Cults

See here:

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Cult

"... 1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. ..."

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cult

Yes, sheer numbers determine the difference between an accepted religion and a cult.

Take the Catholic faith as an example:

Imagine that there was only about 1 million Catholics in the world. They would considered a cult because -A- they have an authoritarian leader (the Pope), -B- They live in an unconventional manner (baptisms, mass etc would be unconventional) -C- They would generally be considered false (because there is only 1 million of them).

In my opinion, labelling any religion a 'cult' is thoughtless slander.

A cult is usually characterized by a couple things:

1. A charismatic Leader, which is acting for financial or sexual benefit.
2. A belief in a coming apocalypse
3. Moral Beliefs which stray from the mainstream
4. A small amount of people who live together in a commune.

If you have one or more of these symptoms, you may be living in a cult.

I agree with Rancid.

Like most derogatory terms, the term "cult" is far too subjective to have any value. A cult is simply a nasty term for a religious or idealogical group you don't like.

There are several lists of criteria to define criteria. The strategy is to somehow link religions the list writers don't like, to clearly dangerous behavior. These lists try to general wildly different groups with a set of gerrymandered traits.

Let's take Etruscia's list, for example... Is Billy Graham a cult leader? What about the early Christians in the Bible?

Etruscia's list also excludes the Ohm Shin Rikio, Wiccans, Scientology and the Church of Satan etc. These groups are often tagged with the cult lable, but I don't think they believe in a coming apocalypse or live in small communes.

There are certainly religions that I find quite strange and even dangerous. Lumping them together in one group is not productive. This lable says far more about you, then about the religion, so why not just say what you don't like about the beliefs.

Mormons, Moonies, the Jonestown folks, Amway ad the Jesuits have all been called cults. Do you see the problem with this grouping?

And besides, I am charasmatic, I act for financial and sexual benefit, I have moral beliefs outside the mainstream and I believe the Sun will expand into a red giant in 5 billion years swallowing up the Earth in a firey apacolypse. Anyon want to join my commune?

The complexity in defining a cult for the average layman should not translate into a facile dismissal of the lexicographical value of the term. Cults exist and do not lend themselves well to apologist euphemisms or even the refusal to delineate them from mainstream religions.

A common error is to simply see the difference in terms of rate of adoption and popularity, neglecting the elementary realization that fundamental differences in their structures, both societal and religious are largely responsible for the comparatively smaller numbers of adherents in a cult.

To say that there is no meaningfull use of the word is a patent absurdity. The pejoration of the word owes in large part to the excessive exploitative nature of the cults that have been brought to the public's attention and in said cases said pejoration is usually deserved.

The structures of cults is such that said derogation on the basis of exemplar cults is usually founded on characteristics that less infamous cults also share. To dismiss the term as slander is merely a reflection of the ignorance with which many approach the definitional connundrum, often conflating or projecting their own notions on religious persecution onto the derogation of cults.

To do so is willfully ignorant. The term has value. Ask those who grew up in a cult if they can adequately describe their experience as having had grown up in a "religion". To describe it in such fashion will often be laughable to them.

Deviancy can often be difficult to define, owing to indivudual perception more willing to see superficial similarities than substantial differences.

Here are some quick differences that even this thread's participants should be able to appreciate:

• Exclusive Human Leadership - Monotheistic religion can provide exclusive spiritual leadership but tends to define human hierarchy differently than cults. In a cult the human leadership will often claim and enforce exclusive right to said leadership based on the, often self-serving, belief system the leader has created. Alternately mainstream religions usually have hierarchy that evolves on the basis on internal politics and capability, rather that an individual's charisma and claim to divine appointment. The differences in the degree to which the leadership is authoritarian is acute, as a more political structure has more rational safeguards while a self-appointed diety lends itself well to abuse of leadership. This is a similar point to those used to delineate charismatic theological structures from non-charismatic theological structures, but I do not have enough faith in the comprehension of the participants to delve into academic discussion of this topic.
  
• Covenant - Leaving or criticizing a cult is usually a breach of a covenant that is significantly different that other societal covenants. I don't have time to be comprehensive here but a simple example is that leaving other societal structures will usually not result in literal demonization and the enforced rejection of the "apostate" to his family. Some cults go so far as to wish or pray for their death. This is a covenant of a wholly different nature than a church whose congregation might look down their nose at someone who stopped attending or moved to another church.
  
