Talk:Cult/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

a term or a sticky label

Let's just say in the article that "cult" is an offensive label. Cults are new religious movements that are believed to be "bad". Acceptable scientific term - NRMs. For a NRM to be "accuse of being a cult" is like for a Black American to be accused of being "dirty negro". The term serves no other purposes than derogatory. This is self-evident, so let's say it.

For example on inadequateness of this derogatory label, see NRMs, there's good example with ISSKON which is a "cult" in the US, while in India it is legitimate relogious group dating back to 1700s.

It also makes sense to state who invented the "cults": anti-cult activists. There is a separate article for them as well, let's make cross-references.

P.S. Do not be confused when you read that there is "scientific definition" of cults. There are anti-cult scholars that invent definitions and there are simply scholars that prefer the "new religious movement" term. The fact that some anti-cult activists are also scholars of new religions does not make the term scientific. Derogatory labels cannot be scientific, science is about objectivity.

Currently discussion looks like we can't agree on who's dirty negro. "Neil Armstron is surely not, but that ugly neighbor fits into the definition and deserved the term". Terms are terms, labels are labels. Terms are neutral, labels either praise or denigrate.

Example of terms: religious movement, corporation, political party, communist party member, Italian American Labels example: cult, extortion racket, subversive anti-American group, communist whacko, dago.

Will we rewrite the article accordingly?

Sect or cult

The article at present says:

The term which plays this role in Europe is "sect." In Europe, "cult" is a neutral or common appellation to refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, whereas "sect" and "denomination" are the terms which fill that purpose in North America.

I am not sure that "cult" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "sect," and I am also not sure that "sect" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "cult." I looked these terms up in http://www.xrefer.com and paid attention to the British references. I found no support for the view that "sect" in Britain means "extreme religious group" in Britain, and I found no support for the view that "cult" in Britain means something very close to what Americans mean by "sect."

See:

http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=592426&secid=.-

http://www1.oup.co.uk/elt/oald/ (look up "cult" and "sect")

Are you sure that by "Europe" you do mean English-speaking Europe (which is the part of Europe whose usage we care about...)?

In any case, we do want to have more info than just about the usage of the word. I mean, jeez...cargo cults, the practices of cults to get new members, brainwashing, etc. There's lots to write about there!

--LMS

The various germanic and romance-speaking countries in Europe, not English-speaking, have cognates for the English words. For instance, kulten and sekten in German (sekten also refers to sparkling wines, but in this context, to "sects.") and cultes and sectes in French. And the implications are reversed from the English usage.

Who cares? This article is in English, and the English words are "cult" and "sect."

Interestingly, English-speaking Europe, to me, is the British Isles which I don't actually count as part of Europe at all. Religious associations of all approved churches in France are referred to as "associations cultuelles." So, if you wanted to talk about fringe or questionable groups in Europe, you would use the word in each language which corresponds to "sect," and in North America, you would say "cult."

No, you wouldn't. You would use the corresponding word in the non-English language. :-)

Intolerance

So my point was to make it clear that when a European newspaper is translated into English for our benefit and the word "sect" appears, it is pejorative. Not so, the word "cult."

As far as a treatment of the subject in-toto, that is a maze I do not care to enter at the moment. Factually, the modern North-American usage of "cult" is itself a politico-cultural phenomenon fraught with hate, ignorance and intolerance. Those who claim the authority to write on "cults" are outside the mainstream of religion, sociology and psychology, (except fundmentalist Christians, many of whom have jumped onto the "cult" bandwagon with both feet) and are coining and redefining their terms all the time. They speak of phenomena of mental persuasion which appear only in their own books ("snapping," "milleu control," etc.), and everything from the American Socialist Party to the Old Catholic Church qualifies as a "cult." One man's cult is another's religion, and vice-versa. There are a couple of very well-researched and accurately written sites on the web which touch on this phenomenon, and it takes them page after page just to cover the basics of the arguments on both sides (religioustolerance.org and beliefnet) I could never hope to condense that quality of work into a readily digestible article.

I think the new version is a little more complete and arguably more accurate. If time permits (hmmmm - no huge chance of that) I will attempt to get together an actual article which exposits the current scene vis a vis "cults." --- Well, Primerica is a cult. U.S. Army is also a cult, there is "mind control" in place and for trying to escape you may be shot.

