Misplaced Pages

Cult

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David.Monniaux (talk | contribs) at 07:17, 4 February 2005 (→The About-Picard law). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:17, 4 February 2005 by David.Monniaux (talk | contribs) (→The About-Picard law)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article does not discuss "cult" in its original sense of "religious practice"; for that usage see cult (religion). See also destructive cult and Cult (disambiguation) for more meanings of the term "cult".

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people devoted to beliefs and goals which are not held by the majority of society, often religious in nature. 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 existence, 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.

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.

Problems surrounding the definitions of a cult

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."

Definition of "cult" by the anti-cult movement

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:

Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders
Cult: A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control . . . designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.

Cult, NRM and the sociology of religion

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 practices 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.

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.

Definition of "cult" in dictionaries and other points of view

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines cult as:

"a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents"

Lloyd Eby calls this definition problematic, because:

"...then we must ask: regarded as spurious or unorthodox by whom? Who has or was given this authority to decide what beliefs or practices are orthodox or genuine, and what are unorthodox or spurious? In the realm of religion and belief, one person's or group's norm is another's anathema, and what is regarded as false or counterfeit by one person or group is regarded as genuine and authentic by another." (emphasis added)

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.

Cults and fundamentalist Christians

Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox or conservative or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups whose bibles or practices deviated from the orthodox King James Bible and its interpretation by orthodox Christian teachers and practitioners. Some examples of sources (with published dates where known) that documented this approach are:

  • Heresies and Cults, by J.Oswald Sanders, pub.1948.
  • Cults and Isms, by J.Oswald Sanders, pub.1962, 1969, 1980 (Arrowsmith), ISBN 0 551 00458 4.
  • Chaos of the Cults, by J.K.van Baalen.
  • Heresies Exposed, by W.C.Irvine.
  • Confusion of Tongues, by C.W.Ferguson.
  • Isms New and Old, by Julius Bodensieck.
  • Some Latter-Day Religions, by G.H.Combs.

These unorthodox groups were variously relatively quite large (for example, the Mormon church or its offshoot the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) or quite small (for example, the Swedenborgian church).

Theories about the reasons for joining a cult

According to Gallanter, typical reasons why people join cults include a search for community and a spiritual quest.

Jeffrey Hadden summarizes a lecture named "Why Do People Join NRMs?" (a lecture in a series related to the sociology of new religious movements) as follows:

  1. Belonging to groups is a natural human activity;
  2. People belong to religious groups for essentially the same reasons they belong to other groups;
  3. Conversion is generally understood as an emotionally charged experience that leads to a dramatic reorganization of the convert's life;
  4. Conversion varies enormously in terms of the intensity of the experience and the degree to which it actually alters the life of the convert;
  5. Conversion is one, but not the only reason people join religious groups;
  6. Social scientists have offered a number of theories to explain why people join religious groups;
  7. Most of these explanations could apply equally well to explain why people join lots of other kinds of groups;
  8. No one theory can explain all joinings or conversions;
  9. What all of these theories have in common (deprivation theory excluded) is the view that joining or converting is a natural process.

Stark and Bainbridge have questioned the utility of the concept of conversion. They suggest, instead, that the concept of affiliation is a more useful concept for understanding how people join religious groups.

Cults: genuine concerns and exaggerations

The stigma surrounding the classification of a group as a cult stems from the purported ill effect the group's influence has on its members. The narratives of ill effect 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 the harm experienced by some members due to their affiliation with the groups in question. Members of alleged cult groups have taken pains to emphasize that not all cults are dangerous. 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 despite 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 thousands.

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 probability 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.

Barker, Barrett, and the anti-cult activist Steven Hassan all advise seeking information from various sources about a certain group before getting deeply involved, though these sources differ in the urgency they suggest.

Stigmatization and discrimination

Some feel that the terms "cult" and "cult leader" are used pejoratively by anti-cultists, asserting that they are to be avoided to prevent harm. A website affiliated with Adi Da Samraj sees the activities of anti-cult activists as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them, and regards the use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" as similar to the manner in which "nigger" and "commie" were used in the past to denigrate blacks and Communists.

Leaving a cult, reasons and empirical evidence

According to Barker (1989), the biggest worry about possible harm concerns the relatively few dedicated followers of a new religious movement (NRM). Barker also mentions that some former members may not take new initatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. This 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

According to Hadden and Bromley proponents of the brainwashing model, such as Singer and others, lack empirical evidence to support their theory of brainwashing. They also affirm that there is lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and that their accounts of what happens to ex-members is contradicted by substantial empirical evidence such as, the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs do leave, most short of two years, the overwhelming proportion of people leave of their own volition, and that two-thirds (67%) felt "wiser for the experience".

According to Barret, in many cases the problems do not happen while in the cult, but when leaving the cult which can be difficult for some members and may include a certain amount of trauma due to several reasons. These reasons include conditioning by the religious movement, avoidance of uncertainties about life and its meaning, having had powerful religious experiences, love 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 Barrett, those reasons may prevent a member from leaving even if the member realizes that some things in the NRM are wrong.

Prevalence of purported cults

By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported cults existed in the United States in 1995. 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.

Cults and governments

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 governments in transferring the public's abhorrence of doomsday cults against all small or new religious movements without discrimination.

Belgium

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.

China

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.

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 .

