Thread title is inspired by an article I came across in the Daily Telegraph:
“Scientology’s fraud conviction upheld in France”
Of particular interest was this line:
Is this a valid distinction to make?
I say no, for the following reasons:
even in France there appears there appears to be no widely accepted definition of a cult;
many cult checklists can just as easily be applied to otherwise unremarkable mainstream religion;
I am unaware of any evidence that suggests such a differentiation is of any substantive use in combating illegal activities perpetrated against any genuinely nasty religious group, whether organised religion, sect, cult or prayer group in a free and open democracy;
-on the other hand, the potential abuse and associated stigma of being branded a "cult:, rightly or wrongly, is high;
For purposes of this debate I am speaking broadly about the desirability of an enforceable distinction between “cults” and “religion” at a government level. It is not intended to be about the merits of the linked case or a “bash-the-scientologists” thread, as fun as it may be.
Thing is, though, there are all kinds of concepts for which there is no widely accepted definition. When dealing with these concepts, governments simply lay down rules. What’s the distinction between part-time and full-time employment? Or between pollutant and a non-polutant. Or between an organic pesticide and one that isn’t organic? There’s no clearly right answer in any of these cases, but that doesn’t stop governments from providing their own answers.
[ul]
[li]Religions are honest and open about their teachings, will happily explain it to all comers, and won’t interfere unduly in their followers’ lives[/li][li]Cults will keep their literature secret, won’t explain their platform to you unless you’ve invested tons of money and years of effort into it, and will force you to turn your back on your family if they are unbelievers[/li][/ul]
That’s the Scientology difference in a nutshell. And that’s not even getting into the other nasty issues, for example, treating their Sea Org members as if they were basically prisoners in a labor camp. (Since they’re “religious volunteers” in the US, Scientology doesn’t have to pay them minimum wage.)
I strongly suspect all six concepts above are defined in various legislation in your home country. The definitions may be inadequate for one or more, you or others may disagree that the definitions are accurate, but I would be genuinely surprised if they were not there.
Furthermore, the reasons for having the distinctions in your examples is also quite obvious and need not be expanded upon…
In France, they have not defined cult but have referred to cult-like movements to describe certain groups engaged in certain activities. Many of the “certain activities” are engaged in by groups widely perceived as legitimate religious organisations and the “certain activities” are not dissimilar from similarly flawed and abundant “cult checklists”. Nor can I think of any reason why such a distinction would be of better use in prosecuting wayward religious organisations. In fact the possibility of using it to stifle less powerful religions - ones without “political clout” seems to be a potential problem, and a huge one, one that could easily dwarf any purported benefit.
If I sold you a gadget that I claimed measured mental energy, but it was bogus, don’t you think I could be sued for fraudulent trade? That’s what happened in France.
The manufacturers of bogus bomb detectors have been successfully sued. Maybe they should have claimed a religious exemption and they’d still be in business.
Joke aside, I’d say the distinction is more about being grandfathered in. A religion is a cult with a couple centuries under its belt and some architecture to its name.
That being said, in the specific matter of the trial being brought by the OP, the distinction is hardly necessary since the CoS was tried for systemic illegal and/or predatory practices, much like any other criminal organisation would have been. There is no legal definition in French law that I know of re: what a cult is or isn’t, which also means cults can’t be tried just for being one (or not), nor are there laws targetting cults specifically (or giving “religions” a pass).
OTOH, there *are *laws against confidence scams, fraud and so on. Which are what the CoS was hit with, and is also why they’re trying to throw a smokescreen by calling it an attack on religion, a new inquisition or whatever the fuck right now.
I can’t agree with your second point. Scientology seems to be unique in charging unbelievable amounts of money for increasing access to its sacred literature and I’m not aware of any other religion. cult or otherwise that does so. In this respect Scientology appears to be unique, but its not a sine qua non for being a genuine religion.
In any case, it is not alone is not alone in demanding money from its adherents. I’m not talking tithe here, but of some of the more of the odious prosperity churches, none of which I’ve heard being called a cult from a serious source.
An admittedly small number of mainstream religions already strongly discourage you from maintaining contact with nonbelievers, family or otherwise, especially in some charismatic sects. A number of religions generally not considered to be cults these days once, including the Amish or Jehovah’s Witnesses - will shun any who leave the flock do so.
Scientology does some very nasty things - but why is the cult/religion distinction actually needed? Did Scientology need to be declared a cult before they could be investigated for embezzlement? Surely not?
But consider: just because the current law doesn’t consider them “cults” doesn’t mean they are a different category than Scientology. For example, perhaps they’re just enough “under the radar” that nobody’s bothered to look into them or take them to trial that would require determining cult status.
Personally, I think I would bundle those churches into the same bucket as Scientology, but admittedly I don’t know enough about them.
Again: this is news to me.
But that aside, you are correct that declaring Scientology a cult wasn’t strictly necessary for handing down this judgement, but if you read the article the situation is actually a bit different: Scientology was already considered a cult and they were trying to be recognized as a religion. So the status quo didn’t change as a result of this trial.
