Bridging the Gap between Scholars of Religion and Law Enforcement Negotiators
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20200708 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jayne Seminare Docherty (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 8-26 |
| Publication date | 1999-10-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Nova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1092-6690 • E-ISSN: 1541-8480 |
| Publisher | Project MUSE (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1525/nr.1999.3.1.8 |
| OpenAlex | W2032306232 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 11 |
After the Waco standoff ended in tragedy, many scholars expressed concern that the FBI had not sought advice from those who study new religious movements (NRMs).1 The result was a debate over which experts were or were not consulted during the fiftyone days of negotiation at Waco and which experts should or should not be consulted during any future confrontations between law enforcement agents and groups motivated by unconventional religious or political beliefs. On one side, religious studies scholars criticized the FBI negotiators’ lack of attention to the mediating efforts of J. Phillip Arnold and James D. Tabor during the Waco standoff.2 On the other side, the FBI agents described a scene of “fax meltdown” in which they found it impossible to distinguish valuable expert advice from the spurious input of cranks.3 Happily, the discussion has moved beyond the initial rancorous debate. FBI crisis management agents and NRM scholars seem to recognize that they share a common goal: Both groups ideally would like to prevent violent confrontations between members of NRMs and law enforcement officials. In the event of another barricade situation involving an unconventional religious group, both scholars and law enforcement officials want to maximize the possibility of a nonviolent outcome. Following their post-Waco reorganization, members of the FBI Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) began seeking input from religious studies scholars and other NRM experts.4 For example, CIRG personnel met with representatives from the American Academy of Religion (AAR) in June 1998 in Washington, D.C. The FBI also has invited several NRM experts to speak with agents at the FBI Academy. FBI agents came to the 1998 AAR Annual Meeting in Orlando where they attended open sessions and met with NRM scholars. Despite the move toward dialogue, however, scholars and law enforcement agents remain separated by a worldview gap that continues to complicate their discussions. My unusual mix of education and professional training makes me acutely aware of these dissimilar worldviews. I hold an undergraduate degree in religious studies and studied one
Computer security · Enforcement · Law and economics · Law enforcement · Political science · Sociology · Computer Science · Crime, Deviance, and Social Control · Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance · Law · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Atrocity Tales, the Unification Church, and the Social Construction of Evil
Exit Cost Analysis
“ Verfassungsfeindlich “
Response to Mayer's “Our Terrestrial Journey is Coming to an End”
Reply to Bromley
The Accidental Expert
Blacklisting or Greenlisting? A European Perspective on the New Cult Wars
The Blacklisting of a Concept
Listing (in Black and White) Some Observations on (Sociological) Thought Reform
Objectivity, Advocacy, and Animosity
| Citations per year | 0.16 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2007 - 2018 (12) |
| Highly cited | No |