Talk:Cult/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

See article cult , older archives talk:Cult/archive1 talk:Cult/archive2

(moved from User talk:David Gerard)

You wrote:

No, it's because they're something to apply when there's clearly pathological behaviour occurring. Like the DSM-IV - you could fit mentally healthy people to its criteria, but that's a misapplication, because for a lot of the stuff in it, if it isn't a problem then it isn't a problem

Both of these ideas seem like circular definitions to me:

  • a cult is a group which has the characteristics in this cult checklist
  • a mental illness is a category mention in DSM-IV.

This would mean that homosexuality really was a mental illness when it was listed in DSM, but that it became okay when they voted to take it out. I don't think either you or I believes that being listed in (or taken out of) DSM changes the factuality of the assertion of that homosexuality is a disorder (see reparative therapy or SADD).

The article on cults needs to explain WHY a group having some or all of the characteristics in any of the checklists would be spurious or destructive. If somebody has studied groups like People's Temple, etc., and found that they tended to have certain features in common, then we should name that person, and tell readers how the research was conducted.

We also need some explanation about whether groups which have historically proven NOT to be destructive, or which have gained wide mainstream acceptance as spiritually GENUINE, share any "cult" features. We could start with a simple example:

Roman Catholics follow the pope, who answers to no earthly authority. In fact, their church headquarters has its own sovereign territory and even a (token) army! We need to explain what having a leader who answers to no one indicates about a religious group, especially how it shows that the group is likely or unlikely to commit murder. And so on.

Want to help with this? --Uncle Ed 19:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"This would mean that homosexuality really was a mental illness when it was listed in DSM, but that it became okay when they voted to take it out." - No, it would mean that the patient thought it was but that they could then be told it wasn't.
I do keep an eye on the article and will probably weigh in at some point.
By the way, it has the all-time worst intro section I've seen on a Wikipedia article. Not just crap, but actively bad. You weren't involved, were you? - David Gerard 21:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
LOL. Which article, homosexuality or cult? I've been in both, er, I mean, well, you know... --Uncle Ed 21:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the current intro is not good. We desperately need more good, knowledgeable authors on this complicated subject. May be the French article should be translated, which I find quite good. I am a bit worried that Ed goes too far in belittling the difference between mainstream religions and the possible harm of cults involvement. At least NRMs are more unpredictable than mainstream religions and the intensity of member's involvement in the NRM is generally much bigger. That combination alone can be a cause for possible harm and hence is a reason for worry and healthy skepticism. Andries 21:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with your observation, Andries. But do not forget the Crusades, Inquisition, Islamic Fundamentalism et cetera. When an NRM is involved in some crime, quote usually it's just several members of a group that has several thousand members, so perhaps it is natural for external observers to assume that this is a coordinated criminal activity taking place. When we read about rapes in an Army (well, there are a lot of rapes taking place each year in the military, as you know), we tend to assume these are isolated incidents. Besides, NRM don't have such level of government support or legal/PR shielding like armies or large corporations. We may argue about Scientology and similar prosperous groups, but the scale is different anyway. And 90% of accusations deal with non-criminal "harm", such as separation from family or something like that, very emotional things are being said but is it really much different with many mainstream religiouns? Take Catholic priests with their celibate. Probably the difference is not that large. - ExitControl
We also need coverage of non-religious cults, e.g. in political groups (small terrorist groups, for example). I vaguely recall referable study of this stuff. Because cultishness is not actually about religion, it seems to be about the group dynamic. THOUGH I WOULDN'T SAY SO IN THE ARTICLE WITHOUT A REFERENCE. - David Gerard 07:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Andries, I like what you said about intensity and unpredictability. Catholic nuns and monks conduct a intense but predictable lifetstyle; perhaps that's why convents and monasteries are never (or very rarely) called "cults". There's a well-know career path for becoming a group member: novice, initiate, etc. There's even a famous movie -- The Sound of Music -- whose plot hinges on a young lady's decision NOT to become a nun (she leaves the convent with the mother superior's blessing and marries a sailor!). --Uncle Ed 15:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Meaningless paragraph