France

Following the second wave of suicides (and murders) of the Order of the Solar Temple in 1995, which shocked the French public, the French government has encouraged public caution toward some minority religious groups that it may consider to be cults. As a consequence, reports on alleged sects (cults) were published, and legislation making it easier to prosecute abuses committed by groups was adopted; both were controversial.

Background

France, by law, does not grant official recognition to any religion , nor does it endorse any theologic point of view. 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.

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.

List of alleged cults and alleged discrimination

A 1996 parliamentary commission issued a report (unofficial translations), in which a list of purported cults compiled by the general information division of the French National Police (Renseignements généraux) was reprinted. Were listed 173 groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, the Theological Institute of Nîmes (an Evangelical Christian Bible college), and the Church of Scientology. Members of some of the groups included in the list have alleged instances of intolerance due to the ensuing negative publicity. 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 "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Cults" (MILS) was formed in 1998 to coordinate government monitoring of sectes (cults). In February 1998 MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. The president of MILS resigned in June under criticism and an interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects. In November the Government announced the formation of the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses (MIVILUDES), which is charged with observing and analyzing movements that constitute a threat to public order or that violate French law, coordinating the appropriate response, informing the public about potential risks, and helping victims to receive aid. In its announcement of the formation of MIVILUDES, the Government acknowledged that its predecessor, MILS, had been criticized for certain actions abroad that could have been perceived as contrary to religious freedom.

Some groups sought the help of foreign governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France. 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.

The About-Picard law

The law 2001-504 of January 12, 2001 (approximate translation into English) is often referred to as the About-Picard law, from the name of its rapporteurs (parliamentarians who report on the draft law), senator Nicolas About (UDF center-right party; his report) and deputy Catherine Picard (PS center-left party; her report).

The law does not cite any particular group, nor does it define what a secte (cult) is; it addresses specific behaviors only. The law makes it possible to prosecute an organization for some crimes, which previously would only have resulted in the prosecution of the organization's management. Nonprofit associations assisting victims or defending personal or public freedoms, and declared of public usefulness, may exerce victims' rights in such criminal trials. The law also provides courts with the possibility to pronounce the dissolution of an organization found guilty of criminal behavior as stated in the law.

The initial draft of the About-Picard 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.

Foreign concerns about violation of religious freedoms

Some groups sought the help of foreign governments to fight what they claimed to be religious intolerance in France. 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.

The 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. According to pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, head of the French protestant federation and himself a strong critic of the first draft of the law, the complaints originating in the United States concerning religious freedom in France, were largely based on biased, poor information .

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 responding to Recommendation 1412 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, entitled "Illegal Activities of Sects," issued a declaration as follows:

Governments are under an obligation, in their dealings with such groups, to remain in conformity not only with Article 9 but with all the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant instruments protecting the dignity inherent to all human beings and their equal and inalienable rights. This entails, inter alia, a duty to respect the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination.

In November 2002, the Council of Europe passed resolution 1309 inviting the Government of France to reconsider the About-Picard Law and clarify certain terms in the law. It however stated that only the European Court of Human Rights could make a determination as to the law's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. So far, the law has not been successfully challenged before the Court.

In October 23, 2003 the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) held a conference on Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in which France and the About-Picard law were seriously criticized.

Germany

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. . 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 .


United Kingdom

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."

INFORM patrons includes Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (Greek Orthodox Church) and Bishop Charles Henderson (Roman Catholic Church Bishop), Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Desai.

United States of America

The United States Department of State's travel warning for India mentions "inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader". Upon request they confirm that they refer to the guru Sathya Sai Baba.

See also

External links

References

  1. William Chambers, Michael Langone, Arthur Dole & James Grice, The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse, Cultic Studies Journal', 11(1), 1994. The definition of a cult given above is based on a study of 308 former members of 101 groups.
  2. Barker, E. The Ones Who Got Away: People Who Attend Unification Church Workshops and Do Not Become Moonies. In: Barker E, ed. Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West'. Macon, Ga. : Mercer University Press; 1983.
  3. Barker, E. (1989) "New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction", London, HMSO
  4. Galanter M. Unification Church ('Moonie') dropouts: psychological readjustment after leaving a charismatic religious group. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1983;140(8):984-989.
  5. Enroth, Ronald. Churches that Abuse
  6. Singer, M with Lalich, J (1995). Cults in Our Midst, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Aronoff, Jodi; Lynn, Steven Jay; Malinosky, Peter. Are cultic environments psychologically harmful?, 'Clinical Psychology Review, 2000, Vol. 20 #1 pp. 91-111
  8. West, L. J., & Langone, M. D. (1985). Cultism: A conference for scholars and policy makers. Summary of proceedings of the Wingspread conference on cultism, September 9–11. Weston, MA: American Family Foundation.
  9. Barrett, D. V. The New Believers - A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions 2001 UK, Cassell & Co. available online
  10. Barker, E., The Making of a Moonie, Oxford: Basil Blackwell (1984), p. 147.
  11. Galanter, Marc M.D.(Editor) (1989) Cults and new relgious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association ISBN 0-89042-212-5
  12. Hadden, Jeffrey K. SOC 257: New Religious Movements Lectures, University of Virginia, Department of Sociology.
  13. Bader, Chris & A. Demaris, A test of the Stark-Bainbridge theory of affiliation with religious cults and sects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 285-303. (1996)
  14. Hadden, J and Bromley, D eds. (1993), The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 75-97.
New religious movements
Major groups
Notable figures
By region
Concepts
Public education
Scholarship
Opposition
Lists
Categories: