Cult vs. Religion

One man's religion is another man's cult.

[ See: What's the difference between a church and a cult? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcult.html) -- CKDex]

And to an atheist they're all cults.

And cults can do great things for people, as well as things that are disgusting and revolting.

Most of the horror in man's history has been caused by two, or more, cult's slugging it out to prove their right to be right.

We mustn't forget ,however, that most of the desireable social requirements for living are also cult products.

[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 06-28-2001 at 07:42 AM]

One subtle distinction omitted from the Mailbag answer to "what is the difference between a church and cult," is that some cults are not necessarily religious in nature. In "Why People Believe Weird Things," Michael Shermer makes the case for considering Ayn Rand as a cult leader, even though she was an athiest. One might also add that Jim Jones considered himself more a political than a religious leader. Although the religious element was definitely always there, it became more emphasized after his death because it made for better headlines and titles (e.g., an ad for a TV show after the massacre asked "Jim Jones: Madman or Messiah?" It has a catchier ring than "Madman or Political Outcast.")

I think you missed my point, which is that the word "cult" does not necessarily have to entail religious beliefs.

Your statement that "one man's religion is another man's cult" just falls back into that same kind of thinking, implying that there is no difference between the two except whether or not you happen to be a member.

But there are distinctions that can be made between a cult and a religion. There may not be a hard line that can be drawn between the two; there may in fact be a lot of overlap, like intersecting sets. But the two are not synonymous.

As I already pointed out, you don't have to have any religious beliefs at all; in fact, you can be an athiest, and yet still be part of a cult.

I'm betting the IRS regulations have a stricter definition of what qualifies as a "church" and what might disqualify a "cult" from being classed as a church. (Churches are exempt from income taxation, and donations to churches are deductable from the income taxes of non-tax-exempt entities.)

Indeed, psychoanalysts, method actors, Trekkies and many other non-religious groups display plainly cult-like behavior.


------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Slavish devotion to Cecil, however, is neither cult nor church, but simply rationalism.

So--we're starting another horse race!

Indeed there are cults which are not religious [baseball stars, football stars, movie actors, antique cars etc].

However, since the question was cult vs [?]
religion, the point was taken.

Anything which can inspire fanaticism, or does, can be seen by the uninvolved as a cult----Even merely being arbitrary.

Uhhh Huhh... Any old stigma is good enough to
beat a dogma..

(sorry about that... I just could'nt resist)

A religion is a cult with seniority.

For example, many people consider Scientology to be a cult. But if we could time travel 100 or so years into the future, I'm betting it will be considered a "religion" by the vast majority of people.

------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo

For David B

That one sentence summation

I bow in the prescience of genius

The ancient Roman and Greek pantheon have tremendous seniority, but do they really form part of a religion today, or are they considered myths?

And the Wiccans are fond of telling us how ancient their beliefs are, but this seniority hasn't convinced the majority of people that they are a religion.

And getting back to my point, the Ayn Rand Institute doesnt' want to be considered a religion today, and I'm sure they still won't want to be considered a religion 100 years from now (assuming they're still around).

As far as Scientology, you may predict that it will be considered a religion 100 years from now, but your prediction hardly constitutes evidence in favor of your premise. For Scientology to be considered a religion, it will have to do more than merely survive over the course of the next century; it will have to change in significant ways.

Michael Shermer lists some characteristics of cults in "Why People Believe Weird Things," including:

Omniscience of the leader: Acceptance of the leader's beliefs and pronouncements on all subjects, from the philosphical to the trivial.

Hidden agendas: The true nature of the group's beliefs and plans is obscured from or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public.

Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group's inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.

Financial and/or sexual exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest money and other assets in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.

I think if you compare Scientology and other cults to accepted religions, you will see not only similarities but significant differences in regards to these points.

For instance, most or all churchs expect you to donate money to them, but you don't have to invest large sums of money just to learn what their beliefs are--those are offered up for free to whoever will listen. Many or most churches welcome newcomers, but you're not welcome at Scientology--until you've paid. Even then, you're not welcome into the inner circle until you've gone through years of brainwashing. The alleged reason for this is that you "wouldn't be ready" to understand their full set of beliefs if you just stepped in off the street. You may find the beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism equally ridiculous as those of L. Ron Hubbard and his Thetans detonating nuclear bombs in volcanos; but at least they're right up front about them, so that you can decide for yourself without having to undergo step-by-step indoctrination.