I removed a paragraph saying that certain countries (with a list of specific countries) gave total freedom to cults as long as they did not break laws. This is largely meaningless, because intolerant countries will probably draft laws that cults would break (for instance, laws against conversions from the state religion, or laws restricting the practice of religion to some official religion, or some official religion plus tolerated religions, as in Iran). What could perhaps be more meaningful would be saying that certain countries do not have laws regulating beliefs and religious practice per se and do not engage in legal action against cults, or other repressive measures, as long as they do not breach non-religious laws (for instance, laws against crimes against people or crime against property). Still, this would make the list highly irrelevant, since this is the case of most developed countries (I believe it includes the whole European Union, as well as the United States). David.Monniaux 20:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Checklists

I moved the cult checklists to a new article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Andries for adding the following:

There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine what groups will turn into destructive cults, nor is there such a way to determine what groups will harm its members. In spite of that, popular but non-scientific cult checklists try to predict the probablity of harm.

I like the phrase popular but non-scientific. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Axiomatic statement reverted by User:Andries

My statement: "Uncritical acceptance of any party line and unthinking obedience to any leader is a danger to a democracy, no matter how respectable or established the cult." is an axiomatic statement derived from the understood connotations of democracy, critical thought, and cult. There seems to be a continuing confusion about cult, linking it to number of members. Perhaps the confusion is essential to some agenda I'm unaware of. Andries challenges me to "find a quote" to justify this obvious statement. What does the neutral reader think?Wetman 00:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral readers with regards to cults? Let me know if you found one. :) Andries 00:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note to Wetman. The founding fathers of American democracy did not agree with you (see First Amendment). They explicitly allowed for citizens to retain uncritical acceptance and obedience to religions. Our readers would be interested to know of a source which agrees with your 'axiomatic' statement. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What this entry needs is a report on cult as analyzed by Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark --not an amateur's suggestion that the US Constitution authorizes the suppression of information as a religious prerogative. Let us discuss cult at Wikipedia, not demonstrate its effects. Wetman 21:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I glanced at the book and saw that I discusses altered state of consciousness and mystical experience. Yes, this is a subject that is missing in the cult article. In some NRMs these experiences reinforce the belief systems. Andries 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing in US law requires any person, when discussing his religion, to mention any particular aspect of it. When evangelizing, for example, a missionary is free to present his religion any way he chooses. "Come join us, and you'll have no more troubles!" is not considered false advertising, even if you'd like it to be. Because commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment in the same way that religious speech is.

Now, if you'd like to add something to the article about advocacy to change these laws in the US, or about laws in other countries, please do so. I know that there are countries with atheism as an official ideology, which suppress and/or regulate religious speech (China springs to mind, but it's not the only one); likewise, several Islamic countries have severe restrictions on non-Muslims "sharing" their faith. My friend John has the cigarette burns on his body to prove it (ask him about his experiences in our 'ally' Kuwait sometime). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Legal action before the European Court of Human Rights

I'm somehow skeptical about this alleged complaint against the Picard law before the European Court of Human Rights. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to complain before this court about a law per se; it is only possible to complain against some specific application of the law where some specific person was harmed by some alleged violation of his or her rights. Furthermore, I'm skeptical that, since the alleged action was started, the case shouldn't have been settled.

It is a customary practice of various pressure groups to claim they will take their matter to litigation or some international court, without much of a case for doing so. We should not be repeating their declarations without some fact checking.

