Hey, FACTNet! Where's the Beef?

A business acquaintance of mine mentioned how the personal-growth company she works for is tacitly assumed to be a cult by FACTNet.org. I browsed over and discovered that sure enough, there are many FACTnet message board posters pointing the finger at their organization and screaming "Cult! Cult!". Knowing that my religion is judged by some to be a cult, I used the search function on FACTNet to discover that, sure enough, there are even MORE people pointing at my religion and yelling the same thing. So, I read around a little on the site to discover why FACTNet believes my religion and my friend's company are cults. Surely there must be somewhere where they give a list of criteria and objectively judge point by point whether a given organization qualifies for such a dubious title. I found some very interesting things. On one page FACTNet offers an answer to a very important question, "Anybody can unfairly attack a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is a cult?" Wow! Great question! Here is their answer, "FACTNet uses specific criteria to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults without careful research and determination that the evidence fits definite criteria." Wow! Great answer! Only one problem, FACTNet, where's the beef? With Google's help, I searched all 75,600 pages of the website looking for the pages where FACTNet discloses the results of their "careful research" of both the organizations in question. Found nothing. I repeat, I found no listing anywhere on their site as to how they came to the reputation-damning conclusion that both my religion and my friend's business where cults. Nichts, nada. What I DID find were discussion boards where former members of both organizations lambast them for all their past and present faults and shortcomings -- both real and perceived (but wait, didn't Jesus say, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"). I also found that FACTNet has a listing of links to newspaper and web articles about members of my church (who apparently never listened in Sunday School) who were convicted for child abuse. So, is THAT the standard? If a religion has members who, against the teachings of their church, abuse children, then the religion is a de facto cult? If so, FACTnet, please tell us which religion has no child molesters, so we can all convert! But, I digress. Not being able to find the all-important "careful research", I read through the list of criteria of how to tell if a group is a "destructive cult". As I read, I reviewed in my mind what I knew about my religion, of which I have been an active member -- attending weekly and serving in one capacity or another for over 35 years. Can you imagine my surprise to discover that my religion does not qualify based on their criteria? Yet, there they are, treated on the site as if they are some kind of wacked-out fruitcakes. So, why? Why are both these and other organizations being targeted by this site without presenting their "careful research"? I can only venture a guess. The site's founder, Lawrence Wollersheim, was in a 22-year legal battle with the Church of Scientology, of which he is a disgruntled former member. He won a $8.9 million settlement. Hmmm... maybe he's fishing for more deep-pockets to sue -- I don't know. And another possibility. Doesn't it stand to reason, whether Scientology is actually a cult or not, that Wollersheim wears "cult-colored" glasses? We tend to see what we believe. So Lawrence, reading down the same list of criteria for dangerous cults, would probably judge my religion and my friend's organization as cults solely because he is predisposed to agree with disgruntled former members. But has he ever actually VISITED either? Has he actually done this all-important research? If so, Lawrence, where's the beef? While his website allows people to vent their spleens on various organizations, he offers no objective analysis of any organization against their touted list of criteria. Again, Wollersheim, where's the beef?