Ezstrete said:For David B
That one sentence summation
I bow in the prescience of genius
Now, now -- we all know that the genius of the house is Cecil! But thank you for the comparison. ;)

CFQWEST said:The ancient Roman and Greek pantheon have tremendous seniority, but do they really form part of a religion today, or are they considered myths?
Perhaps it needs to be modified to add, "and a myth is a religion that is no longer believed in." So perhaps one day, Christianity will be considered among those other myths while something else has taken its place (I'd love to believe that "something else" will be rational thought, but I don't kid myself that much).
As far as Scientology, you may predict that it will be considered a religion 100 years from now, but your prediction hardly constitutes evidence in favor of your premise. For Scientology to be considered a religion, it will have to do more than merely survive over the course of the next century; it will have to change in significant ways.
It is already considered a "religion" by many people, including the President of the United States (of course, considering his definition of "sex," I'm not sure we want to use him as our yardstick :) ).

At one point, Christianity was just a cult. Now look at it. In fact, I'd like to hear of some examples of today's religions that weren't considered cults when they began.


------------------
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above" -- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Ghost of a Chance"

And the Wiccans are fond of telling us how ancient their beliefs are, but this seniority hasn't convinced the majority of people that they are a religion.

No reason it should; their "ancientness" is an outright lie; Wicca was created from whole cloth in the 1930's. Compared to them, the 18th-century fake "druids" who take over Stonehenge every year are "ancient".

For the rest, this is quickly becoming a very stupid discussion. The plain fact is that the modern colloquial meaning of "cult" is simply "a religion I don't like". Talking about whether X is "really" a cult is like talking about whether Coke is "really" better than Pepsi.

Some religions are demonstrably fraudulent. Some religions are demonstrably coercive. Some religions are demonstrably stupid. But although a scholar means something when he says "cult", he means something completely different from what tabloid journalists mean; when a tabloid journalist says "cult", he is being content-free.

I have no problem calling Scientology a "religion" -- it's a fraudulent, coercive and stupid one, but it's still a religion.


------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

For David B.:

You don't live a very meaningful life, do you? Your statement regarding rationalism shows a fundamental mis-understanding of the respective roles of religion and science. This has been discussed quite heavily in other threads, so I won't try to explain it to you here.

Diceman failed in his psychoanalysis by saying:You don't live a very meaningful life, do you?
Actually, I do, thanks. If you've invested money in psychology courses, you should ask for a refund.
Your statement regarding rationalism shows a fundamental mis-understanding of the respective roles of religion and science.
Not at all. I understand quite well their respective roles. But that doesn't mean I encourage people to believe in something that is untrue. I'd like to think that someday man will overcome this, but like I said, I don't kid myself into thinking it will be any time soon.
This has been discussed quite heavily in other threads, so I won't try to explain it to you here.
Then I encourage you to "explain" it to me elsewhere. I'd love to hear this great "explanation."


------------------
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above" -- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Ghost of a Chance"

[ali_v]

In short...Cults require something be done by the worshiper in order to achieve the goal. Religions mostly do require that, EXCEPT one--the Christian "faith" which is not a religion but a faith, but should be practiced religiously.
choose... :D

[Irishman]

Since this old thread is being revived...

CFQWEST said (and I realize he may no longer be around to defend his position):
Michael Shermer lists some characteristics of cults in "Why People Believe Weird Things," including:

Omniscience of the leader: Acceptance of the leader's beliefs and pronouncements on all subjects, from the philosphical to the trivial.

Hidden agendas: The true nature of the group's beliefs and plans is obscured from or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public.

Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group's inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.

Financial and/or sexual exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest money and other assets in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.

I think if you compare Scientology and other cults to accepted religions, you will see not only similarities but significant differences in regards to these points.

Okay, let's compare a couple:

Omniscience of leader: Catholicism - check; Mormonism - check; Islam - check

Hidden agendas: Mormonism - check

Deceit: Catholicism - debatable; Mormonism - not sure

Financial and/or sexual exploitation: Catholicism - check

Whereas I'm unaware of any examples of sexual exploitation occurring in Scientology. Financial exploitation - depends on your definition. People willingly contribute, then is there really a big difference between "$1000 a session" and "tithe 10% of your income"?

John W. Kennedy's summation of the distinction in usage between a sociologist and a journalist or pop-culture usage is important to emphasize.

ali_v said:
In short...Cults require something be done by the worshiper in order to achieve the goal. Religions mostly do require that, EXCEPT one--the Christian "faith" which is not a religion but a faith, but should be practiced religiously.