Larry's ancient plea

Please do, but bear in mind the neutral point of view, please. --LMS

Transcendental Meditation

I think the reference to Trascendental Meditation as a cult in which all members have a relationship to Maharishi is incorrect. I have been doing TM for thirty years and have never had a "relationship" to Maharishi. I know many others like me. I will do a little more research on this topic and be back. --John Knight

- Great, John Knight. It is great to have a couple of "victims" like you and me to fight back against the idiocy.

With regards to the TM comment, what I meant to say (I don't know if I said it wrong originally, or if someone else editted what I said) was that most individual participants only had a relationship with their meditation teacher and participated in little communal activity. Of course, someone who got deeply into TM would have a lot more communal activity, but in its heyday most people who were involved (several 100,000) had their involvement limited to a short meditation course.

Also, on the reversal of the meaning of the words in contintental Europe (the UK uses the normal English meanings) -- a lot of continental Europeans will use the reversed meanings even when writing in English. e.g. recently I was reading an information sheet put out by the French Embassy to Australia -- it talks about the danger "sects" (i.e. what in English is normally called "cults") to French society. Similarly, a lot of newspaper reports discussing continental Europe will use the English word "sect" with its continental meaning, although not without explaining its different meaning. So it is not just in non-English languages, but English as well. -- SJK

This looks like a comment. May I move delete it from the article? -- Ed Poor

(And how many academic scholars of religion participate in anti-cult movements? Let's keep this neutral.)

You may move it to here, but it would be even better if you could also address the sentiment it expresses, as it is a good question. --Robert Merkel

I'd say few. The anti-cult movement gets a lot of psychiatrists, but it gets very few people who come from religious studies or sociology departments. -- SJK

Criteria

The debate over "what is a cult" versus "what is a religion" has been going on for way too long, and it is not likely to end at any time in the forseeable future. All I'll say on this is to provide a link to an interesting take on the subject: the "Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" by Isaac Bonewits. He wrote it in 1971, and it has been repeated continually by various proponents over the years. He has it on his own Web site at this link:

http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

Before entering it as part of the entry for "cult," maybe someone here can comment on it.

List of "cults"

I deleted:

Cults: Vissarionites

I hardly think its NPOV to name one example of a cult as though it was the only religion that is absolutely and positively a cult. Tokerboy 21:21 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

it said cults as in plural? Why shouldnt there be a list of cults?

There is: Purported cults

What is a cult?

The latest lengthy addition to this article essentially boils down to "Christianity can be defined as a 'cult,' therefore it is useless to use the term 'cult' at all." This is an argument frequently used in discussions involving cults: so much time and effort is wasted trying to define "what is a cult" that the discussion doesn't focus on the actions of any of the groups accused of being cults. How can we get around this and finally get to the actual heart of the matter? --Modemac 15:16 30 May 2003 (UTC)

What do you think the heart of the matter is? Is there any real point in having an article on a word for the meaning of which it's virtually impossible to get a consensus? If the word 'cult' were neutral, things would be a lot easier. But it is loaded with negative associations and evokes strong emotions. The article already states that many sociologists don't regard 'cult' as a useful concept. What people in the "anti-cult" camp appear to be saying is: here is a list of identifying marks of a cult. If a religious group has these marks, it is BAD. The whole approach reeks of defining the word in such a way as it applied to others with whom you disagree, without it applying to your own religious group.Jpb1968 22:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

I reviewed this article today and am thinking of making some changes.

1. Definitionally, the psychological aspect is given short shrift. The use of milieu control, creeping commitment, loading the language, unattainable requirements for purity -- are all well documented in the literature.

2. That much of the power of cults comes from charismatic rather than religious matters is not explained sufficiently.

3. Examples of well-known historical cults whose nature is really not a matter of POV should be included. E.g. Branch Davidians

Misusing the language?

Jpb,

I reverted your edits to the definitions section.

The material you had added was not definitional in nature. It did not seek to define what the word cult means, but instead tried to imply that it is merely an insulatative word with no further meaning. Such material might be appropriate in a different form at a later point in the article, but I did not feel qualified to rewrite it. It is certainly true that the word cult is used as a snarl word, as you put it, by many fundamentalist Christian groups (and others) to describe any organization they do not like. They are misusing the language, however, and the fact that they do so does not change the fact that there is a valid, rigorous definition of a cult. Perhaps you would be better able than I to write a paragraph or two on this.

