![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Let's just say in the article that "cult" is an offensive label. Cults are new religious movements that are believed to be "bad". Acceptable scientific term - NRMs. For a NRM to be "accuse of being a cult" is like for a Black American to be accused of being "dirty negro". The term serves no other purposes than derogatory. This is self-evident, so let's say it.
For example on inadequateness of this derogatory label, see NRMs, there's good example with ISSKON which is a "cult" in the US, while in India it is legitimate relogious group dating back to 1700s.
It also makes sense to state who invented the "cults": anti-cult activists. There is a separate article for them as well, let's make cross-references.
P.S. Do not be confused when you read that there is "scientific definition" of cults. There are anti-cult scholars that invent definitions and there are simply scholars that prefer the "new religious movement" term. The fact that some anti-cult activists are also scholars of new religions does not make the term scientific. Derogatory labels cannot be scientific, science is about objectivity.
Currently discussion looks like we can't agree on who's dirty negro. "Neil Armstron is surely not, but that ugly neighbor fits into the definition and deserved the term". Terms are terms, labels are labels. Terms are neutral, labels either praise or denigrate.
Example of terms: religious movement, corporation, political party, communist party member, Italian American Labels example: cult, extortion racket, subversive anti-American group, communist whacko, dago.
Will we rewrite the article accordingly?
The article at present says:
I am not sure that "cult" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "sect," and I am also not sure that "sect" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "cult." I looked these terms up in http://www.xrefer.com and paid attention to the British references. I found no support for the view that "sect" in Britain means "extreme religious group" in Britain, and I found no support for the view that "cult" in Britain means something very close to what Americans mean by "sect."
See:
Are you sure that by "Europe" you do mean English-speaking Europe (which is the part of Europe whose usage we care about...)?
In any case, we do want to have more info than just about the usage of the word. I mean, jeez...cargo cults, the practices of cults to get new members, brainwashing, etc. There's lots to write about there!
--LMS
The various germanic and romance-speaking countries in Europe, not English-speaking, have cognates for the English words. For instance, kulten and sekten in German (sekten also refers to sparkling wines, but in this context, to "sects.") and cultes and sectes in French. And the implications are reversed from the English usage.
Interestingly, English-speaking Europe, to me, is the British Isles which I don't actually count as part of Europe at all. Religious associations of all approved churches in France are referred to as "associations cultuelles." So, if you wanted to talk about fringe or questionable groups in Europe, you would use the word in each language which corresponds to "sect," and in North America, you would say "cult."
So my point was to make it clear that when a European newspaper is translated into English for our benefit and the word "sect" appears, it is pejorative. Not so, the word "cult."
As far as a treatment of the subject in-toto, that is a maze I do not care to enter at the moment. Factually, the modern North-American usage of "cult" is itself a politico-cultural phenomenon fraught with hate, ignorance and intolerance. Those who claim the authority to write on "cults" are outside the mainstream of religion, sociology and psychology, (except fundmentalist Christians, many of whom have jumped onto the "cult" bandwagon with both feet) and are coining and redefining their terms all the time. They speak of phenomena of mental persuasion which appear only in their own books ("snapping," "milleu control," etc.), and everything from the American Socialist Party to the Old Catholic Church qualifies as a "cult." One man's cult is another's religion, and vice-versa. There are a couple of very well-researched and accurately written sites on the web which touch on this phenomenon, and it takes them page after page just to cover the basics of the arguments on both sides (religioustolerance.org and beliefnet) I could never hope to condense that quality of work into a readily digestible article.
I think the new version is a little more complete and arguably more accurate. If time permits (hmmmm - no huge chance of that) I will attempt to get together an actual article which exposits the current scene vis a vis "cults." --- Well, Primerica is a cult. U.S. Army is also a cult, there is "mind control" in place and for trying to escape you may be shot.
Please do, but bear in mind the neutral point of view, please. --LMS
I think the reference to Trascendental Meditation as a cult in which all members have a relationship to Maharishi is incorrect. I have been doing TM for thirty years and have never had a "relationship" to Maharishi. I know many others like me. I will do a little more research on this topic and be back. --John Knight
- Great, John Knight. It is great to have a couple of "victims" like you and me to fight back against the idiocy.
With regards to the TM comment, what I meant to say (I don't know if I said it wrong originally, or if someone else editted what I said) was that most individual participants only had a relationship with their meditation teacher and participated in little communal activity. Of course, someone who got deeply into TM would have a lot more communal activity, but in its heyday most people who were involved (several 100,000) had their involvement limited to a short meditation course.
Also, on the reversal of the meaning of the words in contintental Europe (the UK uses the normal English meanings) -- a lot of continental Europeans will use the reversed meanings even when writing in English. e.g. recently I was reading an information sheet put out by the French Embassy to Australia -- it talks about the danger "sects" (i.e. what in English is normally called "cults") to French society. Similarly, a lot of newspaper reports discussing continental Europe will use the English word "sect" with its continental meaning, although not without explaining its different meaning. So it is not just in non-English languages, but English as well. -- SJK
This looks like a comment. May I move delete it from the article? -- Ed Poor
I'd say few. The anti-cult movement gets a lot of psychiatrists, but it gets very few people who come from religious studies or sociology departments. -- SJK
The debate over "what is a cult" versus "what is a religion" has been going on for way too long, and it is not likely to end at any time in the forseeable future. All I'll say on this is to provide a link to an interesting take on the subject: the "Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" by Isaac Bonewits. He wrote it in 1971, and it has been repeated continually by various proponents over the years. He has it on his own Web site at this link:
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
Before entering it as part of the entry for "cult," maybe someone here can comment on it.
I deleted:
I hardly think its NPOV to name one example of a cult as though it was the only religion that is absolutely and positively a cult. Tokerboy 21:21 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
it said cults as in plural? Why shouldnt there be a list of cults?
The latest lengthy addition to this article essentially boils down to "Christianity can be defined as a 'cult,' therefore it is useless to use the term 'cult' at all." This is an argument frequently used in discussions involving cults: so much time and effort is wasted trying to define "what is a cult" that the discussion doesn't focus on the actions of any of the groups accused of being cults. How can we get around this and finally get to the actual heart of the matter? --Modemac 15:16 30 May 2003 (UTC)
What do you think the heart of the matter is? Is there any real point in having an article on a word for the meaning of which it's virtually impossible to get a consensus? If the word 'cult' were neutral, things would be a lot easier. But it is loaded with negative associations and evokes strong emotions. The article already states that many sociologists don't regard 'cult' as a useful concept. What people in the "anti-cult" camp appear to be saying is: here is a list of identifying marks of a cult. If a religious group has these marks, it is BAD. The whole approach reeks of defining the word in such a way as it applied to others with whom you disagree, without it applying to your own religious group.Jpb1968 22:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)~
I reviewed this article today and am thinking of making some changes.
1. Definitionally, the psychological aspect is given short shrift. The use of milieu control, creeping commitment, loading the language, unattainable requirements for purity -- are all well documented in the literature.
2. That much of the power of cults comes from charismatic rather than religious matters is not explained sufficiently.
3. Examples of well-known historical cults whose nature is really not a matter of POV should be included. E.g. Branch Davidians
Jpb,
I reverted your edits to the definitions section.
The material you had added was not definitional in nature. It did not seek to define what the word cult means, but instead tried to imply that it is merely an insulatative word with no further meaning. Such material might be appropriate in a different form at a later point in the article, but I did not feel qualified to rewrite it. It is certainly true that the word cult is used as a snarl word, as you put it, by many fundamentalist Christian groups (and others) to describe any organization they do not like. They are misusing the language, however, and the fact that they do so does not change the fact that there is a valid, rigorous definition of a cult. Perhaps you would be better able than I to write a paragraph or two on this.
I was thinking last night that the article could use some examples of refutation of the cult label for organizations to which it does not apply. The U.S. Marines are not a cult, for example, because even though they have the authoritarian aspect and a degree of milieu control, they do not seek to limit communications with non-Marines, they have outside oversight, the nature of the commitment is clear up front. Dale Carnegie and Outward Bound are not cults, despite many similarities, because there is no evidence of damage to attendees and their families, and the involvement is limited to the duration of the class. Though difficult, a NPOV discussion of the pros and cons of the case wrt to some more controlling yet accepted religious movements (e.g. LDS, Mennonite, Amish, Watchtower, Pentecostal) movements would probably help shine a good deal of light. Kat 14:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
There is an excellent article that covers many of the definitional aspects at http://www.csj.org/rg/rgessays/rgessay_cult.htm Kat 19:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Modemac asked how one could "get around" theist bias and "get to" the actual descriptive and word usage of the word "cult." Since the USA uses the word as an insult, bias appears to be inevitable.
I consider it a "given" that word usage and word definition is often dissimilar. I also consider it a "given" that scholars will use a word quite differently than non-scholars. (By "scholar" I mean, in this case, sociologists and psychiatrists, *NOT* theologians.)
The entry I've added, I think, is fair and most people would not contest it. Since cultism falls within sociological issues, and therefore concerns at present over six billion variables (human beings), there cannot be agreement among casual commentators, nor experts, on what "cult" means.
A scholar will say that a "cult" is a religious body of adherents that profess the same or similar rites, rituals, and worship. Therefore all of Christianity is one cult; all of Islam is another cult; Goddess worship is a third cult; animism is a cult; Deism yet another cult; ancestor veneration another. Mormons fall under the Christian cult; Ba'hi'a falls under the Islam cult; Wicca falls under the Goddess cult, or the animism cult, or the pantheism cult (depending on which Wiccan Trad).
Non-scholars use the word vastly different. Rival denominations of the same cult (Islam, Pagan, Christian, animistic, whatever) call each other "cults" as the word is used as an insult, much like "nigger" is used, for example. For most intents, this usage is utterly worthless: it is fundamentally ad hominem-ic (to coin a word) and renders the word MEANINGLESS. I've even seen and heard people define "cult" by the number of adherents!
I also consider it a "given" that if the word "cult" is to be used as a pejorative, it must be rendered specifically meaningful. I suggest that "cult" be defined by behavior, not belief. Desertphile 06:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've removed
from "Shared Practices". How can you tell exactly which events are influenced by some supernatural? Ask your favourite religion/cult. Thus, this criterion is totally, utterly useless. Moehre 2004-01-13
I do not agree with Moehre at all. Sometimes 'miracles' are faked and can be proven to be so. Besides a strong belief in miracles due to these faked miracles can create an almost hysterical atmosphere in which all kinds of natural events are attributed to divine intervention. This in turn reinforces the belief system and the belief in miracles etc. Examples of this are Reverend Jim Jones and my former guru Sathya Sai Baba
I miss three important apects of cults aka new religious movements.
2004-01-20 Andries
Two more things,
One more thing
2004-01-23 Andries
"I think there is even a law against 'brainwashing' and mental exploitation of vulnerable people." The idea was floated around but the law does not mention it. David.Monniaux 10:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article must be adjusted soon because there are a lot of aspects missing, like leaving a cult. Please help I have limited time. Andries 20:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am re-reading it again, and again I am disappointed. Please help to improve it. Andries 10:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just reviewed the characteristics section. Each "cult" characteristic either (a) does not apply at all to the Unification Church, or is a well-known characteristic of large mainstream religions like Roman Catholicism.
Therefore, the Unification Church should be taken of the list of "purported cults".
If there is an advocate who is an organization leader or a published author who wants to make accusations, we can report the fact that he made an accusation, and also report on rebuttals. But softening the accusation with the word purported is not enough. Either provide evidence, or testimony -- otherwise, leave out the claim altogether. --Uncle Ed 19:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I am a member of the Unification Church)
Text salvaged from totalitarian religious group:
de:Totalitäre_religiöse_Gruppe
The term totalitarian religious group is a derogatory term used mainly in the former Soviet nations, especially in Russia. It is used to cast a negative light on minority religious groups. Many so called "counter cult" groups, which promote the use of the term, actually fit the definition of totalitarian religious group. Therefore, the following definition should be applied carefully.
A totalitarian religious group is a religious denomination, cult or religious organization whose members or adherents are not free to think on their own or to leave the group or criticize it. Outsiders accuse such groups of controlling the thinking and behavior of its members by regulating their conscious life down to the minutest details without their prior agreement or the possibility of a free choice.
Totalitarian groups are predominantly to be found among fringe denominations and fundamentalist groups, but they can also stick to a "normal" theologian framework and are problematic only with respect to the treatment of their membership. They may be large, well-organized bodies or just small circles.
This has four basic aspects:
These techniques make a mature, critical reflection of one's attitudes and the one-sided information given by the group largely impossible.
See also: Mind control, Purported cults, Christian countercult movement.
I cut this paragraph which seems to be two opposing POV pieces of analysis that add nothing to the article:
UninvitedCompany 21:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cut from section on leaving a cult. This is unsubstantiated and shouldn't go back in the article unless there are better references:
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I also cut this section, because it (a) is not supported by any references other than the Scientology web site and (b) does not inform; there are claims of media exaggeration regarding essentially any contoversial issue.
One problem with cults is not so much the cults themselves but the inaccurate, exaggerated, scare-mongering or sensationalist media stories about cults.
According to many scholars and ex-members who oppose "cults" these stories don't help to understand and recognize cults which makes the problem of cults bigger instead of smaller. E.g. if the media give the general impression that in cults people are brainwashed then a person belonging to an abusive group may get a false feeling that the group he is in is not a cult and somewhat illogically think that there is nothing wrong with the group he is in.
Another problem with these stories, "cult" opponents say, is that the group may lead isolate themselves and even persecution of the group. Isolation can make defection more difficult and hence aggravates the problem.