This has got to be one of the either most naive or most duplicitous statements I've read in a while. And Christianity is not a religion? There's a mangling of the use of words.

[John Bredin]

"Omniscience of leader: Catholicism - check"

Not so much. The Pope's alleged infallibility is limited to matters of faith that are specifically stated to be infallible. Outside of these "ex cathedra" statements, he is clearly acknowledged by the Church to be as fallible as any other human being. IIRC, there have only been two or three ex cathedra announcements in the entire history of the Catholic Church on very specific doctrinal matters.

The cult characteristic in question was NOT that the leader claims to be omniscient on issues of faith but that they claim to be omniscient on the whole realm of knowledge. While the Pope -- like many public figures religious and secular -- publicizes his opinion on all sorts of topics, his opinion is held to be just that, an opinion, by the Catholic Church and believing members thereof. If the Pope made a statement that people shouldn't wear baseball caps, most Catholic ballplayers would NOT suddenly feel obligated to go bareheaded at ballgames.

[John W. Kennedy]

Specifically, there are two official infallible pronouncments (infallibility itself wasn't official until 1870).

That the Virgin Mary was without taint of Original Sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of St. Anne. ("The Immaculate Conception"). This had been a popular idea for a long time (though many theologians opposed it, including Thomas Aquinas). Pope Pius IX declared it official doctrine in 1854.

That the Virgin Mary did not die, but ascended bodily into Heaven, like Jesus. ("The Assumption"). This is a very old idea, although it is first found in some rather iffy documents. Pope Piius XII declared it official doctrine in 1950.

In addition, one ancient and important work of theology, the "Tome" of Leo I ("the Great") of 459, which even Protestants (well, the less silly ones) accept as the definitive refutation of Monophysitism, is often taken as another instance of infallibility.

By the way, in addition to it having to be an official pronouncment on faith and morals, it has to be in the form of an official declaration that this has always been the tradition handed down from the Apostles.

[Monty]

What hidden agenda, Irishman? Also, neither the Pope nor the LDS Church President is considered to be omniscient.

[ali_v]

At the risk of starting a holy war, let me say the Bible does not call faith in Christ a religion, course I could be 'called' wrong by some of you as there are lots of kinds of Bibles. But the Holy Bible does call worship of any other than Christ, false 'religions'. Now the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us the Pope is no longer the vicar of St. Peter but the vicar of Christ. Look it up. The Christian 'faith' knows the vicar of Christ to be The Holy Spirit. You can look up what vicar means, it may help you to sort this all out. Thanks for hearing again :)

[MEBuckner]

At the risk of starting a holy war, let me say the Bible does not call faith in Christ a religion...
So, when James 1:27 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) says that "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world", that passage is speaking of the form of heathen idolatry which is pure and faultless and acceptable to God?
...course I could be 'called' wrong by some of you as there are lots of kinds of Bibles.
The New International Version (quoted above), New American Standard Bible (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=NASB&showfn=on&showxref=on), King James Version (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on), New King James Version (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on), Revised Standard Version (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on&showxref=on), Darby Translation (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=DARBY&showfn=on&showxref=on), and Young's Literal Translation (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=YLT&showfn=on&showxref=on) all render that passage with the word "religion". Only the Worldwide English (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JAS+1:27&language=english&version=WE&showfn=on&showxref=on) version avoids the word, and the WE translation is intended as a greatly simplified version for people for whom English is not their native tongue, which is therefore going to avoid any "hard" words.
But the Holy Bible does call worship of any other than Christ, false 'religions'.
Really, the Bible doesn't use the word "religion" much at all. The phrase "false religions" doesn't seem to occur in any of the above-referenced versions of the Bible, if we're going to play semantic games.

[Chronos]

Besides, Christianity does require its members to do certain things. Depending on which sect you belong to, the Christian is expected to either perform good works, or to have faith in God, or both, to be saved.

It seems to me that the fundamental difference between a religion and a cult is secrecy. You want a copy of the Bible? Write to the Gideons; they'll send you a free copy for the asking. The Book of Mormon? Just call that 800 number you see on the commercials. The holiest book of the Scientologists? Just fork over several grand for "therapy", lest you go insane from just looking at the cover.

