A degree of incoherence has marked discourse about "new religions." This is partly related to the tendency to equate "new religions" with "alternative religions," as if they were identical phenomena. Intrinsic conceptions of "new religious movements" emphasize internal properties such as first generation membership. Extrinsic, relational conceptions shift the focus to the group's lack of alignment with dominant sociocultural patterns. But some "misaligned" groups may not be chronologically "new," while some "new" groups may actually be well aligned. Lack of alignment should be treated as the hallmark of "alternative religions," which may or may not be (intrinsically defined) "new religions." However, in the relatively tolerant United States, persisting religions tend to become aligned quickly, such that it is mainly organizationally new religions which lack alignment.

In her article "Is the Canon on Jonestown Closed?" Rebecca Moore slightly misconstrued some cryptic statements by Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony comparing the degree of provocation which precipitated violence at Jonestown and at Mount Carmel Center (Waco). We had intended only to say that intrusive provocation was greater at Waco and thus internal volatility was greater at Jonestown although provocation at Jonestown was not negligible. This response to Moore underscores both the importance and the difficulties of comparing different incidents of collective violence involving new religious movements. The relative salience of "endogenous" and "exogenous" factors varies markedly from incident to incident. "Cult violence" fiascoes should not be viewed as interchangeable either from a "cult essentialist" perspective or a perspective emphasizing victimization of groups. Systematic comparative studies would be welcome.

ABSTRACT : The analysis of episodes of violence associated with religious movements is becoming a key sub-area in the study of new religious movements. An influential method which we term the "interpretive" approach has produced important insights. This approach focuses on how messianic movements interpret the behavior of persons and groups which they perceive as deeply hostile. However, some scholars may have placed too much emphasis on the reactive quality of movement violence as a response to the hasty actions of authorities influenced by distorted or self-fulfilling stereotypes of deviant groups. Some movements are capable of violence that does not appear to be elicited by forceful and dynamic provocations against them, although some leaders may perceive a demonic quality underlying any criticism or opposition or blockage of their aspirations. While hasty or overbearing actions by authorities may lead to violence with respect to some groups in some situations, the withholding or slow pace of intervention may enhance the potential for violence relative to other groups in other contexts. The view of fringe movements as victims may often be valid, but sometimes it may inhibit legitimate criticism of some movements' problematic practices or repugnant beliefs. Objective scholars should consider relinquishing permanent investments in images of alternative religions as either victims or destructive demons.