Cult

==Governmental policies and actions==
{{main|Governmental lists of cults and sects}}
The application of the labels ''cult'' or ''sect'' to religious movements in government documents signifies the popular and negative use of the term ''cult'' in English and a functionally similar use of words translated as 'sect' in several European languages.<ref name="Richardson01">{{harvnb|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=143–168}}</ref> [[Sociologists]] critical to this negative politicized use of the word ''cult'' argue that it may adversely impact the religious freedoms of group members.<ref name="Davis1996" /> At the height of the counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s, some governments published [[Governmental lists of cults and sects|lists of cults]].<ref group="lower-roman">Or "sects" in German-speaking countries, the German term ''sekten'' having assumed the same derogatory meaning as English "cult".</ref> While these documents utilize similar terminology, they do not necessarily include the same groups nor is their assessment of these groups based on agreed criteria.<ref name="Richardson01" /> Other governments and world bodies also report on new religious movements but do not use these terms to describe the groups.<ref name="Richardson01" /> Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements.<ref group="lower-roman">* Austria: Beginning in 2011, the [[Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor]]'s [[International Religious Freedom Report]] no longer distinguishes sects in Austria as a separate group. {{cite web|title=International Religious Freedom Report for 2012|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=208288|access-date=3 September 2013|publisher=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor}}
* Belgium: The Justice Commission of the [[Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)|Belgian House of Representatives]] published a report on cults in 1997. A Brussels Appeals Court in 2005 condemned the House of Representatives on the grounds that it had damaged the image of an organization listed.
* France: A parliamentary commission of the National Assembly compiled a list of purported cults in 1995. In 2005, the Prime Minister stated that the concerns addressed in the list "had become less pertinent" and that the government needed to balance its concern with cults with respect for public freedoms and [[laїcité]].
* Germany: The legitimacy of a [[Governmental lists of cults and sects#Germany|1997 Berlin Senate report]] listing cults (''sekten'') was defended in a court decision of 2003 (Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin [OVG 5 B 26.00] 25 September 2003). The list is still maintained by Berlin city authorities: [http://www.berlin.de/sen/familie/sekten-psychogruppen/ Sekten und Psychogruppen – Leitstelle Berlin].</ref> While the official response to new religious groups has been mixed across the globe, some governments aligned more with the critics of these groups to the extent of distinguishing between "legitimate" religion and "dangerous", "unwanted" cults in [[public policy]].<ref name="refRichardsonIntrovigne"/><ref name="Edelman"/>

=== China ===
{{Main articles|Heterodox teachings (Chinese law)|Persecution of Falun Gong}}
[[File:Destruction d'ouvrages du Falun Gong lors de la répression de 1999 en Chine.jpg|thumb|right|[[Falun Gong]] books being symbolically destroyed by the [[Chinese government]]]]
For centuries, governments in China have categorized certain religions as ''[[Heterodox teachings (Chinese law)|xiéjiào]]'' ({{Zh|c=[[wikt:邪教|邪教]]|s=|t=|p=|labels=no}}), sometimes translated as "evil cults" or "[[Heterodox teachings (Chinese law)|heterodox teachings]]".<ref name="Pennyreligion">{{Cite book |last=Penny |first=Benjamin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=P6Z6fQ7Fg3QC |title=The Religion of Falun Gong |date=2012 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0226655017 |language=en}}</ref> In [[imperial China]], the classification of a religion as {{Lang|zh-latn|xiejiao}} did not necessarily mean that a religion's teachings were believed to be false or inauthentic, rather, the label was applied to religious groups that were not authorized by the state, or it was applied to religious groups that were believed to challenge the legitimacy of the state.<ref name="Pennyreligion" /> In [[modern China]], the term ''{{Lang|zh-latn|xiejiao}}'' continues to be used to denote teachings that the government disapproves of, and these groups face suppression and punishment by authorities. Fourteen different groups in China have been listed by the ministry of public security as ''{{Lang|zh-latn|xiejiao}}''.<ref>Center for Religious Freedom. February 2002. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120402165033/http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Analysis_of_China_Docs_1_to_7.pdf Report Analyzing Seven Secret Chinese Government Documents]." Washington: [[Freedom House]].</ref> Additionally, in 1999, Chinese Communist Party authorities denounced the [[Falun Gong]] spiritual practice as a heretical teaching, and they launched a campaign to eliminate it. However, such claims only exist in party resolutions, and has not been legitimized by Chinese own law systems. This actually made such denouncement confusing and as outlawed actions secretly conducted by Communist Party's secret policemen. According to [[Amnesty International]], the [[persecution of Falun Gong]] includes a multifaceted [[Propaganda in the People's Republic of China|propaganda campaign]],<ref name="CRS2006">{{cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf |title=CRS Report for Congress: China and Falun Gong |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |last=Lum |first=Thomas |date=25 May 2006}}</ref> a program of enforced ideological conversion and re-education, as well as a variety of extralegal coercive measures, such as [[arbitrary arrest]]s, [[forced labour]], and physical [[torture]], sometimes resulting in death.<ref name="Amnesty1">{{cite web|url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170112000 |title=China: The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations" |date=23 March 2000 |publisher=Amnesty International |access-date=17 March 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030711022606/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170112000 |archive-date=11 July 2003}}</ref>

