Introduction
Creating new radical groups is a common social and political activity in many countries today. In the United States, many militia groups develop their ideologies against the federal government to criticize the chosen techniques and policies and impose some threats related to public events (McCarthy, 2021). Some activities are easily predicted and expected, while others remain dangerous and provoke new attitudes toward leaders.
Discussion
According to Harmening (2014), individuals who abandon their involvement in dominant cultures gather in cults and promote new belief systems and separatist worldviews. In most cases, cults are determined by their beliefs and intentions, and each group has specific characteristics and prefers to choose a location far from the watchful eye. Their isolated lifestyle includes the rejection of civic affairs and the preference for individual education for children. Sometimes, people compare cults with other dangerous groups like terrorists or extremists, but these judgments should be thoroughly examined to understand if the justification of cult activities is possible.
The activities in which cults have participated vary, depending on their types and membership. Harmening (2014) defines four major cults: violent-apocalyptic (imminence and salvation through conflict), passive-apocalyptic (avoidance of conflicts), social-isolationist (isolated existence and free from outside influence), and new world order (violence to achieve the desired change). Historical examples like the Manson Family or Aum Shinrikyo prove that cult activities could be dangerous and life-taking. The desire to introduce their beliefs and impose their lifestyles did not have clear boundaries, leading to innocent deaths and murders. Therefore, it is correct that some (not all) cults become dangerous emerging groups due to the decision to participate in extremist activities that significantly affect life quality.
Sometimes, militia groups are related to domestic terrorism because of the intention to implement criminal acts to achieve particular ideological goals. These two concepts have similar characteristics, like being located within one country, having victims with the same citizenship, and pursuing the purpose of persuasion and ideological change. Although not all cults are associated with human victims, it is possible to consider some of them as domestic terrorists because of the desire to manipulate people and use violent threats, blackmail, and intimidation.
The reasons for cults to do what they do are not always clear, but the main factor is usually the same – people are unhappy with the offered conditions and want to change something. Spiritual and religious beliefs are not always dangerous, and the police should follow Constitutional rights, including the right to speech (Harmening, 2014; McCarthy, 2021). Thus, it is possible to justify the activities and choices made by cult members. If no violence, guns, and abuse are noticed, the existence of such a cult is a normal social activity. There should be a leader who takes responsibility, a group of followers, and a list of behavioral norms. Today, such groups as cults are interpreted and accepted differently, and some people feel that the label of a dangerous emerging group is inappropriate. More attention has to be paid to analyzing and recognizing militia groups and their styles. Isolation is not always dangerous if led by a charismatic and sufficient leader.
Conclusion
In conclusion, cult membership should not be similarly treated and recognized. These organizations may emerge in any part of the world, following different purposes and methods. History shows that many lives could be lost due to cult activities, and these threats cannot be ignored. It is also wrong to impose common labels on cults because of differences in characteristics, types, and leaders. Sometimes, cults take the same steps terrorists do, determining themselves as dangerous extremist organizations. However, not all cults follow the same examples, and their desire to live in isolation, reject social norms and regulations, or enhance their beliefs should be respected and justified.
References
Harmening, W. M. (2014). Crisis intervention: The criminal justice response to chaos, mayhem, and disorder. Pearson.
McCarthy, N. (2021). The evolution of anti-government extremist groups in the U.S. [Infographic]. Forbes. Web.