Ever since the Puritans sighted their earthly Paradise somewhere near Plymouth Rock, the New World has been a nesting ground for sects, cults, revivals and alternative religions, both homegrown and imported. Today's cult religious groups, such as the Unification Church or the Church of Scientology, are like their predecessors in offering their adherents not merely an alternative religion but an alternative life style. The English Puritans, for example, were a small sect, most of whose members lacked political and economic status in the dominant culture. Their religion offered them an alternative vision of human worth that required their removal from the larger culture and acceptance of a counter-cultural life, including homogeneity in dress and demeanor, and a daily regimen in which most of their thoughts and activities focused on the religious community and its goals. In return for their immersion in the sect, adherents were granted membership in a family of like-minded people and the sense that their lives had meaning and value.
Type Articles Information Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , 1989 , pp. 483 - 530 Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1989Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1987 meetings of the Law and Society Association. I am grateful to the panelists and audience, whose comments were provocative and helpful. Special thanks for painstaking readings of successive drafts are due to Stephen Zorn, Randy Frances Kandel, Marie A. Failinger, Ellen Mosen James and Eden Ross Lipson, and for research, to Kendall Johnson.
1. There has been considerable discussion about the meaning of the term “cult” and about whether it is opprobrious to use it. See, for example, the discussion among participants in a symposium on cults, collected in 9 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change, No. 1 (1979-1980). In this article, I shall use the term, interchangeably with others, to refer to non-establishment religious groups. No bias is intended.
2. For a more complete account of the Puritans, see Miller , P. , The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century ( 1935 )Google Scholar .
3. On Robert Owen, see Kephart , W. , Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Life Styles 265 –89 ( 1987 )Google Scholar ; Robert , R. , The New Communes: Coming Together in America 25 – 27 ( 1971 )Google Scholar ; see also Hawthorne , N. , The Blithedale Romance ( 1852 )Google Scholar .
4. Stein , , A Sect Apart: A History of the Legal Troubles of the Shakers , 23 Ariz. L. Rev. 735 ( 1981 )Google Scholar ; Arrington , L. and Bitton , D. , The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints ( 1979 )Google Scholar .
5. Ahlstrom , S. , A Religious History of the American People ( 1972 )Google Scholar ; Jackson , C. , The Original Religions and American Thought: Nineteenth-Century Explorations ( 1981 )Google Scholar ; Koch , G. , Religion of the American Enlightenment ( 1968 )Google Scholar ; Marx , H. , Religions in America ( 1977 )Google Scholar ; Reardon , B. , Religious Thought in the Nineteenth Century ( 1966 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Olmstead , C. , History of Religion in the United States ( 1960 )Google Scholar ; The Social Impact of New Religious Movements ( Wilson , B. ed. 1981 )Google Scholar ; Wilson , , The Historical Study of Marginal American Religious Movements , in Religious Movements in Contemporary America , ( Zaretsky , I. and Leone , M. eds. 1974 )Google Scholar .
6. Discussions of the characteristics of contemporary alternative religions can be found in Galanter , M. , Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion ( 1989 )Google Scholar ; Kephart , W. , Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Life Styles , ( 3d ed. 1987 )Google Scholar ; Smelser , N. , Theory of Collective Behavior ( 1963 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; The New Religious Consciousness ( Glock , C. and Bellah , R. eds. 1976 )Google Scholar . There are numerous new religions in addition to the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. Those that have received significant public notoriety include the international Society for Krishna Consciousness (the “Hare Krishna”), Rajneeshpuram and the People's Church. For accounts of the Hare Krishna, see Hubner , J. and Gruson , L. , Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness and the Hare Krishna ( 1988 )Google Scholar ; Earnest , , “This is Our Life and Soul”: Hare Krishnas Find Friends in Neighbors , L.A. Times , 04 19, 1990 , at 1B , col. 2Google Scholar ; for Rajneeshpuram, see Fitzgerald , F. , Cities on a Hill 247 – 381 ( 1986 )Google Scholar ); and, for the People's Church, see Naipaul , S. , Journey to Nowhere: A New World Tragedy ( 1981 )Google Scholar .
7. For a fuller description of the Unification Church, see United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir., 1983), cert, denied 466 U.S. 971 (1984); Barker , , Who'd Be a Moonie? A Comparative Study of Those Who Join the Unification Church in Britain , in The Social Impact of New Religious Movements ( Wilson , B. ed. 1981 )Google Scholar ; Stoner , C. and Parke , J. , All God's Children ( 1977 )Google Scholar .
8. Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 762 P.2d 46, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084.
9. Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.R.I. 1978), aff'd per curiam, 602 F.2d 458 (1st Cir. 1979).
10. L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer and lay psychologist, has written a number of books, including Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health: A Handbook of Dianetics Procedure (2d ed. 1985).
11. Descriptions of the Church of Scientology are found in Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969); United States v. Article or Device, 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971); Wallis , A. , The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology ( 1977 )Google Scholar .
12. United States v. Articles or Device, 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971); Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989).
13. Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577, petition for review denied, 293 Or. 456, 650 P.2d 928 (Or. Sup. a. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206 (1983); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass. 1982).
14. Driel , Van and Richardson , , Print Media and New Religious Movements: A Longitudinal Study ( 1986 )Google Scholar . See also Bromley , D. and Richardson , J. , The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy ( 1983 )Google Scholar .
15. On reactions of the courts to the Shakers, see Ball v. Hand, 5 W.L.J. 238, at 244 (Super. Ct., Cincinnati, Ohio 1848) (court granted custody of children to maternal grandmother, because father would “plant them in the cold, ascetic bosoms” of the Shakers); Stein , , A Sect Apart: A History of the Legal Troubles of the Shakers , 23 Ariz. L. Rev. 735 ( 1981 )Google Scholar . On the courts' reactions to Mormon polygamy, see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Norgren , J. and Nanda , S. , American Cultural Pluralism and Law 71 – 82 ( 1988 )Google Scholar .
16. Parents of cult members are a significant source of criticism of the new religions. Parents have sometimes reacted by seizing their children and placing them in the hands of “deprogrammers” who claim to use psychological methods to “deprogram” them from the effects of the new religions. Cases in which the courts have permitted parents to seize and deprogram their children include: Peterson v. Sorlien, 299 N.W.2d 123 (Minn. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1031 (1981); Baer v. Baer, 450 F. Supp 481 (N.D. Cal., 1978); Weiss v. Patrick, 453 F. Supp. 717 (D.R.I. 1978), aff'd mem., 588 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929 (1979); Hoelander v. Patrick, Unreported No. 77 Civ. 2401 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 1984). But see Ward v. Connor, 657 F.2d 45 (4th Cir., 1981); Cooper v. Molko, 512 F. Supp. 563 (N.D.Cal. 1981). See Note , , Cults, Deprogrammers and the Necessity Defense , 80 Mich. L. Rev. 271 ( 1981 )Google Scholar ; Recent Decisions-Torts-False Imprisonment , 30 Emory L.J. 959 ( 1981 )Google Scholar . All these are civil actions by cult members against their parents and deprogrammers; I could find no criminal actions brought against parents. Civil actions in which deprogrammers are held not liable for seizing and deprogramming cult members include those set forth above, as well as United States v. Patrick, 532 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1976). For cases in which deprogrammers have been held liable, see Taylor v. Gilmartin, 686 F.2d 1346 (10th Cir. 1982), 459 U.S. 1147 (1983); Eilers v. Coy, 582 F. Supp. 1093 (D. Minn. 1984). Unlike parents, deprogrammers have been subjected to criminal actions. People v. Patrick, 541 P.2d 320 (Colo. 1975); People v. Patrick, 126 Cal. App. 3d 952, 179 Cal. Rptr. 276 (1981).
17. The cases that will be discussed in this article include Schuppin v. Unification Church, 435 F. Supp. 603 (D.Vt. 1977), aff'd per curiam, 573 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1977); Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.R.I. 1978), aff'd per curiam, 602 F.2d 458 (1st Cir. 1979); Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206 (1983); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass. 1982); Meroni v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 119 A.D.2d 200, 506 N.Y. S.2d 174, 504 N.E.2d 698 (1986), appeal dismissed, 69 N.Y.2d 742, 504 N.E.2d 698 (1987); Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 762 P.2d 46, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1084 (1989); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 260 Cal. Rptr. 331 (1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1937 (1990); George v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 213 Cal. App. 3d 729, 262 Cal. Rptr. 217 (1989) (ordered not published), petition for reh'g denied, 1989 Cal. App. Lexis 996 (1989), cert. denied, 58 U.S.L.W. 3720 (May 15, 1990). In George, defendants have filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a reduction in damages. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. George, 213 Cal App. 3d 802, — P.2d — 262 Cal. Rptr. 215 91989), petition for cert. filed, 58 U.S.L.W. 3634 (Feb. 28, 1990).