I'd be inclined to suppress the affirmation that this law is under review by the ECHR until somebody points out to a specific case. David.Monniaux 13:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read "Religious Freedom and the European Court of Human Rights", by Francois-Henri Briard, France delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millenium" in Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998 --Zappaz 23:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I read this text and it answers neither question: 1) whether it is possible to attack a law per se, or a law after specific actions motivated by the law were undertaken (the latter is the case of the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance) 2) whether the case is still on the court docket (I find it difficult to believe that such a case could be still left unjudged 6 years or so after the law).
Can you point to a relevant text? David.Monniaux 07:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If nobody can point to a serious source establishing that a case against France about the About-Picard law is still pending before ECHR, I'll remove the statement from the text. We do not even have a reference for any lawsuit! David.Monniaux 22:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am looking for a good reference. I believe that the challenge was based on a Article 9, 11 and 14 of the ECHR as follows: --Zappaz 22:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9.1-Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
11.1-Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
14-The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
David, in looking for that reference, I found is this: --Zappaz 22:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A petition was submitted to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly from 40 different religious and human rights groups. (This is a Europe-wide legislative body made up of representatives from 52 European nations for the purpose of ensuring consistent government policy across the continent.) That petition resulted in a Rapporteur (official parliamentary investigator) being appointed to investigate the bill and religious discrimination in France. and
  • Among the groups who have opposed the bill are: The Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic leaders of France, the U.S. Department of State, International Helsinki Federation, Human Rights Without Frontiers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (which is investigating the bill and religious discrimination in France), the U.S. International House Relations Committee, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, Omnium Des Libertes (French human rights group) and the Center for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR)
Other info: --Zappaz 23:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • a Commission des Affaires Juridiques du Conseil de l'Europe a nommé un rapporteur pour examiner le projet de loi About-Picard et ses implications au regard de la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme. Dans une déclaration écrite en date du 26 avril 2001 (déclaration n°321), avant le vote en deuxième lecture à l'assemblée nationale, cinquante parlementaires du Conseil de l'Europe demandaient le report du vote pour permettre aux élus français de prendre connaissance du rapport du Conseil de l'Europe sur cette loi. and
  • La loi About-Picard sur les mouvements sectaires est contraire à la recommandation 1412 du Conseil de l'Europe qui, sur le même sujet, invitait les états membres
    • à ne pas adopter de législation majeure pour les sectes " au motif que celle-ci risquerait de porter atteinte à la liberté de conscience et de religion garantie par l'article 9 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme ainsi qu'aux religions traditionnelles "
    • " à utiliser les procédures normales du droit pénal et civil contre les pratiques illégales menées au nom de groupes à caractère religieux, ésotérique ou spirituel "
    • " à créer ou à soutenir, si nécessaire, des centres nationaux ou régionaux d'information sur les groupes à caractère religieux, ésotérique ou spirituel qui soient indépendants de l'Etat "
    • " à encourager une approche des groupes religieux empreinte de compréhension, de tolérance, de dialogue et de résolution des conflits ".
  • Cette recommandation a été adoptée le 22 juin 1999 par l'assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe. Non seulement la France de l'a pas respectée jusqu'à maintenant, mais encore elle a choisi la voie opposée à celle préconisée.
None of this indicates a challenge before the ECHR, which is a court. What is discussed in those references is a referral before the parliamentary assembly of the CoE and a report written by a parliamentary commission of the CoE. Parliamentary resolution of the CoE are indicative.
Therefore, unless somebody can point to a real ECHR case, I'll remove the statement. We currently give that there are still cases pending, whereas we do not even have a single shred of evidence that any recourse was ever submitted! David.Monniaux 07:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support from the Clinton administration for Scientology and others