I was thinking last night that the article could use some examples of refutation of the cult label for organizations to which it does not apply. The U.S. Marines are not a cult, for example, because even though they have the authoritarian aspect and a degree of milieu control, they do not seek to limit communications with non-Marines, they have outside oversight, the nature of the commitment is clear up front. Dale Carnegie and Outward Bound are not cults, despite many similarities, because there is no evidence of damage to attendees and their families, and the involvement is limited to the duration of the class. Though difficult, a NPOV discussion of the pros and cons of the case wrt to some more controlling yet accepted religious movements (e.g. LDS, Mennonite, Amish, Watchtower, Pentecostal) movements would probably help shine a good deal of light. Kat 14:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just a note of support and congrats, Kat, for making the article a lot more NPOV. I've been trying to figure out how to do so, but your wording is a lot less biased than anything I would likely have written. --Modemac 01:48 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I'll need all the support I can get as more people review the article. I did strive for balance. There is certainly a wide spectrum of views out there. Some deny the existence of cults. Some claim that the term itself is meaningless. Others see cults everywhere. Perhaps there probably is room for an article on false accusations of being a cult. I tried to walk a middle road. It is not a subject I feel particularly strongly about. I sort of bumped into the topic while writing about responsibility assumption and est, and the article looked like it needed work, so I did some research. If we can achieve some consensus on the definitional aspects, I think there is a fair amount that can and should be done to articulate the range of views out there. Kat 18:56 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is an excellent article that covers many of the definitional aspects at http://www.csj.org/rg/rgessays/rgessay_cult.htm Kat 19:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scholar vs. non-scholar

Modemac asked how one could "get around" theist bias and "get to" the actual descriptive and word usage of the word "cult." Since the USA uses the word as an insult, bias appears to be inevitable.

I consider it a "given" that word usage and word definition is often dissimilar. I also consider it a "given" that scholars will use a word quite differently than non-scholars. (By "scholar" I mean, in this case, sociologists and psychiatrists, *NOT* theologians.)

The entry I've added, I think, is fair and most people would not contest it. Since cultism falls within sociological issues, and therefore concerns at present over six billion variables (human beings), there cannot be agreement among casual commentators, nor experts, on what "cult" means.

A scholar will say that a "cult" is a religious body of adherents that profess the same or similar rites, rituals, and worship. Therefore all of Christianity is one cult; all of Islam is another cult; Goddess worship is a third cult; animism is a cult; Deism yet another cult; ancestor veneration another. Mormons fall under the Christian cult; Ba'hi'a falls under the Islam cult; Wicca falls under the Goddess cult, or the animism cult, or the pantheism cult (depending on which Wiccan Trad).

Non-scholars use the word vastly different. Rival denominations of the same cult (Islam, Pagan, Christian, animistic, whatever) call each other "cults" as the word is used as an insult, much like "nigger" is used, for example. For most intents, this usage is utterly worthless: it is fundamentally ad hominem-ic (to coin a word) and renders the word MEANINGLESS. I've even seen and heard people define "cult" by the number of adherents!

I also consider it a "given" that if the word "cult" is to be used as a pejorative, it must be rendered specifically meaningful. I suggest that "cult" be defined by behavior, not belief. Desertphile 06:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The supernatural

I've removed

Mystical Manipulation – Cults ascribe events to supernatural influences even where such influences do not exist.

from "Shared Practices". How can you tell exactly which events are influenced by some supernatural? Ask your favourite religion/cult. Thus, this criterion is totally, utterly useless. Moehre 2004-01-13

I do not agree with Moehre at all. Sometimes 'miracles' are faked and can be proven to be so. Besides a strong belief in miracles due to these faked miracles can create an almost hysterical atmosphere in which all kinds of natural events are attributed to divine intervention. This in turn reinforces the belief system and the belief in miracles etc. Examples of this are Reverend Jim Jones and my former guru Sathya Sai Baba

I am sorry that you feel that your former guru cheated you. You are retelling the communist atheist theory anyway. If you ask me, I don't care whether Sai Baba can produce some artifact out of nothing, this is not my criteria for a guru and it doesn't reinforce any belief, this is just childish. To my knowledge, Sai Baba really can produce such miracles, but does it matter? Well, this is offtopic.

