 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
In religion and sociology, a cult is a group with a religious or philosophical identity, often existing on the margins of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.
In English-speaking countries since about the 1960s, especially in North America, the term cult has taken on a pejorative and sometimes offensive connotation. This largely originated with highly publicized cults which were widely believed to exploit their members psychologically and financially, or which were accused of group-based persuasion and conversion techniques. These techniques, include "brainwashing", ""thought reform", "love bombing", and "mind control". The discourse on whether these techniques offer a better explanation for conversion, following Occam's Razor, than ordinary social influence, manipulation and deception and whether they are in use, effective, or whether these techniques are valid or in existwnce, is addressed for each within its own article.
As typified by many of the widely-publicized North American cults from the 1960s and later, the quintessential modern cult is thought to be religion taken to the extreme, usually characterized by high levels of dependency and obedience to the cult's leadership; by separation from family and non-believers; and by the infiltration of religion into nearly every aspect of daily life.
Beginning in the 1980s, a movement among conservative and fundamentalist Christians has sought to expand the meaning of cult to include groups practising unique forms of Christianity, whose marginality within society remains highly controversial. Because of the increasingly pejorative connotation of the word cult, most members of these groups find the word offensive when applied to them. See anti-cult movement. On the other hand, some skeptics have questioned the distinction between a cult and a mainstream religion. They say that the only difference between a cult and a religion is that the latter is older and has more followers and, therefore, seems less controversial because society has become used to it.
| Contents |
The literal and traditional meanings of the word cult, which are more fully explored at the entry Cult (religion), derive from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration," as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same." In French or Spanish, culte or culto simply means "worship" or "religious attendance"; thus an association cultuelle is an association whose goal is to organize religious worship and practices, a concept quite distinct from that of an association culturelle or "cultural association". The word for "cult" is secte (French) or secta (Spanish). (See false cognate.) In German or Russian the word sekta (sect) has a slightly different meaning than the English word cult in addition to the German word Sekte. In formal English use, and in non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a case where English speakers might use the word "sect". Hence Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are cults within Christianity. In English, it remains perfectly neutral to refer to the "cult of Artemis at Ephesus" and the "cult figures" that accompanied it, or to "the importance of the Ave Maria in the cult of the Virgin."
Although anti-cult activists and scholars did not agree on precise criteria that new religions should meet to be considered "cults," two of the definitions formulated by anti-cult activists are:
The problem with defining the word cult is that (1) purported cult members generally resist being called a cult, and (2) the word cult is often used to marginalize religious groups with which one does not agree or sympathize. Some serious researchers of religion and sociology prefer to use terms such as new religious movement (NRM) in their research on cults. Such usage may lead to confusion because some religious movements are "new" but not necessarily cults, and some purported cults are not religious or overtly religious. Where a cult practises physical or mental abuse, psychologists and other mental health professionals use the terms cult, abusive cult, or destructive cult. The popular press also commonly uses these terms. However, not all cults function abusively or destructively, and among those that psychologists believe are abusive, few members would agree that they suffer abuse. Other researchers like David V. Barrett hold the view that classifying a religious movement as a cult is generally used as a subjective and negative label and has no added value; instead, he argues that one should investigate the beliefs and practices of the religious movement. [9]
Some groups, particularly those labeled by others as cults, view the designation as insensitive, and feel persecuted by their opponents whom they often believe to be part of the "anti-cult movement", the existence of which is disputed.
Such groups often defend their position by comparing themselves to more established, mainstream religious groups such as Catholicism and Judaism. The argument offered in this case can usually be simplified as, "Christianity and Judaism can also be defined as cults under some definitions of the term, and therefore the term cult is superfluous and useless." Members of groups referred to as cults have been known to engage in long discussions over the definition of the word "cult." Critics of alleged cult groups state that by doing so, these persons have been known to waste large amounts of time and effort that would be better spent examining the actions of the groups in question, in order to reveal why these groups are referred to as cults.
Another problem with writing about cults comes about because they generally hold belief systems that give answers to questions about the meaning of life and morality. This makes it difficult not to write in biased terms about a certain cult, because writers are rarely neutral about these questions. Some writers who deal with the subject choose to explicitly state their ethical values and belief systems to deal with this difficulty.
For many scholars and professional commentators, the usage of the word "cult" applies to maleficent or abusive behavior, and not to a belief system. For members of competing religions, use of the word remains pejorative and applies primarily to rival beliefs (see memes), and only incidentally to behavior.
In the sociology of religion, the term cult is a part of the subdivision of religious groups into sects, cults, denominations and ecclesias. In these terms, it is a neutral term, referring to a religious movement with novel beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society. Cults, in this sense, may or may not be dangerous, abusive, etc. By this definition, most of the groups which have been popularly labeled cults are indeed cults.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines cult as:
Lloyd Eby calls this definition problematic, because:
This definition is entirely subjective: it means that if you think a religion is unorthodox, then you will call it a cult.