David, please provide references to your claim about the Church of Scientology seeking support from the US government. It seems to me, yet again, to be an unsubstantiated opinion. --Zappaz 16:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References may be easily obtained from Google! I pasted a number of them. David.Monniaux 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's one: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/congress1.html --Modemac 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Also, Congressman Sonny Bono was a well-known Scientologist who promoted the extensions of copyright laws.
Oh, and here's another: Scientology gets a U.S. congressman to write a letter of protest to the government of Sweden regarding the case of Zenon Panoussis: http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d1dd/cos/pan35.html --Modemac 01:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
David, first you wrote "support of the US Government", when actually it was a singular Congress resolution and a UN statement warning against the UN charter for freedom of religion. Your thrid reference is an email, hardly substantive. I find your generalizations inapropriate and without basis. Exactly the kind of thing that you opposed when discussing generalization made against France. --Zappaz 23:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I said that these groups sought the help of the US Government, not implying that they obtained consistent and total support for a long period of time. A statement at the UN, a Congress resolution, and pressures from then SecState Madeleine Albright (see listed articles) are acts of support from the US government. David.Monniaux 07:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, David. Writing that the "support of the US government" shows a lack of understanding of US politics and governance and assumes a blanket of support for COS that is unwarranted. I am adding some text to clarify this. --Zappaz 08:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am well aware of how the US government operates and the important power of pressure groups (lobbyists) and campaign contributors. As I clearly pointed out, they sought to obtain support, and they did obtain some limited support.
Of course, this does not imply some consistent and blanket support from the US government; I never claimed that US foreign policy was wholly dictated by the C.O.S, just that it had managed to get some advantages from the Clinton administration.
I remember reading that Chirac, once, told Madeleine Albright that he would hear no more of it after she had bothered him for the umpteenth time about these alleged persecutions. David.Monniaux 11:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Zappaz on this. Fixed the text to explain this issue in a better way. Hope you agree with the edit. ≈ jossi ≈


I changed the countries into alphabetical order

For the rest of the section, I only made a minor change to the "China" sub section. Oh and can somebody help with the cult checklist? They need to be referenced again (references were lost during cut and paste job) and put into context. Andries 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Germany

I remember having seen a government document that gives warnings about cults but now I can not find it anymore so that is why I deleted the remark that Germany gives general warning about cults. Andries 22:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fresh start

The pre nov_17 version was hopelessly mired in assumptions. I thought it would be best to start fresh. The old versions are in the page history, of course.

Key points to remember:

  • the word "cult" means "a religion regarded as spurious" - so we must always keep in mind WHO is applying the "cult" label
  • there are two major classifications of "cult": heretical off-shoots of established religions, and those that are totally brand-new
  • there is also the distinction between people who brand a group as a "cult" because they disagree with that group's religious teachings (i.e., we think they are heretics) -- and people who think the leadership just made the whole thing up to get rich or something

There is also the whole issue of recruitment techniques. Do any of these labeled groups engage in unusual or unethical methods of attracting, training or retaining members.

I'm also not sure at all what info belongs in the cult article and what should be in the New religious movement (NRM) article. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for reformatting the article and even doing a fresh re-write if necessary. However, this has not yet been agreed on by the people who've put a substantial amount of work into this article. If you really want to wipe it out and start over, we should go through a Wikipedia request for discussion or even vote for deletion. --Modemac 22:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Modemac; wiping even a crappy article raises too many editors' hackles. Rather than RfD or VfD, though, I think this is an excellent place to use a /temp article, to start fresh there and show what can be done as an alternative, while maintaining the reassuring status quo with the current "online" article. Worked for Uri Geller and Prem Rawat. --Gary D 22:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I bow to the majority. Let's put my version into cult/temp. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 00:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, please keep or expand the references in the temp version, (which are not assumptions). It took me and other people quite a lot of effort to collect them and removing them makes the article worse. Oh, and we also need a section cults and media. We wrote together one, remember but I was quite new to Wikipedia at that time and the section was removed because it was unreferenced. Thanks Andries 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

oh, and another thing. We do not need (opposing) opinions in this article or the NRM article but we want facts so I hope that someone can go to a university library and study the relevant articles based on empirical research there. If you need a list of relevant articles then let me know. Andries 02:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that there are basically four different sets of reasons why certain groups are branded "cults":

  1. established religions consider them as illegitimate off-shoots, or only consider as legitimate religions a limited list
  2. the organization, the actions of the "cult" organization (leadership that apparently enriches itself from the faithful, prescription of dangerous activities etc.)
  3. anticlericalism (people who may otherwise adopt a more conciliatory tone with respect to established religion may be harsher when it comes to smaller movements)
  4. traditionalism and conformism.