Missing aspects

I miss three important apects of cults aka new religious movements.

Some researchers like David Lane thinks that one can draw conclusion about the origins of mainstream religions by studying cults

The difference in government interference. Among the free democracies e.g French government keeps lists of them warnst against them and I think there is even a law against 'brainwashing' and mental exploitation of vulnerable people. I have to check this though. In contrast the USA government and the Netherlands have no law or even warnings about the dangers of cults, as far as I know. All governments interferes if the law has been broken. The problem with government interference is that in most countries the government is supposed to be religiously neutral. And the side effect of strong government interference or even from anti cult activist or media campaigns may be that members feel threatened and besieged making defection more difficult.

What happens psychologically to people who leave a cult because they found out that it is a scam? They must experience both a liberation and a loss because there are both negative and positive aspects of cult involvement. See the article by late Mrs Jan Groenveld of Cult Awarenes and Information Center http://www.caic.org.au/leaving/ithurts.htm
- According to the book 'The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power' by Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad ex-members may suffer from a generalized cynicism without but giving references for this. I have to say that I believe they are right though based on my own experience. I mean the examples given in the article are extreme and very rare but this, I believe, unfortunately not rare at all.

2004-01-20 Andries

I don't think we need to recreate a debate about whether NRMs are dangerous here, in miniature. These viewpoints belong to "anti-cult movement" anyway. - User:ExitControl

Two more things,

I though that the sociological definition of a cult is not the one mentioned in the article but a group with a powerful charismatic leader who has founded the group.

I want to add the opinion of some scholars like David V. Barrett who wrote the book the 'New Believers' that the classification of a new religious movement as a cult has no added value. Instead he argues that one should study what a religious movement believes, does and its power structure. I also want to add the book as a reference.

One more thing

I think the subject is so big that we need a list for cult related articles

2004-01-23 Andries

"I think there is even a law against 'brainwashing' and mental exploitation of vulnerable people." The idea was floated around but the law does not mention it. David.Monniaux 10:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

David, I find the law quite remarkable taking into account that the assertion that people who join cults are normal, intelligent people is widely considered to be true by ex-members. I believe it too. Do you know whether there were any people convicted using this law? Andries 19:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The law is mostly concerned about making it possible to prosecute organizations as opposed to individuals for certain crimes (organized embezzlement of people etc...) exploiting mental subjection. As far as I know, no person or organization has ever been convicted using this law. David.Monniaux 10:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article must be adjusted soon because there are a lot of aspects missing, like leaving a cult. Please help I have limited time. Andries 20:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am re-reading it again, and again I am disappointed. Please help to improve it. Andries 10:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unification Church

I just reviewed the characteristics section. Each "cult" characteristic either (a) does not apply at all to the Unification Church, or is a well-known characteristic of large mainstream religions like Roman Catholicism.

Therefore, the Unification Church should be taken of the list of "purported cults".

If there is an advocate who is an organization leader or a published author who wants to make accusations, we can report the fact that he made an accusation, and also report on rebuttals. But softening the accusation with the word purported is not enough. Either provide evidence, or testimony -- otherwise, leave out the claim altogether. --Uncle Ed 19:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I am a member of the Unification Church)

The machinations of Moon, his tax troubles and the behaviours of members of his organization have been in the news for over twenty years. Moon ordering his followers to marry each other isn't manipulative? It is an easy thing to to document those and other bizarre features of his church (and it has been done to some degree on the Unification Church page), and I think that I might spend some time doing so.Fire Star 04:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FireStar, I understand your disappointed with the UC, but think about this: what isn't acceptable for you, may be perfectly acceptable or even desirable for members of that religion. I have little sympathy for Moon, but let's be objective. Any manipulations doesn't make the UC a cult, a criminal group or enemies of the Christ, that's bullshit. It's still a new religious movement (NRM).

You said the same thing at Talk:List_of_purported_cults, and I responded there. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Text salvaged from totalitarian religious group:

de:Totalitäre_religiöse_Gruppe

The term totalitarian religious group is a derogatory term used mainly in the former Soviet nations, especially in Russia. It is used to cast a negative light on minority religious groups. Many so called "counter cult" groups, which promote the use of the term, actually fit the definition of totalitarian religious group. Therefore, the following definition should be applied carefully.

