Interview with Pastor Dominique Kounkou on the Theme of "Cults"

Dominique Kounkou is, as he notes in the interview, a doctor of sociology, and a voice of the Christian churches of African expression in France. Speaking to CICNS he recounts his own encounter with ambush journalism, describes the discrimination endured by minority churches under the “cult” label, and delivers a jurist’s critique of the About-Picard law as a law of exception.

CICNS interview. (English translation of the interview published on the CICNS YouTube channel on 9 November 2006. The French transcript was machine-transcribed from the video and cleaned before translation; passages the machine could not reliably hear are marked [inaudible].)

[Interviewer]: Dominique Kounkou is a pastor and a jurist. Through his faith and his knowledge of the legal context, he is a privileged witness to the difficulty of living one’s spiritual choices in France. He is the author of four books on the subject, notably Les discriminations religieuses en France (Religious Discrimination in France), Possible foi au cœur de la laïcité (A Possible Faith at the Heart of Laïcité) and La religion, une anomalie républicaine (Religion, a Republican Anomaly), published by Éditions L’Harmattan. His interview brings a very deep and serene perspective to the question of spiritual minorities.

[Kounkou]: I have met many men and women who are Protestants, who are Catholics too, who belong to other religious movements, and I came to realize that, especially [inaudible ?], there were words that came out, I would say, rather easily. And not only to mock — at a pinch, that would not be a problem — but to do harm. And among those words is the word “cult”.

I had been interviewed by journalists who had come practically, as the saying goes, in a lightning-raid operation — as they say, the journalists of [inaudible ?] — saying: “Pastor, you absolutely must tell us how the Church operates,” and so on. First of all, I noticed that they knew nothing about theology, and that is very troubling, because one cannot judge great movements that way. Christianity created the world in which we live. It is a long, ancient body of thought; one must master it before passing sweeping judgements like that. So I told them that, for me, these were not cults, and so they should not say that. “Yes, but these are people — they have problems with women over there, they have problems with money.” I told them: “Listen, give me proof of someone who took money from someone else.” In that case, if it is me, I will pay it back; but if it is someone else, I will put pressure on him to pay back the money that was taken. And it seems they broadcast part of the report, but they could not broadcast the whole of it, because the person who had commissioned the investigation had told them: “You have to manage to find someone who has been defrauded.” That way, indeed, it would provide the counterpart. I believe that if they did not broadcast it, it is because they did not find anyone.

And it is that injustice that led me to speak out. Then, in speaking out, I realized that the Christian churches of African expression were not the only ones, let us say, suffering from that contempt. I have also seen judgments handed down, divorce judgments handed down, solely because it had been reported that the husband or the wife was in a cult.

France taught us the meaning of balance. France gave us very balanced constitutions. France was the very country of human liberties. France is the guarantor of those great values, of those great liberties. Why, all of a sudden, are they being forgotten? When you create a climate like this, you create a great danger: certain citizens grant themselves, as it were, the right to judge other citizens. You create an inequality between citizens, and that without any true foundation. And when that foundation is not there, justice will end up creating a kind of broken society.

The main difficulties I would place in three orders. First, there is the difficulty of communicating. I have observed that when you write a book that touches on the religious question, the media do not welcome it as readily as a book — I do not want to name a best-seller — where every page talks about sex, talks about this and that: there, your success is guaranteed. But when you begin to address the religious question, you get the impression of a society that wants to manage idiocy to the extreme. Anything that might help awaken consciousness must above all be pushed aside.

The second difficulty is fear. The fear of a great number of people. There are people who are sometimes even brutalized by their own family, or brutalized because of the media, and sometimes unfounded information is broadcast about people. It truly touches the meaning, the dignity of the human person. But these people — to encourage them to speak, or simply to bring the perpetrators before a judge, is difficult, because you sense that behind it, they are afraid. Fear — it is as if they were being threatened. You get the feeling that there is a kind of substratum, that there is something unhealthy behind it, which means that for them, at any moment, they have the feeling that something bad can happen. And so, better to keep quiet. I believe the religious question is too serious to be left in the hands of the intimidators. And I appeal — no longer, as Voltaire said — I no longer appeal to governments, if that is really all they know how to do. I appeal, perhaps, to the people itself.

