Well, Looking at just your first link, this is nuts as a reason to crticize CENSUR:

CESNUR actively opposes legislation against "cults," on the grounds that a) an unpopular minority group might be falsely accused of something CESNUR claims does not exist (see CESNUR and Brainwashing, addressed later in this article), and b) any legislation would make a mockery out of the concept of religious liberty.

...and goes on to say consumer protection laws wouldn't infringe on religious liberty if some of these cults were baned. (*ILLEGAL* behavior may be banned, not religious organizations.)

I hope, LWM., you are never appointed to the bench. The 1st Am would not be safe with you. You hate so-called cults, and that is all you care about or know. But it is now clear why the conflagration the BATF directed at al those men, women and children at Waco bothers you not at all -- they were a "cult!" Same way we need to deal with all those damned IslamofascistNaziHitlers.

Whether a group engaged in criminal activity is denominated as religious, political, or some combination, you can only criminalize the criminal activity in a free nation.

Or do you think the Communist Party should have been made illegal since they really did recruit a signicant number -- but small in comparison to total membership -- of domestic spies?

And I don't invoke or rely on the British for such matters; they still have blasphemy laws on the books which they prosecuted and upheld against a gay poet and magazine as recently as 1980.

Waco was wrong and a murderous horror -- why can you not concede that?

These groups are opposed by American civil libertarians and the vast majority of religious studies scholars for good reason; again from the UVA religious studies site: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/anticounter.htm

The critics of that are correct; the vast majority of people who join so-called cults leave within 2 years. If brainwashing worked, the CIA and govts the world over would be deploying it. The Manchurian Candidate is fiction. And he whole notion comes from the era of anti-Communist paranoia.

It is not knew, and there is also plenty in it for liberals to dislike. But it is at least an attempt to be admniraby consisitent, and underscors the pint of Glenn's post. From Wiki:

Seamless Garment

Cardinal Bernadin worked diligently for social justice in a changing world. Beginning in 1983, he called for a "consistent ethic of life" in an age when modern technologies threatened the sanctity of all human life at every turn, be it abortion, euthanasia, modern warfare, or capital punishment.

Bernardin is best known for popularizing the Consistent Ethic of Life philosophy, which holds that life must be consistently valued and protected from conception until natural death, regardless of the surroundings. The philosophy sometimes is called the Seamless Garment of Life, a reference from John 19:23 to the seamless robe of Jesus, which his executioners did not tear apart. The Seamless Garment philosophy holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life. In response to critiques from some pro-life activists, Bernardin clarified that the ethic never meant that all threats to life were equal, from a societal or political standpoint (see paragraph 11, section II of his statement) [1].

While in Chicago, Archbishop Bernardin also served as head of the NCCB Ad Hoc Committee on War and Peace, which drafted the pastoral letter, "The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response." This book-length document challenged the morality of nuclear deterrence and sparked a decade-long debate both in the United States and abroad. Perhaps the most well known of these discussions on nuclear morality played out in the November 29, 1982 issue of Time Magazine, entitled "God and the Bomb," which featured Bernardin on its cover.

And as for Wm Donohue, it urns ut he is a "cafeteria Catholic!" He and his ilk deploy that epithet against their co-religionists who refuse to follow Church teaching on contraception, gay issues etc. But move beyond the pelvic issues, and ole Wm is one, too.