The Church of Latter-Day Saints is open about its beliefs, so it's a religion. Scientology is not open about its beliefs, so it's a cult.

[Alan Smithee]

I know this is an old thread, but the argument that a cult is just a new/unpopular religion is rather unhelpful. This may be the "modern colloquial meaning" when used by journalists, but suggest there is no legitimate use for the word implies that you consider Jonestown and Heaven's Gate no different than Judaism or Methodism. I am waiting for someone to point out that the RCC has killed many more people than either of those and had many more martyrs. The difference, of course, is that you don't have to be a martyr or a killer (much less a suicide) to be a Catholic or Methodist. Obviously, this is a spectrum, not a sharp division. There will always be fanatical members of any group, sometimes in a leadership position. Scientology is clearly not the same as Jonestown, but most people see it as closer to that side of the spectrum than most other religions are, because it requires rather than encourages payment, and withholds information untill you pay.

Cults may be unclearly differentiated from other groups, and the term may invite misuse, but to suggest that the word is inherently useless poisons the well of debate about groups that are clearly and inherently harmful and exploitative.

[John W. Kennedy]

The Church of Latter-Day Saints is open about its beliefs,

That, unfortunately, is open to argument. (Not trying to start a war or revive an old thread here, but it's simple logic that if a group keeps some of its rites secret, no-one on the outside is ever going to completely accept that they're not keeping other things secret, too.)

* * * * *

As to the meaning of the word "cult" -- sorry, but that's how it is. The actual dictionary definition of the word is "a system of religious worship or ritual". At some point, it picked up the sense of "something treated like a religion that shouldn't be", like the "cult of Aestheticism", or the "cult of Elvis", and then it slipped into meaning "an actual religion that I don't like and don't expect you to like, either." As such, it has become a purely emotive word with no actual meaning.

[Irishman]

I knew I would stir the pot.

John Bredin said:
"Omniscience of leader: Catholicism - check"

Not so much. The Pope's alleged infallibility is limited to matters of faith that are specifically stated to be infallible.

Monty said:
Also, neither the Pope nor the LDS Church President is considered to be omniscient.

Well, there was that Jesus fellow. Perhaps you've heard of him? (Of course I could have said that about all the Protestant branches as well.)

Monty also said:
What hidden agenda, Irishman?

I assume you mean regarding Mormonism. It is my understanding that certain ceremonies are kept secret, that visitors and anyone not certified to be "a church member in good standing" are not allowed, and that the ceremonies themselves are not to be discussed by church members with outsiders. It is my understanding that Mormons get really sensitive whenever the topic is raised, and they claim that supposed versions of the ceremonies available online are not accurate. (In fact, wasn't that all from you in that other thread?) That means they keep the true nature of the beliefs and plans obscured and do not share them with potential recruits and the general public.

Hey, if you want to keep it secret, fine, but don't blame others when they then question just what it is those secrets are and why.

ali_v blabbered incoherently:
At the risk of starting a holy war, let me say the Bible does not call faith in Christ a religion, course I could be 'called' wrong by some of you as there are lots of kinds of Bibles. But the Holy Bible does call worship of any other than Christ, false 'religions'.

I fail to see how the lack of the Bible to refer to christianity as a religion makes it any less of a religion. I also fail to see how the use of the phrase "false religions" with regards to other faiths thereby excludes the description of religion to christianity. In fact, were I to read that statement, I would conclude that as an admission that Christianity is a religion, specifically, being claimed to be the true religion (in contrast to all the false ones). I also fail to see the relevance of the definition of the word "vicar" (i.e. a priest acting as a substitute or agent of another) is relevant to whether christianity is a religion. (That seems to be the relevant definition, as all the others pertain to specific posts in Roman Catholic or Anglican hierarchies.)

Perhaps you would like to choose a definition for "religion", and then explain why christianity is excluded?

Alan Smithee, I do agree there is a real meaning to cult that is different than religion. However, common parlance has come to apply that label (inappropriately) to "any religion but mine" or "any religion newer than mine" or "any newfangled religion, especially one with any type of New Age whatsamagizzits". Thus the distinction between usage by a sociologist and a politician. Also pointed out by John. W. Kennedy, "cult" has been applied to anything that takes on inordinate emotional worth to a group, such as cult of Elvis, or Trekkies. That usage also corrupts the worth of the word as a destinctive description.