And the third difficulty there is — but there, no doubt, it is tied to the fact that the religious movements, having been taken by surprise by this sort of aggressiveness [inaudible ?], have not yet found the time to organize themselves. And that means it is not easy to create a major event, or to have organs, organs of dissemination, that make it possible to reach the public. And so one always has the feeling of a solitary battle. I believe that the militants — I was going to say rather the movements, in their entirety — must learn to stop working in a closed space, that is, martyrizing themselves, continually suspecting one another. These movements must learn to work together, spelling out the bases on which they work. And then there will be a force on one side which will perhaps impose — not “impose”, there is no need, not in the sense of dominating, but in the sense of commanding respect — the respect of discussing with those who have another religion, which is atheism.

Because that, no one ever says it. For me, I believe — in any case, from what I have been able to see — atheism is setting itself up more and more as a genuine religion, in France in particular. And I would very much like them, too, to show their… because they have them: they have their cathedrals; they have things that happen in secret; they have consecrations that they perform in secret. And why do they not do it publicly? I would like us to have that debate.

[Interviewer]: How much, only to search on the side of the churches… [inaudible ?]

[Kounkou]: Precisely — that is why I speak of transparency. If they are sufficiently structured, when people come [inaudible ?] to search, they will see nothing that is normal. But I would also like, in that case, the law to require that on the other side too, those who set themselves up as judges — I am not speaking of judges and magistrates, but I mean those who, in society, have another religion, which is atheism — also accept that their temple be opened, that we look at what goes on there. And perhaps crimes will be seen there. I do not wish it for them.

I think, first of all, that I would like there to be a commission of experts able to examine, in a very neutral manner, all these collective crimes. Because certain information I have received seems to contradict the theses that have been officially advanced up to now. It would seem that it is perhaps not the religious movements, or perhaps not religion, that motivated these crimes, these collective crimes — and I do say collective crimes. So from that point already, it is double standards. Or is it the religions? In that case, instead precisely — that is it — instead of launching a policy of suspicion, we need only lay things out publicly, let a commission of experts be created. There is no shortage of experts. But I would first like, before validating these experts, this commission — so that they cannot be denounced — these experts would have to give us proof of their neutrality.

But all of this, you see: people say Waco, there was that collective suicide, a fear is created, a terror even, in the collective consciousness. But in those cases, if we love this people in a total way — that is why I spoke earlier of truth — it means we must go towards the truth. Yes, there was a problem, it is serious, it is not normal. In that case, let us truly examine it, let reports be brought out for us, but without the reports being ready to invoke defence secrecy, State secrecy — since the people who speak of it, they do not speak of it, they release themselves from the secret. In that case now, let this file be examined, let each file really be looked at; if experts are asked of me, I am ready to propose some. But I must not be told that it is a State-secret file — no. Because it poisons the life of many people who simply want to live their faith. So it is truly a request that I am making, I would even say a demanding request, because this insidious dissemination is nothing less than defamatory. And I would say it does not elevate our image, because we let the idea take hold that in those groups, things are happening that you cannot imagine.

We are not given facts. Because such-and-such a person — I am a sociologist, I hold a doctorate in sociology — it is enough for me to assert something peremptorily, and that suffices; X holds a doctorate in law, it is enough for him to say it. But these are, after all, things that touch us all. The churches, the movements, should say: you are not the only ones who have the floor. Because I believe that… and this I had said — it must be in Les discriminations religieuses — I had said that we had become too accustomed to the religious actor not speaking. So anything can be laid upon him. You, the groups: be rigorous and open your doors. Do not be afraid. If you are convinced of what you say, open your doors.

And that is perhaps also the first error of the About-Picard law. Because a law is, first of all, a matter of the general interest. When you begin to create a law to punish a small group, and those laws are placed in the legislator’s production so that the Republic can run normally — well, a great error has already been committed.

Until now we were told… but you can see this law, moreover: when I attended the colloquium — even at the colloquium I organized here in Paris — it was being talked about; the law was already there. And then, at the colloquium on religious sentiments, even the judges themselves were saying: but we never apply it, we do not even know how to apply it, and so on. It seems that more and more now a way is being sought to apply it, and there is an absolute determination… a kind of case law is being built around this law. I believe that… let there be established acts: in that case, if it is this law — since it exists, it is part of positive law — if it is this law that must be applied, then it must now be used. Except that — what they have perhaps not seen, and no doubt the lawyers will not fail to point it out — as the law is written, it can also be applied against a political party. And that is perhaps the boomerang effect we are going to witness. There will perhaps be people who suffer subjection within political spaces, who one day will want to seek redress. And you will see that at that moment, when politics comes to be targeted, it is the same people who will revise the law.