• Deviance - For better or for worse, cults are characterized by societal and theological deviance. This can often lead to comparisons between cults and any birth of a religious movement. What this often neglects to consider is that the degree of deviance can be substantial enough to merit a lexicographical delineation. To wit, a pervert might share sexual desire with the average individual and may also share a fundamental human desire for variety, but it is in the degree of deviation that the term gains definitional value. Similarly, cults deviate from mainstream in significant enough ways to merit a lexicographical delineation from more palatable religions. Not all liturgy is created equal, and it takes a special brand of ignorance to attempt to claim as much.
  
• Degree of exploitation - It is a display of sheer ignorance to dismiss the differences between the exploitations common to cults and mainstream religions. A church that takes a collection is not in the same league as a group that mandates that all your finances and possessions belong to the group by default. A clergy that has financial interest is not in the same league as a group that lays claim to the very bodies of its adherents for their own purposes. To give a very simple example, a group that decides that the members and children's sexuality is the property of the group is different enough from a church that passes a collection to merit a delineating term. Compulsory relinquishment of possessions is common in cults and the degree to which it is enforced can be a significant difference. Similarly a political system that employs taxation should be lexicographically differentiated from a socialist system. The devil is in the details.
  
• Degree of devotion - I won't spend much time on this as it's broad enough for me to have little faith in my ability to explain it to the participants here in the time I have available but will note that devotion comes in a very broad spectrum and the devotion that an occasional church visit requires is significantly less than what mass suicide or relinquishment of one's children will require. Said difference is stark enough to merit a definitional distinction.
  
• Societal elitism and seclusion - Many groups will claim some sort of superlative nature, but again the difference is in the degrees. A cult will often claim exlusive purpose and derogate the "outsiders" as apostates. That all religions can invoke elitism is a fact that does not negate that the degree to which a particular group may do so merits a distinction. A church that thinks they are better than the church down the street is not the same as a cult that forbids all contact of any type with a non-adherent.
  
• Methods for Control - Intimidation and psychological manipulation may be present to varying degrees in any religion, but the methods many cults employ often deviate enough to merit their distinction from the norm. I don't have time to go into the many ways a cult can employ methods wholly dissimilar to a mainstream religion, but this can easily be researched should anyone be curious.
  
• Control itself - Beyond method the degree of control attempted is often decidedly different. Many cults seek to control every aspect of the individual's life. This goes beyond mere religious principles on how to live and into the realm of dictating the life itself, from when the individual speaks to whether or not they eat or sleep at any given time. If military life is easily delineated from civillian life in the minds of the average layman then cults, which often seek a degree of control that would put the most zealous military to shame, and cult life should be a deviation significant enough for even the layman to comprehend.
  
• Abuse - To ignore the difference between many cults and mainstream religions is similar to ignoring the difference between sexual abuse and sex. This can be taken literally in the cases of some cults. The abuse of familial structures, sexuality, finances, individuallity and more is not equitable to non-abusive use of the same resources. Exploitation of the adherents comes in many degrees, and to ignore the differences in this spectrum is absurd.
  

A cult was and is the precursor to all the religions practiced today.

Craven,

You haven't said anything that dilineates cults from "mainstream religions" or other groups-- except in a very subjective way.

First, let me make it clear that there are very destructive aspects to many groups. There are clearly religious groups that I consider dangerous, or even harmful.

You relate your own experience, but I know people who had equally painful experiences growing up in a so-called mainline church-- specifically Assembly of God (pentacostal protestent). Incidently many of the aspects in your list would characterize their experience, control, social elitism, etc.

I spent several years in a church that has often been called a cult. I left and have had no contact with them for years... and there are many things about my experience that I look back on with pain.

But, I can not say that my experience in this church, or my previous religious experiences, were completely bad. These groups offer a sense of meaning, a strong community and fulfillment. I left this church because I needed reason and I felt I needed to grow. But, I will be honest that I experienced a real sense of loss when I decided to leave-- not because of pressure or manipulation-- but because I was giving up something that provided meaning to me.

There are people who join these groups as adults who honestly get what they need from them. This is complex, but if an adult chooses to live this lifestyle, I feel uncomfortable judging.

There are groups that I would say are completely dangerous and unhealthy. Jonestown and the Raelians, who caused their adherents to commit suicide are good examples.

There are other groups that have these traits, but offer a real sub-culture. The groups that are exclusive and require a withdrawral from society, yet offer a community and a fulfilled meaning life, offer a complex problem. The Amish are an interesting example.

The list of "differences" you gave is not exclusive to dangerous groups.

Any successful church has a charismatic human leader. Many groups, Catholics for example, say their leader is annointed by God. The level of authoritianism is a matter of degree (and judging this is often subjective). This is not a valuable distinction.

I agree with you that inability to criticize is a problem in any group, but again this is a trait of many groups. In my church there were ways that members could criticize, but they were managed with limits. But, this is the case with many groups religious or not.

I don't at all think that deviance is a bad thing. Many religions with destructive aspects are so-called mainstream. Other deviant groups, Quakers, Unitarians, Wiccans and the Amish seem to me to be pretty benign. I don't think there is any correlation between deviance and harmfullness.

Exploitation is subjective term. The expectation of giving up worldly possessions is common to many groups. I understand this to be a part of Buddhism, and it is a part of many Christian groups. Leaders who are profiting while members are sacraficing is clearly "exploitation", but what about groups whose leaders are making equal sacrafices for some purpose (I know groups who spend huge amounts for proselytizing). Other groups, specifically the Mennonites and Amish require "simple" living.

Likewise, every group from the Moonies to the Democratic party have social methods of control. Every church I have been a part of (and in my youth I was involved with several evangelical and charasmatic churches) had control methods that I now consider unhealthy. These range from social shame, to lectures. There is nothing worse than being publically prayed for (I have seen this happen several times in mainline churches). This is unhealthy, but it is not a good way to delineate between religions.

Abuse, of course is always bad. Unfortunately it happens in groups that don't meet your criteria of a cult. The Catholic church sex scandal is of course a primary example of this. One of the reasons I left mainline religion to join a "non-traditional" one is that the pastor in the respectable Congregational Church my family went to was caught abusing church members.

My point is this-- Even after reading your post I have yet to see a good delineation between "cult" and "religion".

I would bet that any religious group has some aspects of the traits you list, and that very few have all of these traits. The word "cult" also carries all of the negative connotations yet isn't instructive at all. The negative aspects of religion that are ascribed to "cults" are prevelant in groups that don't match your description.

Why do we need the label "cult"?

If you tell me the the Booglian relgion advocates sexual abuse, I will know why you oppose them, and I will agree with you. If you tell me the Borbarites are going to commit mass suicide, this is useful information.

But, the label "cult" just leads to useless arguments. Most people have their own list of "cults" that have groups that have nothing in common.

I would suggest looking at each religion at its own. If it is overly authoritarian say so. If it practices sexual abuse or ritual suicide, we should know that.

But as you say, each of these traits is a matter of degrees. Religious groups-- even those groups that are on your list of cults-- are very different and reflect the diversity of beliefs and practices that are part of being human beings.

People do destructive things. I don't think your list of traits is any predictor of how destructive any group will be.

I haven't had time to respond to your post meaningfully ebrown, but I'd like to at least address this:

You have not even attempted to establish grounds for a lexicographical inutility due to subjectivity.

You use subjective terms all the time. Heck, if subjectivity were grounds for lexicographical exclusion then lexicons would be paltry indeed.

Given your own use of subjective terms, you have not established a delineating criterion for exclusion of one particular subjective word either.

If the word's gradual pejoration is your criteria then you'd need to make a case against all such linguistic pejoration or again delineate this particular one.

You've not done so, leaving your declaration of the meaninglessness of "cult" to be an arbitrary ipse dixit.

True. I am a Scientologist and I live in a great big house with just myself and my wife. Being labeled a cult by mainstream religious leaders is kind of interesting. The very last people that I would expect to have an investigative bent and a bit of tolerance of others beleifs would be that type of person. I was kind of ho hum about my catholicism and was very interested in better answers than I was getting. Stiff intolerance never did much for the physical sciences either.

i think there is a political party that isnt a party and a religion that isnt a religion either. they both are cults.

the party or the idelogy of it at least has fallen.

the other cult remains.