Talk:Sect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would the Cathars have counted as a sect, or were they too non-traditional? How aobut the Sufis? -- April
[edit] Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"
Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Different sets of defintions for sects, cults, churches and denominations
There are different sets of definitions for sects, cults, churches, and denominations that should be treated together in one article. Where? Andries 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
==How about "Organized faith-based groups"? Or "modalities of organizing faith-based groups"?dekoops 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I overlooked the appropriate article for this i.e. church-sect typology. Andries 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Many different definitions for sect:Roy Wallis and Meredith McGuire
Here is what the sociologist Roy Wallis wrote [1] "The central characteristic of the sect on the other hand is `epistemological authoritarianism'. The process of sectarianization therefore involves the arrogation of authority typically on the basis of a claim to a new and superior revelation. Sectarianization is portrayed as a strategy with particular appeal to the leaders of cults faced with the problems of managing and maintaining a fragile institution. These processes are illustrated from the development of Scientology."
The term "sect" like the term "cult" is useless for Wikipedia, because of the many different definitions, unless of course the Wikipedia article explicitly states which of the many definitions is used. Andries 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Many different definitions for sect:Jehovah Witnesses
I got into this argument with a friend of mine who is a Jehovah Witness, which I called a 'sect' in the 'european/dutch' sense. He replied that Jehovah Witnesses are no sect followers, since sects follow living people as holy figures. Does anyone have any further info on that? Is that a view limited to the Jehovah Witnesses? It sure would fit the definition of 'sect' given in the article. Jeroenemans 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jeroen, I am Dutch too and am very much aware of the confusion. The root cause is that there is only one word in Dutch i.e. "nl:sekte", but two in English i.e. sect and cult. So the Dutch word has two meanings as described in nl:sekte. Following a living person in English means usually being a cult member. The Jehovah witnesses are seen as a typical example of a sect. Andries 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradicting definitions of "sect" and "cult"
The contradiction can be deduced by using the Raelian Movement as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect gives several definitions of what a sect is:
1) "sects claim to be authentic purged, refurbished version of the faith from which they split" and "sects have, in contrast to churches, a high degree of tension with the surrounding society", in this case, the Raelian Movement is not a sect, because only one, not both, of the criteria is met.
- Result-
- Sect (ex. Early Protestantism): No
2) sectarianism "a worldview that emphasizes the unique legitimacy of believers' creed and practices and that heightens tension with the larger society by engaging in boundary-maintaining practices.", so the Raelian Movement is sectarian in the sense that it possesses a trait shared by revolutionary movements such as the Civil Rights Movements of 19th and 20th century America.
- Result-
- Sectarian (ex. Martin Luther King, KKK, Skull and Bones, George Washington etc.): Yes
3) "A religious or political cult, by contrast, also has a high degree of tension with the surrounding society, but its beliefs are, within the context of that society, new and innovative." The Raelian Movement fits this. "Whereas the cult is able to enforce its norms and ideas against members" The Raelian Movement does not fit this since it lacks a true dictatorial leadership. As you can see, this definition is able to contradict itself in the case the Raelian Movement - making it an invalid definition. "a sect normally doesn't strictly have "members" with definite obligations, only followers, sympathisers, supporters or believers." This fits the Raelian Movement, as well as a plethora of apparently normal organizations which do not push their members to do exact things.
- Result-
- Cult (ex. Antique Mormon Polygamous sect, KKK, Nazism etc.): No
- Sect (ex. Martin Luther King etc., Gandhi's Movement): Yes
4) "The English sociologist Roy Wallis[6] argues that a sect is characterized by “epistemological authoritarianism”: sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy." This applies for the Raelian Movement, however, the Raelian Movement has no problem with any heresy as long as it does not violate the fundamentals, such as peace, love, and non-violence. "According to Wallis, “sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation" The Raelian Movement fits this, but salvation only in the case that the world "fails", though such a failure is something Raelians actively want to prevent - hence their disapproval of nuclear weapons and of war in general. "and “their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'”." The Raelian Movement does not fit this as they acknolwedge the greater actions of those who do not adhere to them to be nevertheless deserving of eternal life, perhaps more than they are individually (those people are given the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement, even if they have no idea of Raelians at all). Again we see the problem with using only one criteria to establish whether the Raelian Movement is a sect when more than one must be met. "He contrasts this with a cult that he described as characterized by “epistemological individualism” by which he means that “the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member.”" In this case, Raelism fits, because the final authority is not Rael, but the individual, because Rael is not a dictator. Megachurches fit this as well, since Christian priests of this day and age are by no means dictators, and neither are guardians at Christian Retreats or teachers who "assign" activities to pupils. But the fact that one fits the criteria does not make one a cult. That is: If Z does A, and B does A, does that mean that Z is B? Not necessarily. It couldn't be objectively determined unless if it was assumed that only one (category of) thing did A. If this were the definition of cult, you would have the final say (only if you belonged to a cult); now isn't that preferrable than having someone else control you as in a sect per Roy Wallis definition? What a joke. ;)
- Result-
- Cult (ex. Libertarian): Yes
- Sect (ex. Populist): No
Definitions 3 and 4 are in direct contradiction with each other. By accepting both definitions, it is harder to distinguish a cult from a sect. Do members of a cult need authority for a final word? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Does a sect have individuals with their own choice? #3 says yes, #4 says no. Most people would think that #3 is a better definition than #4. In both definitions, cults and sects are exculsive from each other (i.e. a cult cannot be a sect and a sect cannot be cult (an analogue to this is: red cannot be orange and orange cannot be red, but both are colors). There be some who would disagree with this and say that a cult is a type of sect (analogue: turquiose is a type of blue). As you can see, provided that there be a definition, or a set of non-contradicting definitions, of sect which can be agreed upon (which may not be the case), one must define the Raelian Movement before calling it a sect. Why not call it a sect? Sure, as long as it is stated what that label indicates exactly.Kmarinas86 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can I ask that this discussion be moved from my user talk page to somewhere else? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Go ahead - I don't know where to put it.Kmarinas86 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The above was taken from:
- The above discussion is off-topic. Please use this talk page only for suggesting improvements to the article. Andries 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The following sentence is uncontextualized
Can somebody please provide the context and references for the following sentence that I took out of the article.
- "In politics, a mass party typically tolerates a variety of views and interpretations, insisting only on a limited number of basic principles as a condition for membership."
Andries 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccurate info?
This article's intro states,
Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well-established religious group.
I question the way "denomination" is used here. I do not think the issue is size and duration of existence but the orthodoxy/non-orthodoxy of the smaller group in relation to the larger movement from which it branched off. Thus, a large movement that branched of from its initial larger movement, if viewed as heterodox by the main of the mother movement, is not a denomination of that movement but remains a sect based on the heterodoxy of its beliefs.
CyberAnth 09:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who determines who is heterodox? In most cases the largest movement sees smaller movements as heterodox. Andries 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