And that shows, perhaps, the bankruptcy, at times, of the legislative obsession. Because many people had warned the legislator. Many people. Many people had said that it is a law of exception. Many people had said that our code, the penal code, has sufficiently defined offences and penalties for it to be applicable should it turn out that a given religious group, a given religious grouping, or a given religious leader had committed a reprehensible act. So we already had everything that was necessary. Obviously — since what was wanted was to dissolve certain movements. And you know, as it happens, the aim was not only to dissolve them, but also… these movements have lawyers too: they did not let themselves be dissolved. So in fact, we are going to end up before a law that will perhaps occupy pages of the code, but that will have great trouble truly being applied. You see?

The problem is that when you begin like that — at the limit, I would say, using crutches to carry a law, that is, searching absolutely for a case so that a law can be applied — well, you are in a very dangerous situation. It means the legislator no longer speaks to society in general. It means a law becomes a tool of discrimination. A case absolutely must be found — obviously, there, they found the case. But on the other hand, that is the goal the legislator must pursue: the legislator must produce laws that are of general application, that must concern all those who commit the same offence. And that is why, perhaps — it is a question I throw out: France has so many brilliant lawyers who might perhaps have the possibility of looking into how to apply this law to political parties.

For the moment, for me, it is a discriminatory application. By that I do not mean that the judge was manipulated — I cannot allow myself to judge, I do not have the case file; I think the judges are of great worth. But I am speaking of this application: it is directed only at one given sector. Now, since if we speak of subjection itself, it was not even called religious subjection — so psychological subjection touches all the elements, all the factors of life. And I am sure that in that field, obviously, if the advertisers were listening to me, they would be furious. But this is to say that there is perhaps a danger in creating laws of exception. And perhaps there is a danger with respect to the Republic, with respect truly to the sense of values, and I would say with respect to the confidence that we can and must have in the legislator. The French legislator is capable of producing something other than About-Picard laws. I am not saying by that — I am not talking about that — I am not saying by that: nothing religious must ever be touched. If an act has been committed, the act is seen. But that act would have to be truly established, and the situation truly circumscribed. And then, even the person, once punished — it is genuine. But when one does not enter into the project of death — the absolute will to kill such-and-such a group — there are other ways.

The political scene, perhaps in general, in France in particular, is made up of too many characters. We do not know who is who. And so, since we do not know who is who, we cannot meet. If I could meet these men who describe the religious movements, there is a good chance we would walk the road together. It is quite understood that not everything can be accepted solely because it calls itself religious. And so, that is why, I believe, instead of stopping this sort of guerrilla war that is developing, we must meet one another. It is necessary. Because we are in the same Republic. And there are many who have the same faith. We have the same faith. And if we do not meet one another, we regard each other as enemies, when in reality we are not.

When I write, it is not against them that I write. But I want to say: it is when there is a dulling of the constitutional values in which we all believe. It is against these generalized suspicions. When one can no longer pray in one’s bedroom, when one can no longer pray in one’s apartment and the neighbour files reports, when the Renseignements Généraux pass from left to right, it is dialogue that we lack. And I believe that, when dialogue is there, we will need legislative artifices. Dialogue engenders love. Love is possible only if truth is there. We find truth again as the base. Our Republic must guarantee us liberty, and perhaps also the capacity for dialogue. But that capacity for dialogue is ruined as soon as we begin to suspect someone.

I remember Mme Tavernier — I believe her name was Tavernier — it was an interview that came out in [inaudible ?], where she said: “It is going too far, it is going too far.” I believe she withdrew at that time. But what… people who hound others like that do not know that it can go very far. I wanted truly to awaken, to awaken their consciousness of what they believe. I want to tell them that it is they who precede our horror. I wanted them to become conscious of their responsibilities. I even want to say that this persecution is perhaps normal: because when you are a bearer of truth, truth carries a significant weight; it is too important for you to be left to carry it. So let him not be afraid, let him wake up, let him refuse the burden they are made to carry. And when there are things that demand the truth, there is only one right of reply left: “Sir, you said that. Demonstrate to us that it is true.” And you know, if you do it once, twice, three times, the fourth time they will tell you: “Perhaps I am telling you this, but I must verify it first.” And there, we will already have won. But in the present state of things, I assure you, it is a garbage dump: everything bad that can be found to say about religion gets said.

As for me, I call for love. I believe it is an enormous richness that goes beyond the Republic, beyond individuals, beyond races. And love does not suspect evil — that is what the Bible says. Love is trusting. Trust. Thank you.