This is exactly my point. They were able to make a finding against a purported religious organisation without referral to whether it was a cult by using perfectly valid existing laws. The existence of a cult / religion dichotomy is thus unnecessary.
FWIW, I haven’t paid any attention to Scientology’s bluster in the wake of the ruling.
Is the tax deduction because the organization is a religion or is it because the organization is listed as a non-profit and/or a charitable organization?
religion is about the faith itself, and less about the mechanics of it - although obviously the ‘practice’ of ones religion will include the mechanics (when, how to worship, etc).
cult is about control of the religious expression itself.
In that respect, one would consider ‘Christianity’ to be the religion and any of the various ‘sects’ to be the ‘cults’ - and this would include all of them. The term originally was used in just that fashion
However, in current, mainstream terms - a ‘cult’ can also be used to define specific splinter groups since they exert more ‘control’ over the followers this control includes a number of factors, but generally comes down to
all of the information a member gets is tightly controlled, especially the information related to the particular belief system.
any outside research is ‘demonized’ and frowned upon
questioning or disagreeing with any of the beliefs will get you ostracized
the giver of the information is on a ‘pedastal’ - gets it directly from ‘god’ and is not to be questioned.
they usually have a few beliefs that set them apart from the mainstream, and they use these beliefs as ‘proof’ that they are the chosen ones
the believers are closely monitored by other believers and ‘elders’ - any transgression can get noted - strict adherence is a requirement.
In your quote - you say that the ‘jehovah’s witnesses’ are not considered a cult - they fit all of the classic descriptions of a ‘high control’ cult - the only people that would disagree with this are the JW themselves or people not very familiar with the internal structure of the group. (I do not want to make this a discussion about them - but I do want to counter your assertion – I laid out much of that argument in apit thread if your interested, post 289, but you’ll want to wade thru the page before and after to get the majority of the argument)
Generally speaking, being a ‘cult’ has little to do with the outward appearance of the members - its used today to ‘mark’ splinter/extremist type groups.
The difference between religions and cults is simply down to perception by outsiders. Legitimacy in the public eye is usually granted by dint of a group’s longevity and good reputation. Of course, there’re no hard black-and-white line here, only guidelines. If a religious belief system dies with its founder, it was a cult. If it didn’t, it may be a religion, or might be recognized as one later. Or maybe it’s just a really strong cult. The group itself can’t determine this, only the public (and their government) can.
To gain a good reputation, most churches invest in their community and try to do more good than bad. Scientology is the for-profit corporation of religion. They never use their money for good deeds, and they openly hunt and crush former [del]employees[/del]members.
[quote=“Blakeyrat, post:7, topic:671605”]
My opinion:
[ul]
[li]Religions are honest and open about their teachings, will happily explain it to all comers, and won’t interfere unduly in their followers’ lives[/li][li]Cults will keep their literature secret, won’t explain their platform to you unless you’ve invested tons of money and years of effort into it, and will force you to turn your back on your family if they are unbelievers[/li][/quote]
There is a correlation between secrecy and cult status, but it’s not a 1:1 ratio. There are plenty of religions that aren’t honest or open about their teachings, to the point of being hostile to outsiders, and try to control their followers’ lives to a crazy degree (orthodox Jews, certain Amish sects). There are also cults which are very open and proselytic (Hare Krishnas).
[/ul]
Not sure, actually. I believe the Catholic Church gets some specific breaks, but I could very well be wrong about that. Maybe **clairobscur **could be of more help, he usually knows about legal stuff. Well, better than I do, anyway
But French law certainly has some historical weirdness when it comes to churches. For example in Alsace and Moselle - and nowhere else in France - priests get a small stipend from the State because that’s how it was back when those two regions were part of the Holy Roman Empire. When France conquered them, the statu-quo was preserved as a compromise to keep the locals happy, and the rules have never been changed since (although apparently it’s being talked about).
Just checked out of idle curiosity and this special arrangement only applies to Catholic, Protestant and Jewish priests, essentially Just Because.
Also interesting (I’m learning as I tell you !) : as part of this weird legal arrangement, the archbishop of Strasbourg and the bishop of Metz are both appointed by the French President rather than the Pope. Sez here it’s the only place in the world where that’s the case.
One relatively objective standard I’ve heard is that in a cult, the majority of the members converted from another faith. In a religion, the majority of the members were raised in the faith. It’s something of a rule of thumb but it does give weight to the idea that religions are generally more established in the mainstream than cults are.
I’m sure you have - prosperity churches preach that faith, a positive outlook and regular (copious) donations will improve your life -not just spirituality, but physically and financially too. They also tend to target potential parishioners in lower income areas -ie they tell the people who can least afford to give to give “until it hurts”.
I managed to track down an unofficial and mediocre English translation http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html of a 1995 special parliamentary committee report on cults. This includes a list of 173 organisations considered to be cults, including Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons and appears to eb the source for Scientology’s cult status in France, not a trial. (sorry for piecemeal revealing but could really do with a French guy on this thread.) At least one “cult”, Anthroposophy, sued for defamation for its inclusion -and won. This supports my OP where i spoke of the potential stigmatizing effect a government declaring an organisation to be a cult may have.