[Alan Smithee]

From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (M-w.com):

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
- cul·tic /'k&l-tik/ adjective
- cult·ish /-tish/ adjective
- cult·ish·ly /-lE/ adverb
- cult·ish·ness /-n&s/ noun
- cult·ism /'k&l-"ti-z&m/ noun
- cult·ist /'k&l-tist/ noun
- cult·like /-"lIk/ adjective Number 3 would seem to be the definition most commonly encountered and employed in the OP. Spurious means false or deceitful, which would seem to be the agreed upon criterion for distinguishing cults. (I use false here in the sense of phoney, not untrue.) The phrase "regarded as" suggests that this is a subjective designation without any real content, but I disagree that this is necessarily so. Some religions do, in fact, present different faces to the public and to the high ranking members. Mormonism may be secretive about some rituals, but I don't think anyone would be surprised by anything--they seem relatively upfront about their beliefs to me (I could be wrong, and anyway, it's a spectrum). Scientology, on the other hand, lies to the public, uses front groups to recruit and conduct business, and keeps its beliefs more or less secret. And I seriously doubt anyone was recruited into Jonestown with the line, "Have you ever wondered whether God wants you to kill your children and commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid? Well he does!"

Actually, this points to a sixth definition of cult that may not be widely enough used to have been picked up by the folks at M-W's, but nevertheless seems useful and fairly widespread: a system of belief or practice which uses severe psychological manipulation to control and exploit its members to their detriment.

[Alan Smithee]

BTW, this thread is over two years old[b], and it's [b]still waiting for someone to post a link to the column! This has got to be some kind of a record! Will anyone do it, or should we see how long we can drag it out?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Point taken, Alan. I think that back in those balmy days, we weren't posting links to the Staff Reports ("Mailbag")?

In any case, I have edited the link into the OP.

[nerv]

A failrly simple answer:

A religion is a cult with enough political clout to get tax relief.

[hydralvx]

Ultimately I suppose a word's definition is largely based on usage. Unfortunately, the word "cult" has no cohesive meaning.

According to sociologists Stark and Bainbridge, the term "cult" generally refers to any religious group which exists in a state of tension with the dominant culture, and which exhibits innovative practices and novel beliefs. Now, such a religious movement may seem very dangerous indeed to one who is part of the dominant culture (whatever that may be, depending on where in the world you live). However, it is not inherently dangerous.

Contrast this usage with words like "sect" (referring to an offshoot of a major religion which has some novel beliefs. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, for example. The Branch Davidians are (were?) likewise a sect of Christianity, as were the Joneses.

Elwell's Glossary of Sociology defines "cult" as "A fragmentary religious group which lacks permanent structure," which also doesn't imply inherent danger. In fact, it may not be saying anything at all. Arguably, by this definition, you can either say that all religions are cults because, so far, none of them has lasted eternity. Or, you can say that none of them are cults, since so religious movement with a failed structure still exists.

Add to these all the various definitions posted in this thread, and you get a word that is basically meaningless and useless. Nevertheless, when the average American uses the word "cult" they mean one thing and one thing only: "a small group of religious people who really scare me!" So I think we should call it official.

I tend to use the word as Stark and Bainbridge do, and keep my life a little simpler by calling small groups of religious people who really scare me, "small groups of religious people who really scare me."

I wonder if my dog realizes that she is in a cult. She relies on me for food and water, does everything I say, and has probably completely forgotten her parents, having been long out of touch with them -- not to mention her other family members. Fortunately for her, I still let her have friends, but only while maintaining complete control over her with the leash and collar that I have assigned her. Luckily for me, this cult has no tension with the dominant culture, so the danger and peril that my dog is in goes widely unnoticed. :D

[C K Dexter Haven]

So, hydralvx, you not only got the poor animal in a cult, you got dogma, too.

[C K Dexter Haven]

So, hydralvx, you not only got the poor animal in a cult, you got dogma, too.

[Irishman]

Dex, you're an admin - don't you know to trust the cgi? :D

hydralvx, why limit it to "small" groups? Scientologists fit the bill, except they're much too large.

[C K Dexter Haven]

... and Democrats.

[Chronos]

No, no, no... hydralvx specifically stated that he does not have dogma:
...has probably completely forgotten her parents, having been long out of touch with them

[hydralvx]

Hey Irishman, you're right of course. Scientology is also very scary and large. I would still hesitate to call them a cult though, given their increasing acceptance in our culture. Catholicism scares me too (not as much as Hubbard of course), but that's a major religion.