CESNUR and its Funding
Anton Hein
alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Re: New on CESNUR Website (11.10.99)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
Message-ID: <5lEQOEy9PepcZ2...@news.xs4all.nl>
I wrote:
>Melton and Introvigne get paid by the very groups they study. They are rogue
>sociologists whose views are challenged by other sociologists. As Benjamin
>Zablocki pointed out:
>
> (...) With regard to finances, a major obstacle toward the sort of progress
> desired is the cloud of secrecy that surrounds the funding of research on
> NRMs. The sociology of religion can no longer avoid the unpleasant ethical
> question of how to deal with the large sums of money being pumped into the
> field by the religious groups being studied and, to a lesser extent, by their
> opponents. Whether in the form of subvention of research expenses, subvention
> of publications, opportunities to sponsor and attend conferences, or direct
> fees for services, this money is not insignificant, and its influence on
> research findings and positions taken on scholarly disputes is largely
> unknown. It is time to recognize that this is an issue of a whole different
> ethical magnitude from that of taking research funding from the Methodists to
> find out why the collection baskets are not coming back as heavy as they used
> to. I know there will be great resistance to opening this can of worms, but I
> do not think there is any choice. This is an issue that is slowly but surely
> building toward a public scandal. It would be far better to deal with it
> ourselves within the discipline than to have others expose it. I am not
> implying that it is necessarily wrong to accept funding from interested
> parties, whether pro or anti, but I do think there needs to be some more
> public accounting of where the money is coming from and what safeguards have
> been taken to assure that this money is not interfering with scientific
> objectivity.
> - Benjamin Zablocki, The Blacklisting of a Concept. Nova Religio Vol 1, N 1
In response, Massimo Introvigne complained, telling me
...I shall object to you posting on the Usenet comments to the effect that I
am "paid by the very groups I study".
This time there was no suggestion of legal action. However, Mr. Introvigne
could not resist a threat:
I challenge you to prove that this I was ever or am currently paid by any new
religious movement. If you have no such evidence, you will be publicly
exposed as an unchristian liar.
Interesting approach from a self-proclaimed Catholic who defends heretical and
destructive cults. Alas, Mr. Introvigne's conscience appears to be as seared as
his religious discernment.
Mr. Introvigne copied Roger Poehlman on his email message. I have taken the
liberty of copying Miguel Martinez, (whose critical site on CESNUR has been
subject to CESNUR's censorship attempts), and two Christian apologists on this
reply.
Note that while I wrote "Melton and Introvigne get paid by the very groups they
study," Introvigne does not include Melton in his objection.
Indeed, I should have been more careful in making a distinction between Mr.
Introvigne (CESNUR's managing director) and Mr. Melton (Chairman, CESNUR USA).
The latter's funding has included a cult-paid trip to Japan to defend followers
of Aum Shinrikyo,
http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist7.html
and payments by JZ Knight:
http://www.users.fast.net/~szimhart/ramtha.htm
(...)
_Finding Enlightenment_ will not impress many people outside of the Ramtha
school of thought. From his romantic, apologetic perspective, J. Gordon
Melton defines and describes the Ramtha School of Enlightenment (RSE) as a
new manifestation of Gnosticism, but he dismisses critical voices that call
it a deceptive or manipulative "cult." Melton's book about the RSE is
primarily Ramtha friendly. No wonder, as he was hired by Ramtha's medium, JZ
Knight, to testify in her behalf in a lawsuit in 1992. Knight funded Melton's
research project into her Ramtha school for the court case, and subsequently,
for the book. The volume serves as welcome propaganda for the group and
interesting fodder for reviewers like me.
[...more...]
Introvigne, though, frequently declares that he does not receive any money from
cults. About CESNUR, he says:
CESNUR is independent from every conceivable brand of old or new religious
movement, religion, denomination or Church. Its only institutional funding
come from Italian government agencies...
- http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~religion/remid_streitfall_re_dt.htm
In information submitted to Tilman Hausherr, included in the
Cult Apologist FAQ
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt
and posted at my site as part of a page on CESNUR
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c10.html#details
Introvigne provided more details:
There are currently four different CESNUR organisations that are not linked
by licensing or franchising contracts, and do not solicit nor receive funds
from religious organisations old and new. They receive royalties from
publishers, contributions of the members, and registration fees on
conferences they organise. Decisions are made according to the by-laws (and
national laws) by Boards of Directors and other appropriate organs. The
founders were the board members, with the exceptions mentioned below.
CESNUR International: founded 1988, non-profit, publicly recognized
association (re-incorporated) in 1996, legal person (Decree 150-11310 of the
Government of Piedmont). Funded by the State of Piedmont, located in Torino.
[...more...]
So far, so good.
That said, CESNUR's recent foolishness regarding alleged "Internet Terrorism"
has opened up a can of worms regarding the precise source or sources of its
funding. See, for example, this article:
"Only source of funds"
http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/terror/marmigb.htm
_Introvigne's lawyer denies Introvigne's claim that the Piedmont Region is
CESNUR's "only source of funds"_
By Miguel Martinez.
One year ago, when the CESNUR Critical Page first came out, we offered
"unlimited space" to Dr Introvigne, should he wish to reply to our
statements. Now, after a year of threats, insults and censorship, we are glad
to say that Dr Introvigne has taken this opportunity, albeit through his
lawyer.
However, he also asks us to change the title of our essay - _CESNUR uses
public funds for a study labelling all its critics as 'extreme terrorists'._
[...more...]
The same site carries a host of background information about CESNUR, some of
which calls into question CESNUR's stated independence from religious
organizations.
I therefore join Miguel Martinez in asking for more openness regarding CESNUR's
funding - including the 8 years that it did not receive money from the Region of
Piedmont.
Tilman Hausherr, speaking about cult apologists in general, writes:
2. What are the motives of cult apologists?
It is hard to guess what drives someone. Here are some suggestions:
a) Money
Cults can pay good money for friendly opinions. Alternatively, they
organise "conferences" where they can meet other cult apologists, all
expenses paid. Academics welcome this, since their universities do not
have the money to send them to conferences all the time. These are
advance payments to secure positive opinions in the future. Positive
books are bought by the cults themselves. The most reliable cult
apologists are also invited to make affidavits in court cases, or
provide support when the cult is under attack by the government, the
press and the courts.
While it is of course important to debate the arguments of cult
apologists, it is also important to "follow the money" to see whether
these people are really independent or just mouthpieces for hire.
In closing, let me point out to Mr. Introvigne that I think he has got his
priorities wrong. In the same thread that included the statement he objected
to, I wrote:
In a recent email conversation with J. Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvigne
(Melton copied him and Irving Hexham), I challenged both to produce articles
that clearly warn against the dangers - theological and or sociological - of
various cults. But that is not up their alley.
What I find objectionable is that CESNUR and its principals for one reason or
another, spend time, energy and money (regardless of the source) defending a
wide variety of cults. But when challenged, CESNUR either a) threathens, b)
does not respond, or c) responds with silly rhetoric about so-called "internet
terrorism."
About CESNUR
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c10.html
About Cult Apologists
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c11.html
Anton
--
Apologetics Index: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/
Apologetics and Countercult Information about Cults, Sects,
and Alternative Religious Movements - for Research and Ministry.