I'm making this post in the vain thought that any of you really care about my opinions. Or, I suppose, in response to another post here by T. B. regarding the recent raids on the Texas enclave. His point, if I may, is that we should not classify religious sects as a 'cults'.
I'll repost the comment here:
1) What constitutes "seedy?" Is believing in that bread transfigures into human flesh seedy? Is believing that premaritally released semen is unpure seedy? If so, we can call some very large organizations seedy. Likewise, is the Catholic church seedy because some of its official representatives broke the law? What about the number of worshippers of various religions that break laws?
2) Should the Baha'is of Iran be raided because their religion is illegal to adhere to under that government? Who is to say which government's laws appropriately deal with religious institutions if neither government acknowledges a higher, international law?
I really don't know and I still stand by the idea that calling them "seedy" or "cults" does not help us understand or appropriately deal with them.
I feel as if using the word 'cult' in a non-technical sense without a definition is playing politics with a word. Were we to throw out the word 'cult', how would we classify religious organizations with dangerous, or anti-social, or criminal intentions? I don't think you're arguing that the word cult is too politicized, but rather, that we should judge no religious organization.
To which I say, we shouldn't judge religions, but organizations and institutions are fair game. That is the rational basis of society.
Let me give an example. Say we have a number of laws - and for a good reason. The good of the public, the prevention of unnecessary risk, et cetera. Say an organization works against those laws, or encourages its members to flout those laws, or breaks those laws itself. That organization is then breaking the law. If the group itself is religious in nature, it is, in my mind, a cult. Perhaps one additional qualification would be ease of exit from the organization and control of ideas and speech (manifested by separation from society at large).
So, the base assumption is, if an organization is flouting the laws of the land(assuming the laws are just), the executive has the duty to enforce the laws. Now, perhaps the Branch Davidians example shows an inappropriate executive response. So be it. I concur.
Were the Branch Davidians a cult? Yes. Is Mormonism a cult? No. Is the Fundamentalist Church a cult? If the allegations are true, yes. It has the trappings of a cult. If it walks, talks, and looks like a duck ... well, you get the picture.
I understand your point that the rhetoric of cults has no place in the American religious discourse. I respectfully disagree. I feel as if it is a useful term we can use to describe these organizations. It's not hyperbole when these organizations really are dangerous.
On to your specific points:
1. Seedy beliefs are different from seedy organizations. If an individual in an organization breaks the law, it then depends on the spread. If a group of individuals break the law, then we have a bigger problem. If the organization is based on charismatic religious leadership and illegal activity, then it is a cult.
2. Now, ideas should not be illegal; organizations should be. And we should have discretion over the use of the word. If some nation decides that Baha'i is a cult, then they are wrong. So I think the misuse of words shouldn't preclude the use of the word.
Sure, "cult" has baggage; but as a descriptive term, it's second to none. Now, we should provide evidence as to why a religious organization is a cult.
And my question for you - was Heaven's Gate a cult? Is Scientology a cult?
Maybe I'm looking at this from a legalistic perspective, but that perspective matters. The religious one can sort itself out if we lay our hands off of people's practices and NRM's and target only lawbreaking cults.
8 comments:
"Say an organization works against those laws, or encourages its members to flout those laws, or breaks those laws itself. That organization is then breaking the law. If the group itself is religious in nature, it is, in my mind, a cult. Perhaps one additional qualification would be ease of exit from the organization and control of ideas and speech (manifested by separation from society at large)."
You realize that, at some point, this applies to the Baptist leadership organization headed by MLKJ. Was King a cult leader of sorts?
Additionally, I bring up the Baha'is of Iran again. If a Baha'i tells a non-Baha'i about his or her faith, he/she can be prosecuted for attempting to proselytize a Muslim away from Islam, a practice very clearly banned in Iran. In the case of Baha'is, such teaching is a clearly defined duty of their faith--to teach the Cause. Likewise, they are told to obey the government. How can they do both? If the majority of Baha'is decided to teach, you would label that organization a cult because it is religious in nature and is deliberately working against laws made, in theory, for the good of the public.
What about Amish people? You are required in some states to have a photographic ID, and the Amish long opposed such technology before it was ever mandated by law. Some states have considered prosecuting those that refuse. This is a small, exclusive religious organization that directly opposes laws made for the good of the people.
Using the definition you've provided, literally every religious organization can be turned into a cult; its all a matter of perspective. Could we not easily argue that conservative evangelism is difficult to exit, uses violent rhetoric to alienate its political opponents, and, by promoting spiritual healing over traditional medicine, threatens the safety of its members?
In the end, I wasn't arguing that we cannot judge religious organizations. However, I was arguing that the simplistic way in which we do it is far from effective or just. I don't have an answer for how to better accomplish this. Maybe we have found the most practical way. But practicality does not always equate with justice.
And justice for the organization needs to be balanced with justice for the individuals.
I think my definition could be more precise, but I think it stands. As for Iranian laws, well... I think the comparison is void. I cannot define a cult in Iran. If Iran defines something as a cult, then that ends the debate, doesn't it? I cannot defend their definition, only my own.
You're skirting the questions. Was MLK a cult leader in his southern Baptist conference? Is the Amish community a cult? Are conservative evangelicals members of a very large cult?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/10/polygamist.towns/index.html
Evidence as to why our current approach is not working.
I'm sure the Mob feels persecuted as well. Too bad. A religious group planning to use cyanide is a cult.
MLK's Baptists - not a cult. You can leave and go into the outside world. There is no threat of death. There will be no one to kill you if you disagree.
Unlike Scientology (a Capital-C Cult). Unlike the People's Temple.
I think you're confusing the terminology. Just because Iran calls a group a cult doesn't mean it actually is. There are misclassification. Hey, my definition isn't perfect, but a cult is a cult - and I know one when I see one.
So, basically, a cult is what you want to be a cult, and you have the supreme authority to decide what is and isn't, regardless of the fact that your definition fits more groups than you personally classify as such.
Would you call Heaven's Gate a cult? All of them were very aware of their imminent deaths and all wholeheartedly chose to stay. No one was murdered. No one was threatened with death upon exit.
The fact is, your definition is faulty. It applies to some groups widely considered cults but not all and it could be applied to some groups not considered cults. It's ineffective.
Bah!
Heaven's Gate is a cult.
My definition isn't perfect - as I said - but any sane person can see that the extreme cases are cults.
I understand you want to play rhetorical games, but it's a word in common usage and it accurately describes those groups. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, Jonestown, et al - they are each and every one a cult.
And the latest arrests? A similar cult. Luckily, law enforcement took actions to prevent further rape and forced marriage.
Okay, I'm now satisfied.
Post a Comment