It is very important to distinguish these various reasons because various groups of people and governments have different reasons from opposing "cults". All too often, anti-cult activity is described as conformism and theological opposition and intolerance from established religion (1 and 4), whereas it comes from 2. Conversely, anti-cult activities may pretend to be motivated by 2, whereas they are motivated by 3, 4 or even 1. David.Monniaux 10:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David, good analysis. Please read A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups Eileen Barker (London School of Economics) Andries


It's also necessary to mention the dispute over the label "cult" itself, and that's where a lot of the problems with this article originate. A few things are worth mentioning about this:

  1. Very few groups willingly accept the label "cult," and most will vigorously deny such a term -- even when a large number of different, unrelated outside sources use that term to describe them.
  2. Much of the blathering over "what is a cult?" is tailored in such a fashion that such-and-such a group is *not* described as a cult. I.E. "It's possible to define Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as cults, and it's just as unfair to label them as cults as it is to label our group."
  3. In a similar fashion, a number of groups put a great emphasis on the suggestion that anti-cult groups are working round the clock to destroy them. This is suggested in this very article, with its mentioning of the "evil anti-cult conspiracy and its agenda to destroy poor, innocent, persecuted new religious movements." (I'm obviously paraphrasing here, to describe what I think is implied and suggested in many of the definitions of "cult groups" and "anti-cult groups." --Modemac 12:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, David, Modemac and Andries for your comments. All were constructive and beneficial.

David, I had completely forgotten the "2 for" thing: motivation which is really pretense. (I've been "assuming good faith" for so long here at Wikipedia that I may perhaps be excused for this lapse ;-)

Nearly 30 years ago, Rev. Moon said:

The Christian churches are fearful. They feel their establishment will be taken over, their land and structures may be taken over; their young people may become members of the Unification Church. So, in fear of losing their young people they are very defensive. In order to defend themselves, the best thing, as has always been the case throughout history, is to paint the worst possible picture of their opponent's doctrine and method of operation. (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk) [1]

Also, there is evidence (or at least suspicion) that some "deprogrammers" may be motivated by something other than a sincere belief that they are rescuing hapless victims from sophisticated purveyors of mind control.

Andries, of course I'll keep all your references; you worked hard to find them. I'd like to read some more of the articles you have found.

Modemac, the labelling issue is indeed tricky. Please help me to work on that; I'm not sure I have enough objectivity here, since I object to accusations that my church is "spurious". I will try to remember to "write for the enemy", and as always on this issue I will continue to seek counsel from other contributors to make sure I don't lapse into one-sided condemnation of those, er, uh, ... hmm, my keyboard seems to be preventing me from typing anything insulting today.... --user:Ed Poor (talk) 14:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, before I get accused again of taking credits for things I did not do, the vast majority of the references were collected by other contributors. Andries
The Christian churches are fearful. They feel their establishment will be taken over, their land and structures may be taken over; their young people may become members of the Unification Church. So, in fear of losing their young people they are very defensive. In order to defend themselves, the best thing, as has always been the case throughout history, is to paint the worst possible picture of their opponent's doctrine and method of operation. (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk) [2]

Also, there is evidence (or at least suspicion) that some "deprogrammers" may be motivated by something other than a sincere belief that they are rescuing hapless victims from sophisticated purveyors of mind control.

Andries, of course I'll keep all your references; you worked hard to find them. I'd like to read some more of the articles you have found.

