Cults and Religions, a Double Standard: Anne Morelli at the CICNS Round Table

Anne Morelli is a Belgian historian at the Université libre de Bruxelles and a former member of the Belgian parliamentary commission of inquiry on “cults”, and she speaks as a proclaimed atheist, a stance the CICNS narration notes gives her testimony added relief. In this short CICNS production, a brief narration introduces her remarks at a colloquium round table on the double standard applied to “cults” and religions: Steiner schools subsidised in Flanders yet listed as dangerous in French-speaking Belgium, the media treatment of minority movements, the Mandarom statue versus a statue of John Paul II in Brittany, and her call for autonomous, university-based observatories of all religions.

CICNS round-table excerpt. (English translation of the video published on the CICNS YouTube channel on 28 October 2011. The French transcript was machine-transcribed from the video and cleaned before translation; passages the machine could not reliably hear are marked [inaudible].)

[Interviewer]: Anne Morelli, a renowned Belgian academic, author of “Lettre ouverte à la secte des adversaires des sectes” (“Open Letter to the Cult of the Adversaries of Cults”) and “Sectes et hérésies de l’Antiquité à nos jours” (“Cults and Heresies from Antiquity to the Present Day”), took part in the colloquium’s round table. She brought a testimony and an incisive point of view, rich in numerous anecdotes, to which her proclaimed atheism lends even greater relief.

[Morelli]: I am a historian by training, a professor at the University of Brussels, where I am the deputy director of a centre for the study of religions and laïcité. And I was notably a member (it was mentioned a moment ago) of the parliamentary commission in Belgium which investigated the so-called cults.

All of the academics who were consulted at that time gave the same answer, without conferring with one another, when they were asked to fix criteria for determining cults and religions. And all three of us said that it was impossible to find criteria that distinguish the one from the other. And the conclusion of the parliamentary commission was that the academics understood nothing about the question of cults. And so, when they created a governmental observatory of cults, not one of the academics was taken on there; [inaudible ?] placed politicians. They put in civil servants. They put in members, etc., who were very closely tied to the government, but in no way the scientific community.

The line between cults and religions is extremely relative, of course, and from one country to another it is not the same thing. You gave the example of the Steiner schools. Well, the Steiner schools, in certain countries, are considered a perfectly honourable educational system. But you are perhaps familiar with Belgium’s absurd problems. Well, in Belgium, the Steiner schools in the north of the country, in Flanders, are considered an admirable educational system and receive State subsidies for their Steiner schools. That is north of Brussels. South of Brussels, it is a dangerous cult, and the Minister of Education had a little leaflet distributed to schoolchildren called “Gare aux gourous” (“Beware of Gurus”). And in it, you have the Steiner school.

Now, the question that interests me a great deal is the way the so-called “cults” are represented in the media. We have already seen a few examples this morning of these sensationalist articles, whether in Switzerland or in England. It is obviously the case in Belgium too. And then I have just had the very recent experience, in France, of that Delarue programme, where I truly had the impression of falling into a trap, because the assistant had assured me that it was a debate programme where there would be both people who were victims of the anti-cult hunt (hence the second point of our day today) and people who considered themselves victims of cults. And in fact they did indeed invite both types of people, but the people who were victims of the anti-cult hunt were never able to speak on that set.

So it is quite interesting to see how it is treated, with a rare arrogance, taking up facts that sometimes dated back 25 years. And when the gentleman here, for example, was invited to testify, he will be able to tell us that he said, I think, three sentences, and barely that. I think he was cut off. Delarue interrupted constantly. He interrupted a psychotherapist who was beginning to tell his story. Twice he interrupts him, telling him, as soon as he begins, he says: “We are not going to spend all night listening to you.” So there really is a double standard. And while there is empathy for some, there is no hearing at all for the others.

And what is more serious is that the [inaudible] asked for a right of review over the programme. The programme was planned to go out live. They asked for it to be pre-recorded, so as to be able to cut, so as to be able to have a right of review. Now that is very worrying all the same, because we are endlessly lectured about democracy, freedom of expression, and so on. We have to go on missions all over the world to bring these values to peoples who do not have the good fortune to know them. But when you see how things happen at home, obviously, it is rather worrying. And I must say that when the programme was ending, you could see the people from the governmental commission congratulating themselves: the programme had been good. I truly believe that it was a propaganda broadcast, to reanimate anti-cult anxiety and thus to secure their own jobs.

I read in a magazine: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have been victims of the Nazi persecutions.” Imagine if you had run that same article and put: “The Jews claim to have been victims of the Nazi persecutions.” You would immediately have had a lawsuit for negationism. But when it is Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can go right ahead. So we can see clearly there that, although we know perfectly well that they were persecuted, we say that they claim to have been victims. So it is an offence if it is against one of the great religions. It is not an offence if it is a small one…

Just a small reflection on the Mandarom. They blew up your statue. One can have differing points of view on its aesthetics, yes or no. But there is at this moment, in Brittany, a gigantic statue of Pope John Paul II that has been erected, and which really does not strike me as a model of contemporary artistic aesthetics. But there, nobody will dare go and attack it, obviously. And so, depending on whether you are powerful or wretched, people behave in a totally different way in cases that are entirely similar.

I am in a university that was created by Freemasonry in Belgium. I myself am not in Freemasonry, but many of my colleagues are. And what I always tell them is that, seen from the outside, it is obvious that it is a religion or a cult. That is to say, if you were a little Martian, and I explain to the little Martians: you see, there, there is a special building, we call that a church. The people have a particular costume, a particular disguise. They say particular words. That is a religion. And then there, there is a synagogue. They have a particular costume. They say particular words. They make particular gestures. That is a religion. And then there would be a third place, which would be the Masonic temple, and the people have a particular costume. They say particular words. They have particular tools. But I would tell him: “Oh no, no, that is not a religion, you know.” I believe that they would not understand me. And I put myself in the little Martian’s point of view, and I say: well, it is a genre of that kind, in any case.

I would be rather of your point of view in saying that it is not a cult but a religion, because it has succeeded well. We still call the little ones cults, and then the big fish, that is religion.

I believe it is a very bad policy for each movement to contest the fact that it is on the list. One must, in fact, contest the principle of the list, and not say: we are not like the others, who, for their part, really are cults, but that is not our case. That, it seems to me, is an important thing.

And one last small remark. I do indeed believe, with madame, that it is not enough to have observatories of religions that are official, that are political, because the dice are loaded. It will inevitably be tied to the policy of each government. And I believe that, outside these governmental political observatories, there absolutely must be observatories of all religions, not only of cults or of the bad guys or of I don’t know what, but of all religions. And these observatories of the religious must be autonomous and must be, for example, a particularity of the universities, which take an interest just as much in the religion of the ancients… That is the case of my institute: we take an interest just as much in the religion of the ancient Egyptians as in the Raëlians. And one is not obliged to believe that the pharaoh is the reincarnation of the sun. Nor is one any more obliged to share the beliefs of one side or the other. And I believe it is important that observatories of that kind be promoted in every country.

[Voice]: So, in the end, it must be done. [inaudible] That is certain. No. That is certain. Perhaps.