The following is an excerpt from
Real Magic, by P.E.I. Bonewits
Published Samuel Weiser, Inc. York Beach, ME 1989
Events during the last few decades have clearly indicated just how dangerous some (usually called 'cult') groups can be to their own members as well as to anyone else they can exercise influence over. Brainwashing, beatings, rapes and murders, mass suicides, military drilling and gunrunning, drug smuggling, meddling in civil governments and other crimes have been charged against many groups and in several cases, those accusations have been proven true. Is there any relatively simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group is liable to be, without having to subject oneself to its power?
Perhaps there is now. I have recently constructed a crude analysis tool which I call my "Cult Danger Evaluation Frame." I realize its shortcomings but feel that it can be effectively used to separate the sheep from the wolves.
The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological, political or paramilitary groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of others subject to its influence.
As a general rule, the higher the numerical total scored by a given group (the further to the right of the scale), the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using it, provided that all numerical assignments are based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior ( as distinct from official pronouncements). This frame can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement personnel, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observer used the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes.
It should be pointed out that this evaluation frame is founded upon a) modern ideas of humanistic psychology concerning the nature of mental health and personal growth, and b) the author's twelve years of participant observation and historical research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism are, should count groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, the author feels that both historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large-scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclination to do so.