectly nice if eccentric individuals' to 'highly capable and dedicated manipulators who have carried on numerous substantial deceptions for decades'.
The latter being a fact, not an interpretation.
INFORM have in the past chosen to promote speakers from the Brahma Kumaris at their seminars (Neville Hodgkinson ... as usual) and yet never directly contacted us for comment.
It is said that Dr Eileen Barker of INFORM has been criticised for having taken a cult apologist stance or attempting to "normalise" or define cults and was largely responsible for promoting the idea of "new religious movements" rather than the negative label of cults. In this paper, she comments on the other sides in the debate, groups like FAIR and AFF and "cult watchers" and "the competition in the market place of ideas" about cultic religions.
My own personal criticism of INFORM was that despite being seen, and funded, to at least document cults accurately, in relationship to the Brahma Kumaris they did little more than repeat what the Brahma Kumaris claimed of themselves.
I thought they should have been more responsible to get to the hard edge of truth on the matter. What she describes, "to try to clarify complications, not sweep them under the carpet for the sake for clarification". Yet, historical facts about the BKWSU surely change the rational view of the Brahma Kumaris from being 'perfectly nice if eccentric individuals' to 'highly capable and dedicated manipulators who have carried on numerous substantial deceptions for decades'.
The latter being a fact, not an interpretation.
INFORM have in the past chosen to promote speakers from the Brahma Kumaris at their seminars (Neville Hodgkinson ... as usual) and yet never directly contacted us for comment.