Modemac, the labelling issue is indeed tricky. Please help me to work on that; I'm not sure I have enough objectivity here, since I object to accusations that my church is "spurious". I will try to remember to "write for the enemy", and as always on this issue I will continue to seek counsel from other contributors to make sure I don't lapse into one-sided condemnation of those, er, uh, ... hmm, my keyboard seems to be preventing me from typing anything insulting today.... --user:Ed Poor (talk) 14:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, before I get accused again of taking credits for things I did not do, the vast majority of the references were collected by other contributors. Andries


"Sect" and "Cult"

These quite separate terms are hopelessly entangled (not accidentally) at Wikipedia, where cult even has two competing articles: cult and destructive cult, as if to suggest there were a non-destructive kind of cult, in this sense of the term. Newness and size have nothing to do with whether a religious group or "sect" is a cult or not. Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good. No authoritarian religion is wholly free from "cult" in this modern sense. In the cultural atmosphere of Wikipedia, no frank article on cult is possible. --Wetman 17:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will all due respect, Wetman, your distinction regarding "individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good" assumes several misconceptions:
  1. that individuals do not have the power of distiction and the ability to make choices
  2. that you (or anyone for that matter) can judge what is an "good for an individual"
Has anyone ever followed the phrase "with all due respect" with any authentic respect? Precisely when individuals have lost the power of distinction and the ability to make rational choices in their own best interests, we detect the effects of cult. We judge what is good for an individual dispassionately all the time, based on the individual's health and actions.
Both these assertions are the foundation of the anti-cult movement, a strange stage in which the nuveau left and the far-right in the form of the established religions together with a group of self-appointed "experts" dance hand in hand.
Note the shift to direct attention to the labels.
I agree that there are groups that are destructive in nature (regarding which these groups are), but to bunch these groups with others that promote peace, understanding and human dignity, is fallacious and carrying an agenda that is very transparent: intolerance. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Notice that the avowed aims of cults have actually been meticulously avoided in the Wetman definition. (notes by Wetman 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC))
Jossi, of course people sometimes do not have the power to make good choices. Look how the German people voted for Hitler in 1932 due to his propaganda and manipulation. And millions of people were or are still followers (incl. me and the former prime minister of India) of the criminal, charlatan guru Sathya Sai Baba who preaches peace and non-violence. This has harmed me. And the anti-cult movement does not say what is good for the individual. It only says that some movements are bad. And by the way the anti cult movement consists of ex-members of cults too. Andries 18:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno, I think we could all agree that the mass murder/suicide at Jonestown and the similar mass suicide at Heaven's Gate represent things that are not "good for an individual". You seem to be suggesting that up until the moment that the poison is actually swallowed (or forcibly administered, as at Jonestown) that no one else from the outside can possibly judge that the individual is on a dangerous course.
As for individuals having the power of distinction and the ability to make choices, of course individuals have that power and ability. However, they can also be deprived of that power and ability; if this were not the case, no cult would have the least reason to fear deprogrammers, since by definition a deprogrammer could never make an individual choose to leave a cult. Individuals can be deprived of the ability to make the best decisions for themselves by something as simple as restricting their access to information, or through social pressure. This is why, when a group declares to its members that it is spiritually or even physically harmful to read anything that portrays the group in a negative light, when members are ordered to disconnect from non-members of the group so that the social pressure on them will only come from group members, that group appears to be a cult, unlike other groups whose doctrine might be similar in all other respects. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course, of course. What I mean is that there are certain people that will use the Jonestown case and other destructive groups to cast a shadow over any group that is not mainstream. Read the anti-cult literature and you will see what I mean... anything that is not a mainstream religion or belief gets bunched together under "cult" or "sect", often in a peyorative manner. Look at the list of "purported cutls" here at WP... That is the point I am trying to make.
As for Andries' reference to nazi Germany, to say that all that was just because of propagand and manipulation is a reduccionist interpretation. It scares the heck out of me to think the ramifications of Andries' statement "people sometimes do not have the power to make good choices". ≈ jossi ≈ 19:35, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I do not know what you mean with a reductionist interpretation. Sometimes we have to face the historical and documented facts even if they are scary and painful. And believe me, they are scary and painful for me too. Andries 20:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Jossi, that's exactly what I don't see when I read "the anti-cult literature". It's what I often hear from people who are critical of the anti-cult movement; I hear that the anti-cult movement is full of uncritical bigotry, full of narrow minds who lump everything that isn't mainstream together under the pejorative label of "cult". However, it doesn't match my experience actually reading the anti-cult literature -- which a lot of the people criticizing its mistakes and announcing what it contains won't do, because it's forbidden or entheta to them. What I see when I read the anti-cult literature is exactly the opposite of what I'm assured I'll find there; instead of lumping everything together without examination under the label of "cult", there is examination of just what the criteria are that distinguish a 'sect' or a 'new religious movement' from a 'cult', and even a growing distinction being made between 'cult' and 'destructive cult'.
