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.”)
One man’s religion is another man’s cult.
[ See: What’s the difference between a church and a cult? – 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]
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:
Now, now – we all know that the genius of the house is Cecil! But thank you for the comparison. 
CFQWEST said:
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).
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”
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:
Actually, I do, thanks. If you’ve invested money in psychology courses, you should ask for a refund.
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.
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”
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… 
Since this old thread is being revived…
CFQWEST said (and I realize he may no longer be around to defend his position):
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:
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.
“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.
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.
What hidden agenda, Irishman? Also, neither the Pope nor the LDS Church President is considered to be omniscient.