A totalitarian religious group is a religious denomination, cult or religious organization whose members or adherents are not free to think on their own or to leave the group or criticize it. Outsiders accuse such groups of controlling the thinking and behavior of its members by regulating their conscious life down to the minutest details without their prior agreement or the possibility of a free choice.

Totalitarian groups are predominantly to be found among fringe denominations and fundamentalist groups, but they can also stick to a "normal" theologian framework and are problematic only with respect to the treatment of their membership. They may be large, well-organized bodies or just small circles.

Totalitarian cult, that's how they call them. Religious group is reserved to "iskonnie" religions: Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, local brand of Northern Buddhism. They say totalitatian cults "zombify" their members. Anti-cultists are closely connected with Orthodox Christian Church in Russia, the latter maintains its own anti-cult "Research Center".

Totalitarian control

This has four basic aspects:

Control of behavior and activities: The way of life is rigidly laid down in detail (dress, food, contacts, music, motion pictures, computer and video games, Web sites, rites to be observed) and members are kept so busy that little spare time remains.

Thought control: Members are taught techniques to stop thinking processes involving questions or doubts immediately. Criticism is labelled unethical or sinful.

Control of emotions and feelings: Members are kept under control by means of feelings of guilt and fear which supposedly can only be relieved by means of the group.

Information control: Access to independent information, education and culture is reduced or forbidden. Contact with former members is forbidden.

These techniques make a mature, critical reflection of one's attitudes and the one-sided information given by the group largely impossible.

I cut this paragraph which seems to be two opposing POV pieces of analysis that add nothing to the article:

The hereabove mentioned extreme but rare examples of suicides and homicides can be and are interpreted in almost opposite ways by cult apologists and by people who belong to the anti-cult movement. Cult apologists will conclude from the rare occurence of this extreme behavior that the warning about cults are very exaggerated. People who belong to the anti-cult movement will say that this extreme behavior is caused by the control that most cults have over its members which is usually acquired by manipulation and deception . They say that the violent, self-destructive behavior is rare but the control over the members that cults exert and the manipulation and deception of cults is not rare at all and will often harm families and psychologically harm members of the cults without making the headlines of newspapers. Hence, they say, the warnings about cults are not exaggerated at all.

UninvitedCompany 21:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cut from section on leaving a cult. This is unsubstantiated and shouldn't go back in the article unless there are better references:

Read e.g the website of Jan Groenvel or the book by David V. Barrett. Andries 22:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

but this data came from a small set of cults. So one can't conclude that a group is not a cult if more than 10% of the cult members stay.

UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I also cut this section, because it (a) is not supported by any references other than the Scientology web site and (b) does not inform; there are claims of media exaggeration regarding essentially any contoversial issue.

I agree, but with cults it is extreme. Read the Barrett book if you don't believe it. It is referenced hereunder. Andries 22:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cults and the media

One problem with cults is not so much the cults themselves but the inaccurate, exaggerated, scare-mongering or sensationalist media stories about cults.

According to many scholars and ex-members who oppose "cults" these stories don't help to understand and recognize cults which makes the problem of cults bigger instead of smaller. E.g. if the media give the general impression that in cults people are brainwashed then a person belonging to an abusive group may get a false feeling that the group he is in is not a cult and somewhat illogically think that there is nothing wrong with the group he is in.

Another problem with these stories, "cult" opponents say, is that the group may lead isolate themselves and even persecution of the group. Isolation can make defection more difficult and hence aggravates the problem.

Journalists might uncritically believe and write down what spokespersons of the cult tell them. One of the reason for this is, is that it was tedious (before the internet) to find alternative views on the cult, especially when the cult is small or new. Another reason is the propaganda of the cult and the naivety of the journalist who should know better.

Useful hint: sometimes you can't write about "cults" objectively, risk loosing your job.