Indeed, any religion involving unconditional worship and unquestioning obedience to God could be labelled as a cult (using the pejorative connotation of the word), since such a religion would have that high level of dependency, obedience, and unwavering compliance ascribed to cults by definition. Many mainstream religions still require their members to believe in God unquestioningly, to have faith that he is good and that what he does is good (even in light of problems of theodicy that make it reasonable to question this), to consider one's own wants and needs as unimportant while accepting the will of God as paramount. All of these are certainly characteristics commonly attributed to cults, but while it would not be unreasonable to apply this definition of a cult to any dogmatic religion that requires strict compliance with God's word and will as a condition of membership, the notion of applying the word "cult" to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other major world religion today is considered absurd. There are those (e.g., Maltheists) who make this very claim: that those who worship God fit the classic depiction of cult members in their dogmatism, unswerving obedience, and denial of self. This highlights the problematic nature of defining what is and is not a cult.
The stigma surrounding the classification of a group as as a cult stems from the narratives of purported ill effect the group's influence has on its members. These narratives, include threats presented by a cult to its members (whether real or perceived), and risks to the physical safety of its members and to their mental and spiritual growth. Much of the actions taken against cults and alleged cults have been in reaction to members of the organization experiencing harm due to their affiliation with the groups in question. However, not all cults are dangerous (as members of alleged cult groups have taken pains to emphasize). Over a period of time, some minority religious organizations that were at one point in time considered cults have been accepted by mainstream society, such as Mormonism, Christian Science in the USA, and the Amish. Certain fringe groups have demonstrated by their actions that they do pose a threat to the well-being of both their own members and to society in general; these organizations are often referred to as destructive cults.
It is worth noting that inspite the emphasis on narratives of "doomsday cults" by the media and the counter-cult movement, the number of cults that fall under that category are approximately ten, which is very little when compared with the total number of new religious movements worldwide, which E. Barker estimates to be tens of thousands10.
There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine what groups turn into destructive cults, if at all, nor is there such a way to determine what groups will harm its members. In spite of that, popular but generally non-scientific cult checklists try to predict the probablity of harm. One checklist by Eileen Barker claims to be based on empirical research.
According to Barrett the most common accusation made against "cults" is sexual abuse.
The terms "cult" and "cult leader" are used pejoratively by anti-cultist to suggest that these are to be detested, avoided at all costs and feared. A website affiliated with Adi Da Samraj [3] (http://www.firmstand.org/) sees this as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them in the same manner as "nigger" and "commie" were used in the past to denigrate blacks and Communists.
According to Barker (1989), the biggest worry about possible harm concerns the relatively few dedicated followers of a new religious movement (NRM). It generally does not concern the many superficial, or short-lived, or peripheral supporters of a NRM. Membership in a cult usually does not last forever: 90% or more of cult members ultimately leave their group [2,4]
According to Barret, leaving a cult can be difficult for some members and may include a certain amount of trauma. These reasons include conditioning by the religious movement, avoidance of uncertainties about life and its meaning, having had powerful religious experiences, devotion for the founder of the religion, emotional investment, fear of losing salvation, bonding with other members, anticipation of the realization that time, money and efforts donated to the religious movement were a waste, and the new freedom with its corresponding responsibilities, especially for people who lived in a community.
According to Barker members of NRMs can become very disillusioned when they come to the conclusion that what they believed in was fake; and some former members may not take new iniatives after disaffiliation from the NRM.
By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported cults existed in the United States in 1995. [6] While some of the more well-known and influential of these groups are frequently labelled as cults, the majority of these groups vigorously protest the label and refuse to be classified as such, and often expend great efforts in public relations campaigns to rid themselves of the stigma of the term cult.
In order to maintain a neutral point of view towards controversial groups, a list of purported cults presents a listing of groups labeled as cults by various non-related, reasonably unbiased sources.
In many countries exist a separation of church and state and freedom of religion. Some governments are however worried about cults and have taken restrictive measures against some of their activities. Those measures were generally motivated by various crimes committed inside cults, especially by a string of murderous incidents involving doomsday cults circa 1995. However, critics of those measures argue that the counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement have succeeded in influencing goverments in transferring the public's abhorrence of doomsday cults against all small or new religious movements without discrimination.
In Belgium, the Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Cults submitted a report to the Belgian Parliament in 1997 that included a list of 189 organizations that it labeled "cults". The list covered a wide range of religious groups, including the Amish Mission in Belgium, Buddhist groups, Opus Dei, some Evangelical Christian denominations, Hasidic Judaism, Quakers, and Satanists.
The Quakers complained to Deputy Prime Ministers about their inclusion on the list, pointed out their humanitarian aid programs, and requested to see the evidence against them which had been presented the federal police in a closed session to the Parliamentary Commission. They were unsuccessful in their appeal.
An extreme form of measures against "cults" is the case of Falun Gong in China. The government of the People's Republic of China consider Falun Gong a dangerous cult and seeks to dismantle it; Falun Gong followers have been jailed, and occurrences of torture have been reported. Many anti-cult activists feel that, even if Falun Gong deserves the negative connotations associated with the term cult, the Chinese government took disproportionate measures against it.