===Russia===
In 2008 the [[Russian Interior Ministry]] prepared a list of "extremist groups".  At the top of the list were Islamic groups outside of "traditional Islam", which is supervised by the Russian government. Next listed were "[[Neopaganism|Pagan cults]]".<ref>[[Andrei Soldatov|Soldatov, Andreĭ]], and I. Borogan. 2010. ''The new nobility : the restoration of Russia's security state and the enduring legacy of the KGB''. New York: [[PublicAffairs]]. pp. 65–66.</ref>  In 2009 the [[Russian Ministry of Justice]] created a council which it named the "Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis."  The new council listed 80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society, and it also mentioned that there were thousands of smaller ones.  The large sects which were listed included: [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], and other sects which were loosely referred to as "[[neo-Pentecostal]]s".<ref>Marshall, Paul. 2013. ''Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians''. [[Thomas Nelson Inc]].</ref>

=== United States ===
In the 1970s, the scientific status of the "[[Mind control|brainwashing theory]]" became a central topic in [[List of courts of the United States|U.S. court]] cases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forceful [[deprogramming]] of cult members.<ref name="Lewis, 2004"/><ref name="Davis1996">Davis, Dena S. 1996. "Joining a Cult: Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration." ''Journal of Law and Health''.</ref> Meanwhile, [[List of sociologists|sociologists]] who were critical of these theories assisted advocates of [[religious freedom]] in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court.<ref name="refRichardsonIntrovigne" /><ref name="Edelman">{{cite journal |doi=10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312 |last1=Edelman |first1=Bryan |last2=Richardson |first2=James T. |year=2003 |title=Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China |journal=Nova Religio |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=312–331}}</ref> In the United States the religious activities of cults are protected under the [[First Amendment of the United States Constitution]], which prohibits governmental [[establishment of religion]] and protects [[freedom of religion]], [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]], and [[freedom of assembly]]. However, no members of religious groups or cults are granted any special [[Legal immunity|immunity]] from [[Prosecutor|criminal prosecution]].<ref name="Ogloff92">
{{cite journal|last= Ogloff|first= J. R.|author2= Pfeifer, J. E.|title= Cults and the law: A discussion of the legality of alleged cult activities.|journal= Behavioral Sciences & the Law|year= 1992|volume= 10|issue= 1|pages= 117–140|doi= 10.1002/bsl.2370100111}}</ref> In 1990, the [[Legal case|court case]] of ''United States v. Fishman'' (1990) ended the usage of brainwashing theories by expert witnesses such as [[Margaret Singer]] and [[Richard Ofshe]].<ref name=":4">''[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/743/713/2593631/ United States v. Fishman]'', 743 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp]]. 713 ([[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|N.D. Cal.]] 1990).</ref> In the case's ruling, the court cited the [[Frye standard]], which states that the [[scientific theory]] which is utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields. The court deemed [[brainwashing]] to be inadmissible in expert testimonies, using supporting documents which were published by the [[APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control]], literature from previous court cases in which brainwashing theories were used, and expert testimonies which were delivered by scholars such as [[Dick Anthony]].<ref name=":4" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Introvigne |first1=Massimo |title=Advocacy, brainwashing theories, and new religious movements |journal=Religion |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=303–319 |doi=10.1080/0048721X.2014.888021 |year=2014 |s2cid=144440076}}</ref>

=== Western Europe ===
{{See also|MIVILUDES|Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu|Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France}}
The governments of France and Belgium have taken policy positions which accept "brainwashing" theories uncritically, while the governments of other European nations, such as those of Sweden and Italy, are cautious with regard to brainwashing and as a result, they have responded more neutrally with regard to new religions.<ref>{{harvnb|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=144–146}}</ref> Scholars have suggested that the outrage which followed the mass murder/suicides which were perpetuated by the [[Order of the Solar Temple|Solar Temple]]<ref name="refRichardsonIntrovigne" /><ref name="Robbins2002">{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/0021-8294.00047 |author=Robbins, Thomas |year=2002 |title=Combating 'Cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=169–176}}</ref> have significantly contributed to European anti-cult positions as well as more latent [[Xenophobia|xenophobic]] and [[Anti-Americanism|anti-American]] attitudes which are widespread on the continent.<ref name="Beckford1998">{{cite journal |author=Beckford, James A. |year=1998 |title='Cult' Controversies in Three European Countries |journal=Journal of Oriental Studies |volume=8 |pages=174–184}}</ref> In the 1980s clergymen and officials of the French government expressed concern that some [[Religious order|orders]] and other groups within the [[Roman Catholic Church]] would be adversely affected by anti-cult laws which were then being considered.<ref>{{cite book|title=Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe|last=Richardson|first=James T.|publisher=Kluwer Acad. / Plenum Publ.|year=2004|isbn=0306478862|location=New York |author-link=James T. Richardson}}</ref>