Posted on 12/12/2007 9:57:40 AM PST by xzins
I think so. Maybe Scientology will one day flame out like Peoples Temple did. Hopefully not as violently.
Chaplain,
Here is the problem with those terms. Nobody other than those of us who have studied other religions uses the terms as anything other THAN a perjorative.
I’m pretty sure that the Huckabee story in the NTY this weekend about the LDS and the Christ/Satan brother thing is going to start another round of ‘cult’ comments for the LDS. And nobody will be saying it in a nice way.
My experience has been that sociology has not been all that kind of religion of people of religion despite the generally valid definitions you’ve put forward.
(Full disclosure to everybody else: I’m not LDS. I’m not related to anybody LDS. I’m not formerly LDS. I live in Las Vegas so I obviously know lots and lots of LDS. And I’m not supporting Mitt Romney. I’m NOT forwarding anybody elses agenda. K?)
Yes. I believe Jones was pastor of a Christian Church (Disciples) group in Indianapolis.
He was leading a little separatist group beneath the radar and was advocating himself as some kind of messiah.
Definitely a cult....a deviating group with novel beliefs within a larger church
your definitions would fit a handful of interesting possibilities if taken scientifically:
1. The US Army
2. “The Apprentice”
3. The CIA
Lets hope that “The Apprentice” doesn’t stick around long enough to gain religion status.
The entire fields of sociology, social psychology, and psychology use these terms in these ways.
They are clear and measurable and are not pejorative.
They are used to describe religious movements.
As mentioned, Christianity was once a Jewish cult/sect.
Don't assume we care what sociologists say
The common understanding of "cult" involves severing contact and communication with people outside the group, alienation of members against family and former friends who might be outside the group, etc.
Islam seems to have some aspects of “cult”, by your points (1) and (2). There are quite definite consequences to trying to leave the group
Well I guess depends on various definitions...and maybe who gets to write the history books.
For a few years (guessing about 200 somewhere in the window of post apostle, pre-nicea) Christianity was considered a cult in Rome and other places. I say Rome primarily because at that period of time Rome was the center of the 'civilized' world.
social scientists don’t get it—
CHURCH = man following God
CULT = man following man
Going by the definitions in the article above I’d say that a group could considered a cult without meeting either of the first two conditions that you mention. I can’t think of any examples off-hand, since many (most?) cults do seem to have those properties, however.
Do sociologists have a term for a group that uses the cover of religion to create a group closed against "outsiders", alienates members against "outsiders", and demands total loyalty of members to the group and its leaders?
Islam is considered a religion and not a cult. And yet everything we think of instinctively when we think of the word ‘cult’ is embodied in Islam, times a million.
So in a sense, there is no objective criteria beyond number of adherents and time on earth. Once you’re established, you’re a religion, no matter how sick and evil your practices are.
that would probably be a cult....as in the Jim Jones example up above
I understand that Islam was a mixture of a bit of Judaism & a touch of Christianity with the tribal religion of Mohammed.
In that regard, it would originally have been a cult of that religion...whatever it was.
But in a sense, it has retained its cult characteristics. If you convert from Islam to Christianity you are marked for death. Can’t get more cultish than that. And yet it is “generally accepted” to be a religion. In fact, we are taught, it’s a Religion of Peace. (Even though it has about a million times more suicide victims than Jim Jones.)
Scientology tosses out thousands of members per year...once their cash flow has been milked. You can’t stay in the faith unless there is potential to milk more money out of you. It can’t flame out...it simply looks for wasted minds who feel inadequate and have cash...and recruits them. There is NO violent end to Scientology....it just continues on.
Cult and sect both miss the point — the question is: Are they heretics?
A wise observation, imho.
LOL.
Thx.
Across the globe:
Religion: Your faith.
Cult/Sect: All the other faiths.
Unfortunately, the terms are only useful in an academic setting because the words are already defined in the public square with definitions which are far more derogatory.
Its like the term liberal. People who are liberal don’t want to use it because it means ‘tax and spend’ to the American public. Now while I tend to agree that they should be embarrassed to be liberals, it is now a toxic term and not just a definition of their beliefs and it is used by most people as a perjorative.
If you go to a mall and ask people to define the word ‘sect’ or ‘cult’, you will likely get 80+ percent responses which have negative or destructive meanings.
Up until the last decade, there was one prominent organization here in the US (and lots of other smaller ones) which exclusively attacked all religious groups in the country which weren’t more than 200 years old (and a couple which were). They used the word cult as the definition of religious groups which were dangerous, bizarre, unusual, evil or deserving of law enforcement intervention. And the media spent the last 30 years using the words sect and cult to attack every religious group which didn’t have lobbyists.
I’ve had a bunch of religious organizations as clients in the past who where on the ‘cult’ list who were targetted either for destruction or public alienation via the media. And the word ‘cult’ especially was basically like calling somebody ‘racist’. It was used as a way to immediately end the discussion about the credibility of any religious group just like Jesse Jackson uses ‘racist’ to end the discussion about whether some Republican is or isn’t right about his views on anything.
I realize that you are arguing that these words should be used in their original definitions and in the academic sense. But I’m arguing that the words are already defined by the public and its the religious equivalent to using the N word. If I call your religion a ‘cult’, your only response will be to try to explain how you aren’t in a cult. Its unfortunate but its a reality. And I’ve seen it happen not only to religions like the LDS, Scientology, Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists but also Opus Dei, Lubavitchers and Nazarenes.
And you are probably aware that there is a non-insignificant segment of the sociology community who consider religion essentially a mental illness (unless religion caused you to become more accepting of abortion, alternative lifestyles and larger welfare programs) and an even larger part of the psychological community treats religion like something which should be treated with psycho-active drugs. It seemed like the ‘good and evil’ and ‘right and wrong’ teachings of religion where the parts which piss them off the most.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.