The People's Republic of China has also engaged in repression against Buddhist worshippers, especially monks and nuns, in Tibet, on suspicions that they work for the end of the Chinese domination of Tibet and the return of the Dalai Lama as ruler of Tibet.
Controversies have erupted concerning the reaction of various foreign governments with respect to the Chinese anti-Falun Gong and anti-Tibetan actions, or, rather, the lack thereof.[4] (http://bahai-library.com/newspapers/090500-4.html)
According to the CESNUR, French anti-cultist organizations such as the CCMM (Center Against Mind Control), the European federation of anti-cult movements FECRIS and Alain Vivien (president of the French governmental Mission to Fight Cults, now disbanded) attended a colloquium organized by the Chinese government on the topic of cults. Some interpret this as assisting the Chinese government in what some consider is state-persecution of religious minorities in China. Controversy has also erupted in France regarding the security measures that the French government has deployed for official visits of Chinese officials, including the exclusion of pro-Tibet and pro-Falun Gong protesters from the path of the Chinese officials [5] (http://www.tibet.fr/jiang_zemin_en_france.htm).
France has investigated some movements considered to be cults and passed a law (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=JUSX9903887L) (often known as the About-Picard law) making it easier to prosecute organizations for repeated criminal activities of their management, as well as criminalizing the abuse of psychologically weakened persons.
The About-Picard law was established following the second wave of suicides by members of the Order of the Solar Temple in 1995. The general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) compiled a list of religious organizations considered the be cults under various criteria, which was reprinted inside a parliamentary report (http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html). Although this list has no statutory or regulatory value, it is at the background of the criticism that some groups direct at France with respect to freedom of religion. The initial draft of this law included references to "mental manipulation"; in its final version these were replaced by references to "techniques likely to alter judgment". Critics of this law assert that this is a merely semantic change and that there are no empirical studies that support claims of use of techniques of coercive persuasion by NRMs[6] (http://www.theology.homestead.com/Papers.html).
The Picard law raised concerns of violation of religious freedoms; some groups declared their intention to sue in the European Court of Human Rights to have it declared in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
A petition was submitted to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly by 40 different religious and human rights groups. That petition resulted in a Rapporteur (official parliamentary investigator) being appointed to investigate the bill and religious discrimination in France. In September 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued a declaration as follows:
Some groups sought the help of foreign governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France.[7] (http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol32I1/page14.htm)[8] (http://bahai-library.com/newspapers/090500-4.html) In the United States, the Church of Scientology utilized pressure groups against the French government, and had some success with the Clinton administration, which repeatedly brought the matter before the French government.[9] (http://www.antisectes.net/monde-usa.htm)
The French government, when challenged on the issue of religious discrimination, claims to not to be concerned in any way with religious doctrine per se, but with the concrete consequences of cult affiliation, especially with respect to children, in the light of past abuse committed in some criminal cults (sexual slavery and mass suicide). None of the criteria listed in all government documents on sects discuss theology in any way; they only focus on the actions and the methods of the groups.
France, by law, does not grant official recognition to any religion.[10] (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/MCEBW.htm) However, voluntary associations organizing religious worship may register as such and get significant tax exemptions set by law. These exemptions are only granted to organizations whose sole purpose is to organize religious worship, and who do not infringe on "public order". Such determinations are covered by an extensive body of jurisprudence which focuses on the activities of the associations and do not take religious doctrine into account. Religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses have complained that some of their local groups are granted tax exemptions, while some others were not. [11] (http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/france/english/releases/religious_freedom/fra_e000623.htm)
The German federal government does not accept Scientology's claim to be a religion but asserts that it is a business disguised as a religion and puts restrictions on its activities. [12] (http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html). The United States Congress failed to pass a resolution in 1997 related to "discrimination by the German Government against members of minority religious groups" that mentioned only Scientology related examples of discrimination [13] (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/congress1.html).
In the United Kingdom a charity named INFORM was founded in 1988 by professor Eileen Barker of the London School of Economics, with the funding from the Home Office and the support of mainstream Churches. According to their website, their primary aim is "... to help people through providing them with accurate, balanced, up-to-date information about new and/or alternative religious or spiritual movements."[14] (http://www.inform.ac/infmain.html)
INFORM patrons includes Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (Greek Ortodox Church) and Bishop Charles Henderson (Roman Catholic Church Bishop), Lord Ralph Dahrendorf and Lord Meghnad Desai.
The United States Department of State's travel warning for India mentions "inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader". [15] (http://travel.state.gov/travel/india.html) Upon request they confirm that they refer to the guru Sathya Sai Baba. [16] (http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200406/1086748975.html)
| Cult | Destructive cult | Purported cults | Cult checklists | |
| Cult of personality | Propaganda | Charismatic authority | Communal reinforcement | Faith | Mind control | |
| Christian countercult movement | Anti-cult movement | Exit counseling | Thought reform | Deprogramming |
Edit (http://en.BambooWeb.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Cults&action=edit) |
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