18. Norgren , J. and Nanda , S. , American Cultural Pluralism and Law ( 1988 )Google Scholar . In performing this mediatory function, the courts tend to support those religious sub-cultures whose behavior and values are most like those to which the dominant culture aspires, and to prohibit the activities of religious sub-cultures that run counter to the values of the dominant culture. Thus, the courts found against the Shakers and Mormons who were viewed as threatening the dominant culture's belief in the nuclear family, one by having too few wives and the other by having too many. See footnotes 4 and 15 above. The courts were more sympathetic to the Amish, noting that their belief in the nuclear family and hard work mirrors the value system of the larger culture. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (permitting the Amish to take their children out of public high schools). But see Johnson v. Charles City, 368 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1033 (1985) (denying to Baptists exemption from public schooling). The Amish, however, were not permitted to exclude themselves from social security registration. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); Hostetler , , The Amish and the Law: A Religious Minority and its Legal Encounters , 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 33 ( 1984 )Google Scholar . Frequently, the disapproval by the dominant culture of a religious sub-culture is expressed indirectly in court actions that do not focus upon the activities that aroused the larger culture's distrust but upon other issues. Rajneeshpuram, for example, was criticized for its opposition to the individualistic and democratic values of its Oregon neighbors, but its leader was brought to court for immigration violations. Bhagwan Shree leaves U.S after pleading guilty to immigration charges, N.Y. Times, Nov. 13, 1985, at 6A; see also N.Y. Times, Dec. 26, 1985, at 24A; N.Y. Times, Oct. 1, 1985, at 7D. And there have been many suits for nonpayment of taxes or contesting a new religion's tax exemption. See infra note 19.
19. For example, the courts have tended to be sympathetic to parents in the deprogramming cases. See note 16 above. And, in tax cases, the courts have generally held against the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 971 (1984) (affirming conviction for filing false income tax returns, in that returns failed to include monies given to defendant by Unification Church); Holy Spirit Ass'n v. Commissioner, 45 N.Y. Supp. 2d, 292, 55 N.Y.2d 512, 435 N.E.2d 662 (1982); Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming revocation of tax exempt status because organization's income inured to benefit of individuals). The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided that payments for auditing are not charitable contributions for purposes of federal income tax. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989). The case reached the Supreme Court from all but one of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, where the issue was pursued in a set of virtually identical cases. The parties stipulated that Scientology is a religion and that auditing is a form of a religious observance, so deductibility would depend upon whether auditing fees constitute a voluntary contribution or payment for services. The Circuits were divided on whether denial of deductibility evinces an excessive entanglement of government with religious doctrine and observance, as well as a governmental preference for religions that obtain their funding in other ways. Four Courts of Appeal held that the payments were not deductible: Hernandez v. Commissioner, 819 F.2d 1212 (1st Cir. 1987); Miller v. IRS, 829 F.2d 500 (4th Cir. 1987); Graham v. Commissioner, 822 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1987); and, Lee v. Commissioner, 843 F.2d 481 (10th Cir. 1988). Three Circuits, meanwhile, held that the payments were deductible: Foley v. Commissioner, 844 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1988); Neher v. Commissioner, 852 F.2d 848 (6th Cir. 1988); and, Staples v. Commissioner, 821 F.2d 1324 (8th Cir. 1987). Even without the Supreme Court's ruling that auditing fees are not deductible, it may no longer be possible to obtain charitable deductions for contributions of any kind to the Church of Scientology, as the IRS has revoked the organization's tax-exempt status, finding that the Church operates for a substantial commercial purpose and that a portion of its earnings go to the personal benefit of church officials and their families. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987).
20. See especially Schuppin v. Unification Church, 435 F. Supp. 603 (D. Vt. 1977); Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (D.R.I. 1978); Meroni v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 119 A.D.2d 200, 504 N.E.2d 698, 506 N.Y.S. 2d 174 (1986). The courts have occasionally permitted former members to sue the organization for activities that did not involve mental coercion. Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Or. App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (1982); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F. Supp. 1125 (D. Mass. 1982).
21. Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 762 P.2d 46, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122 (1988); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 260 Cal. Rptr. 331 (1989); George v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 213 Cal. App. 3d 729, 262 Cal. Rptr. 217 (1989).
22. See notes 114-170 infra and accompanying text.