If the anti-cult movement was as it is portrayed by its enemies, then why isn't the anti-cult literature filled with attacks on the Free Zone? You assure me in good faith that anything that is not mainstream gets attacked in the anti-cult literature, but the Free Zone surely isn't mainstream; it's not even the mainstream of its own diversion from mainstream belief. According to your logic, anti-cult activists should be mounting just as many diatribes against the Free Zone as they do against the Church of Scientology: the Free Zone uses Hubbard's auditing, and Hubbard's Study Technology, so if it was being "non-mainstream" that made the anti-cult movement critically of you, then logically the loudest condemnations of the Free Zone should be coming from the anti-cult movement... instead of from Scientology, which casts itself as a defender of religious tolerance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not know enough about Scientology to comment on the abve, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:33, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The generalizations I refer to in the section below, includes these made by Antaeus: a lumping of all the sociologists, de-programmers, evangelists and others into something referred to as "the anti-cult" movement. --Zappaz 23:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I agree with you about the complexity of the issue and I think it is more accurate to use the expression active opponents of cults, sometimes lumped together under the term anti-cult movement. Andries 08:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that we use the term "anti-cult movement" in the article without qualifiers. I just think it's a term we can use here in discussion to represent the wide variety of voices who do get classified by that label, with the occasional reminder that the existence of the term does not mean the truth of the stereotype. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's true; just as it's possible for people to overgeneralize about cults, lumping together "any group that is not mainstream" and judging them all by the worst examples, it's certainly the case that many people have turned around and generalized every voice that has uttered caution on new religious movements or disapproval of such into one big amorphous entity called "the anti-cult movement", and judged them by the worst examples that can be found (and sometimes, it must be said, not even by the correct facts about those examples, but by wild fantasized rumors about them instead.)
But what is notable is that to a large extent, it is those specific people being held up as examples of the worst of "the anti-cult movement" who are the ones drawing distinctions between "new religious movements" and "cults", and between "cults" and "destructive cults." If you believed what you hear about Rick Ross from those who call him emblematic of that elusive, amorphous "anti-cult movement", you would think he was a raving bigoted enemy of all non-mainstream religions, an agent of the Inquisition who loves nothing more than to stomp on religious tolerance. One would never suspect that what you'd find instead in his writings is the caution that not all religious movements are cults, not all non-mainstream beliefs are cults, and that even those groups that qualify as cults are not always unsafe or destructive cults.
To quote Jossi, who I think is correct on this point, "to bunch [destructive] groups with others that promote peace, understanding and human dignity, is fallacious[.]" We should therefore be concentrating our efforts on those definitions which attempt the most precision about just what criteria separate destructive groups from groups that are not destructive, cultic groups from groups that are not cultic. Since there will inevitably be disagreements about whether these definitions are accurate, we can then cover the debates about accuracy in the article itself. But we should not abandon that attempt by announcing beforehand that an NPOV is not possible, and we should not commit the genetic fallacy of declaring certain definitions invalid because they come from people in that "anti-cult movement." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, I think Jossi is inaccurate. My former movement claimed to promote peace, understanding and human dignity but it had some very serious corpses in the coffin. How do you know that a group really promotes peace, understanding and human dignity and that these words are sincere and not a front for financial or sexual exploitation of followers? The worst of all, Jim Jones' people's temple promoted racial equality and did a lot of social work. Looks can be very deceiving. As the saying goes, even the devil can quote scriptures. Andries 23:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think Jossi's words are still accurate; we simply need to keep cognizant that the groups which really do promote peace, understanding and human dignity are not always the ones who claim most loudly that they promote peace, understanding and human dignity. I think we all acknowledge at the very least the possibility of destructive groups such as the People's Temple, and since no group, even the most destructive, wants to look like a destructive group, a destructive group will stress instead the good things that they do. And to give them credit, they may actually be sincere about those ideals, and may even be doing good in some of those areas -- but it doesn't stop the fact that they are also doing harm. I think this has brought up an important point: good intentions and the presence of good acts are not a disproof of cult status or destructive cult status. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a side answer: the law in most jurisdictions already recognizes the fact that adults may not be in a mental state suitable for making sound and informed judgment. For instance, the law usually provides for adult whose judgment is durably altered to be put under judicial or familial supervisions. Similarly, it is often a crime to abuse the confidence of some vulnerable people, especially the elderly (there are people who specialize in abusing elderly people). David.Monniaux 08:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My distinction between "sect" and "cult" makes no reference to what the cult professes ("world peace" or whatever), only to its relations with its individual members. Just as we cannot assess private piety, only public actions, we can assess this relation simply by its results: people unable to exit the group, children maimed or killed, buildings burned down, etc. Jossi has been taught that everyone remains free to make choices: psychologists would not agree. Editors who fear they are cult victims will quickly switch attention to particular examples, where we may all argue indefinitely: examples are invidious and should be kept out of the entry Cult. The other technique is to characterize others as "anti-cult" self-appointed "experts" etc. These labels and false logic are familiar aspects of cult indoctrination.
But can we return to the definition and see whether we can expand it and improve it, for the Wikipedia entry?
"Newness and size have nothing to do with whether a religious group or "sect" is a cult or not. Cult is identified by an unhealthy relation between an individual and a sect, in which the individual is socially and psychologically manipulated, not for the individual's good. No authoritarian religion is wholly free from "cult" in this modern sense." --Wetman 16:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Merge with NRM into Cults and new religious movements ?