Sociologists who study new religious movements scientifically are often ignored by the media. Rather than uncritcially believing what the groups say about themselves, journalists typically accept what deprogrammers say about "cults":

"As part of their campaign to destroy a particular religious group or religious freedom in general, many deprogrammers do media interviews and represent themselves as watchdogs of new religious movements. Unfortunately, this frequently leads to reporters quoting deprogrammers, allowing them to give their one sided views without letting the reader know who these people really are or what they have done. Most media outlets are governed by strong ethics and will agree not to use known liars or criminals as expert sources, or at least will not use them without highlighting those facts." [1] -- statement by the Cult Awareness Network (a Scientology-controlled organization)

UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also cut this commentary. The checklists came from a scholarly reference, and this critical comment was unreferenced:

While popular, the value of this kind of "checklist" in determining whether or not a group is a cult is debated by many sociologists. Moreover, some checklists have been designed so that particular marginalized groups (such as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) will fall within them, though their status as a cult is debatable.

UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uninviteccompany, I agree that the latter sentence debated but I have no high regards of so called "scholarly" reference with regards to this subject. I mean, it is a fact that scholars disagree with each other about this subject. Andries 22:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The coming edit war between UninvitedCompany and Andries

Hi UninvitedCompany, I disagree with your cuts in the cult article. I mostly have references for what I have written even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the article. I will respond on the talk page later. And besides what is written is often plausible even though references are missing. Do you know a lot about the subject? Andries 22:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not an expert but it is a subject that I follow. At one time the Cult article was fairly tight and well-referenced. Since it is controversial, I think it is important that new material added to it be well-referenced as well. There is a great deal of well-financed propaganda out there from both the cults themselves and their detractors. I think the article should remain as scholarly as possible, which is why I made the edits. UninvitedCompany 22:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I understand and agree to some extent. I have read and thought a lot about the subject and have (unfortunately) a lot of experience in the subject too. But it takes so much time to find all the references. This subject is notorious for disagreeing scholars which is referred to as cult wars which is an article still to be written. It is a fact that some scholars are mistaken sometimes about this subject so I think one should critically examine and distrust every scholar in this field. I do not have this opinion on scholars of most other fields. There is no easy solution, I believe. Andries 22:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All of what you say is true. Cult is a difficult article for Wikipedia, to the point of making a useful case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia way of doing things. So, the references are important, because every little opinion, every unsubstantiated assertion is going to be used for leverage the next time the cult sympathizers or CCCM radicals come visit the page. UninvitedCompany 22:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the difference between you and me is that you care more about the references than me. And I care more than you about giving the whole subject a complete coverage Andries 00:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany, can't you help to find references that support or contradict what I and Ed Poor have written? I mean, we were the ones who edited the article in the last month and we could really use some help. By the way, the fact that Ed Poor is a member of a purported cult and I am an apostate suggests that the version that we had written was quite balanced and NPOV. Andries 01:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cults and the Template:Cults

Hello Ed Poor/uncle Ed, I hope you can vote to keep the Template:Cults on Vote for deletion of media wiki Cults Thanks in advance. The wikimedia cults will refer to all articles that are essential to understand cults. I think these are Cult of personality, Propaganda , Fundamentalism , Guru Shepherding, Communal reinforcement. It will be added as a footer to all the articles that deal primarily with cults i.e. Cult , Purported cults, Christian countercult movement , Anti-cult movement , Exit counseling , Thought reform , Deprogramming , Mind control & Brainwashing The difference between a See also list is that the wikimedia cults refers to essential articles. The See also list will also refer to side issues. It will not be placed as a footer under individual groups because of POV issues. Andries 18:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would want to delete that boxed-up link thingie. I'm not even sure I'd want to. What we really need is to separate the advocacy from the fact in the "cult" articles.

True, true but that is so difficult. Andries 19:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Improving an article is better than deleting one, most of the time.

Public Perception Cults and renaming the list

By the way, I'm thinking of renaming "List of purported cults" to "public perception of new religious movements". What do you think? --Ed

The public perception of new religious movements should be mentioned even though this public perception is sometimes completely baseless. If the public perception is baseless then it should still be mentioned and debunked in wikipedia. I have to think about the renaming thing. Andries 19:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't like the list as it exists presently. I wish we had a list of organizations that are so clearly cults as to leave little room for debate. That is, the ones with a history of murder and suicide and sexual abuse and so forth. Then we could drop the "purported" and have a better title. Or maybe we need two lists, one purported and the other not, so we could have some place to identify the controversy surrounding such organizations as Scientology and your Rev. Moon, where we could state the case and leave the rest up to the reader. Sounds like a magnet for edit wars, but so it goes with touchy subjects. (UninvitedCompany)

