Beyond the limited-domain struggles that have taken place around deprogrammings, the principal arenas within which the controversy over new religions has been fought are the courts and the media. Perhaps paradoxically, the anti-cult movement has suffered defeat in the courts but been victorious in the media. The current state of affairs is comparable to the situation in which the civil rights movement found itself during its heyday: while going from victory to victory in the courts, in popular opinion Blacks were still viewed as second-class citizens, particularly in the deep South.

One of the principal reasons why minority religions have had such success in the legal arena is that the courts have been compelled to treat such groups seriously as religions, entitled to all of the rights and privileges normally accorded mainstream denominations. Critics of new religions would like to draw a sharp line between religions and cults, and treat cults as pseudo-religious organizations. The courts, however, are unable to approach such groups differently as long as group members manifest sincerity in their religious beliefs.

This situation explains why none of the legislative efforts to regulate new religious movements have been successful. For example, the New York state legislature once tried to enact a law that would have made starting a pseudo-religion, a felony, but it failed to pass because—among other factors—it lacked an objective criterion for distinguishing false from true religions. Without a truly neutral standard, any such law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.