Journalists might uncritically believe and write down what spokespersons of the cult tell them. One of the reason for this is, is that it was tedious (before the internet) to find alternative views on the cult, especially when the cult is small or new. Another reason is the propaganda of the cult and the naivety of the journalist who should know better.
Sociologists who study new religious movements scientifically are often ignored by the media. Rather than uncritcially believing what the groups say about themselves, journalists typically accept what deprogrammers say about "cults":
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also cut this commentary. The checklists came from a scholarly reference, and this critical comment was unreferenced:
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Uninviteccompany, I agree that the latter sentence debated but I have no high regards of so called "scholarly" reference with regards to this subject. I mean, it is a fact that scholars disagree with each other about this subject. Andries 22:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi UninvitedCompany, I disagree with your cuts in the cult article. I mostly have references for what I have written even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the article. I will respond on the talk page later. And besides what is written is often plausible even though references are missing. Do you know a lot about the subject? Andries 22:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
UninvitedCompany, can't you help to find references that support or contradict what I and Ed Poor have written? I mean, we were the ones who edited the article in the last month and we could really use some help. By the way, the fact that Ed Poor is a member of a purported cult and I am an apostate suggests that the version that we had written was quite balanced and NPOV. Andries 01:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello Ed Poor/uncle Ed, I hope you can vote to keep the Template:Cults on Vote for deletion of media wiki Cults Thanks in advance. The wikimedia cults will refer to all articles that are essential to understand cults. I think these are Cult of personality, Propaganda , Fundamentalism , Guru Shepherding, Communal reinforcement. It will be added as a footer to all the articles that deal primarily with cults i.e. Cult , Purported cults, Christian countercult movement , Anti-cult movement , Exit counseling , Thought reform , Deprogramming , Mind control & Brainwashing The difference between a See also list is that the wikimedia cults refers to essential articles. The See also list will also refer to side issues. It will not be placed as a footer under individual groups because of POV issues. Andries 18:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't like the list as it exists presently. I wish we had a list of organizations that are so clearly cults as to leave little room for debate. That is, the ones with a history of murder and suicide and sexual abuse and so forth. Then we could drop the "purported" and have a better title. Or maybe we need two lists, one purported and the other not, so we could have some place to identify the controversy surrounding such organizations as Scientology and your Rev. Moon, where we could state the case and leave the rest up to the reader. Sounds like a magnet for edit wars, but so it goes with touchy subjects. (UninvitedCompany)
I do not believe there is any organization for which the cult label is undisputed. Yet, it is valuable to have a list, because there are a few egregious examples where it is clear that the label applies, and listing those makes the article better. --UninvitedCompany 17:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have a conflict with UninvitedCompany about the degree of evidence and references that he demands before information can be put in the cult article. According to UninvitedCompany one can only put information in the article as long at it backed up by empirical evidence from scholars. But for me, a lot is simply common knowledge because I know so much about the subject. I think UninvitedCompany demands too much. If his demands had to be fulfilled for other (even controversial) articles then people would get angry with him for good reasons and a lot of what has been written in wikipedia should then be removed (e.g. propaganda. One of the reasons why the demand for empirical evidence is too strict is that little empirical reasearch has been done on this subject.
On the other hand, I understand his demand for intellectual accuracy and I propose a solution and this is to state explicitly when something is based on anecdotal evidence WITH giving examples in a reference. E.g. I think one can write "Anecdotal evidence suggests ........ see [weblink 1] & [weblink 2]".UninvitedCompany has even removed a comment by me about a scholarly work. I mean, one should not believe everything from somebody only because a person claims to be a scholar or because an article looks scholarly. To do otherwise would be naive and gullible. One should at least put scholary work in perspective.
Anyway, I appreciate comments about this subject. Andries 19:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Removed the following sentence:
I think the point it was making about cognates is now covered well enough in the rest of the paragraph, and I don't think that, even in the most formal contexts in English, people can reasonably use "cult" as a synonym for "sect" or "branch of a religion". I don't think one sees reference to "the major cults of Christianity", for example. Examples like "the cult of Mary", while understood not to be pejorative, have a slightly different meaning.
In fact, the definition for the neutral sense given earlier in the same paragraph appears to be incorrect according to multiple dictionaries and the way I have seen the term used. Historically, "cult" more nearly meant "worship", or "style of worship" than "sect". But I'll let someone else deal with that. (If you don't believe me, check the OED and its citations.)
I reverted the definition section. The content prior to reverting was:
I reverted because the text I removed lacked substance and danced around the point. Since there had been considerable editing and discussion, and fragile consensus, on the previous text, I thought it better. UninvitedCompany 23:04, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)