UninvitedCompany, I don't think we can mention any movement for which the cult label is undisputed. It is even disputed in the case of Jim Jones' People's Temple with the mass suicide in Jonestwon. See "HEARING THE VOICES OF JONESTOWN" by Mary McCormick Maaga, book review by SCOTT McLEMEE in Salon.com

I do not believe there is any organization for which the cult label is undisputed. Yet, it is valuable to have a list, because there are a few egregious examples where it is clear that the label applies, and listing those makes the article better. --UninvitedCompany 17:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

True, I agree. I hope people can help. Andries 19:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Anecdotal evidence & common knowledge versus empirical evidence

I have a conflict with UninvitedCompany about the degree of evidence and references that he demands before information can be put in the cult article. According to UninvitedCompany one can only put information in the article as long at it backed up by empirical evidence from scholars. But for me, a lot is simply common knowledge because I know so much about the subject. I think UninvitedCompany demands too much. If his demands had to be fulfilled for other (even controversial) articles then people would get angry with him for good reasons and a lot of what has been written in wikipedia should then be removed (e.g. propaganda. One of the reasons why the demand for empirical evidence is too strict is that little empirical reasearch has been done on this subject.

On the other hand, I understand his demand for intellectual accuracy and I propose a solution and this is to state explicitly when something is based on anecdotal evidence WITH giving examples in a reference. E.g. I think one can write "Anecdotal evidence suggests ........ see [weblink 1] & [weblink 2]".UninvitedCompany has even removed a comment by me about a scholarly work. I mean, one should not believe everything from somebody only because a person claims to be a scholar or because an article looks scholarly. To do otherwise would be naive and gullible. One should at least put scholary work in perspective.

Anyway, I appreciate comments about this subject. Andries 19:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following sentence:

In non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a purpose to which "sect" is put in English. Hence, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are cults within Christianity.

I think the point it was making about cognates is now covered well enough in the rest of the paragraph, and I don't think that, even in the most formal contexts in English, people can reasonably use "cult" as a synonym for "sect" or "branch of a religion". I don't think one sees reference to "the major cults of Christianity", for example. Examples like "the cult of Mary", while understood not to be pejorative, have a slightly different meaning.

In fact, the definition for the neutral sense given earlier in the same paragraph appears to be incorrect according to multiple dictionaries and the way I have seen the term used. Historically, "cult" more nearly meant "worship", or "style of worship" than "sect". But I'll let someone else deal with that. (If you don't believe me, check the OED and its citations.)

I reverted the definition section. The content prior to reverting was:

"Cult" is a word that can be used in several senses. In one sense it can be used neutrally to refer to practices of worship. For instance, it is 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." In another sense, it is used to refer to a typically modern religious movement that the speaker regards as "unorthodox or spurious" (Merriam-Webster). These are two different meanings of the same word; neither can be held up as the "correct" one.

This article is concerned almost exclusively with cults in the second above-mentioned sense of the term, which raises difficulties in maintaining neutrality. To label a religious movement a "cult" in sense 2 above is to make a value judgment. It implies a set of accusations that are being made towards the group, and in addition there is no universal agreement about what those accusations are. See below for a sense of the kinds of things many people mean when they consider a movement to be a cult.

The first sense above is the traditional meaning of the word cult, from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration". In more detail than above, in this sense a cult is "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same. In French or Spanish, culte or culto simply means "worship"; an association cultuelle is an association whose goal is to organize worship (and is eligible for tax exemption). The word for "cult" (in a similarly pejoritive sense) is secte or secta. See false friend. In German or Russian the expression totalitarian religious group is sometimes used (carrying a slightly different meaning) in addition to the German word Sekte, which also has a negative connotation. Unfortunately, cross-language dictionaries tend not to recognize this reversal, glossing, e.g., "culte" as "cult" and "secte" as "sect", even though it would be more accurate to switch the pairs.

The rest of this article focuses on the negative sense of the word. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a cult, taken in that sense, is; however, there are several alternative formulations, including the following:

I reverted because the text I removed lacked substance and danced around the point. Since there had been considerable editing and discussion, and fragile consensus, on the previous text, I thought it better. UninvitedCompany 23:04, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)