Shall we merge this article with new religious movement into Cults and new religious movements? Like Ed Poor, I am confused what should go where. I will merge if I do not receive objections within one week.'' The section cults and government (esp. France) can be summarized here and go into a separate article to deal with the max. length constraint. Andries 10:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Responses to Andries proposal, copied from Talk:New religious movement

After what we went through at hate group, just because one single sentence, It gives me a headache to even consider such merge... I will not stop you from trying, though, but please note that the Cult page is now close to 30K, so merging will certainly exceed the alloted 32K. Also note that the Cult article has a very specific header that may limit what can go there. --Zappaz 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yow! The NRM article has been relatively stable, while the Cult articles have raged and raged. This would be bringing the POV battle bull into the quiet china shop. I would advise being very certain before deciding on this, and even then moving very slowly into such a volatile merge. --Gary D 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

- End copy

If you really intend to go forward with this merge, I would suggest that you merge into a temporary article and when done propose to be evaluated as an alternative to the current article status quo. IMO, it is a waste of time and effort to attempt this merge. It would be nice to have an explanation from you as for the reasons for your considering the need for such a merge. --Zappaz 15:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the subjects are so closely related. I think that alone is sufficient reason for a merge. Where most people would use the word cult, other people use the word NRM. Andries 15:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Definite, definite, definite, definite, definite objection! Sorry, Andries, but there is a substantial and significant number of people who use the word "cult" in a specific sense that is not a synonym of "new religious movement", nor a superset or subset either. To merge the two articles together merely muddies the waters about what those of us who don't mean "NRM" when we say "cult" do mean when we use that word. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)