Here is the “ask me anything” thread by a former JW. Makes me angry reading it.
I just checked the Cult Education Institute archives, and People of Praise did not make their very extensive database.
But there’s not a black and white line between “cult” and “not a cult”. It’s a continuum and some cults are definitely worse than others. And a lot of fundamentalist churches are “cults-in-waiting”, their members have been primed by letting their church do all their thinking for them - then when the corrupt leaders take power they are easily led into full on cultism.
But I haven’t seen any indication that People of Praise engages in the worst of the cult behavior. They don’t dictate where their members live or who they marry. They don’t monitor the outside communications of their members. They don’t forbid television or outside media. They don’t control their members employment or finances by making them turn over their paychecks or work for cult owned businesses . They don’t limit the education of their generational members in order to ensure that they are unemployable outside the cult.
I’m not saying they don’t have any cult-like practices or some of the red flags. I’m just saying I don’t see People of Praise exerting anywhere near the degree of control over their membership that full on cults do.
The problem with labeling everything a cult is that in minimizes the damage done by actual cults.
This. The only difference between a cult and a religion is how many people adhere to it.
And it’s age. I believe a lot of cults mellow out over time and are treated as religions afterward. It might be due to the death of the founder, or rules changes so they can coexist with society. Once the cult has been around a few generations without an authoritarian leader and has dropped objectionable rules, they become indistinguishable from many widely-respected religions.
Yes, it is so. Does that mean that there isnt anti-muslim sentiment among some people? of course there is, just like there is anti-black feelings. But if you fire or refuse to hire a person due to their race or religion, you will find out that is not legal.
Cults do tend to be much more insular. Out of all the definitions of a cult, I find this one to be the most telling, the most obvious, and the most damaging to its members.
If you are a member of scientology, they don’t want you to talk to any of your friends and family or anyone else that are not in their cult, unless you are doing so with the purpose of converting them.
If you are a Lutheran, they encourage you to talk to people who are not Lutheran. Converting them is nice, of course, but it is not the only reason that you are allowed to talk to them.
Somewhere on that spectrum is where religion ends and cult begins. I don’t think that ACB’s beliefs quite fall into that category, from my understanding.
The only bit of “misinformation” in the original Newsweek article concerns the notion that The Handmaid’s Tale was specifically based on Barrett’s group. The Washington Post also ran an article on her and now “People of Praise” have actively been trying to hide all ties with her.
It’s not a matter of discriminating against her for her beliefs, it is determining whether her beliefs will cause her to discriminate against others.
There’s nothing in the definition of cult that makes them so. Many cults are not insular. Many mainstream entrenched religions are insular. Are Amish a cult? Hasids? It seems that the more extreme the views, the more likely they are to be insular. All religions begin as a smaller “cult”.
There is no difference. A cult is defined by non-members.
Amish IME are mostly happy to talk with non-Amish, about farming and other non-religious subjects; and will attend secular conferences, and so on.
Might depend on the particular community, though.
Newsweek makes a claim that The Handmaid’s Tale was based on Barrett’s group and you consider that just a “bit” of misinformation. No big deal…just a tiny error. Right?
The insularity is a large part of it, but groups can be very insular without being a full-fledged cult.
Cults will require their members to give them total control over all aspects of their life. Marriages are arranged by the cult and the cult dictates the family structure - cults also screw with the family structure as a way of controlling behavior, sending men to live away from their families or giving children to more worthy members.
Cults will forbid their members from most non-casual contact with the outside world and don’t allow television or unmonitored internet, telephone or mail contacts.
Cults will control the employment and finances of their membership. Cult members may be required to work for cult-owned businesses. Many cults own an extensive network of legitimate businesses, including businesses that hold government contracts. Fraud is rampant in these businesses. Sometimes most of the pay is in credits good only at cult businesses, or else the members transfer almost all of it over to the cult. The cult may own their housing - even if members own their home it may be in a neighborhood populated entirely by cult members, making the property difficult to sell without the consent of the cult.
Cults control the education of their members children. Most often it is substandard, especially for girls. The goal is to assure that these children do not grow up capable of surviving outside the cult. Physical and sexual abuse is often rampant - especially in the religious fundamental groups, where physically abuse is a theological tenet.
This may be an extreme definition but there are dozens of cults in the US that meet that definition. There are a lot more groups that are really authoritarian and psychologically abusive but not to the extent that I described above - they may insist on approving marriages but still allow their members to pick their mate, they may require large tithes but not take full control of the members finances. Groups like this can slide easily slide into full cultdom, though.
Very true, and bears repeating. You cannot legally or ethically deprive someone of their civil rights because of their religion, or subject them to employment or social discrimination. But you can certainly consider their religious beliefs when evaluating their fitness for high office, particularly a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land which can set the tone of national values for generations. Consider Rick Santorum, for example, who is so loathed by progressives and just about anyone with a modicum of intelligence because, among many other things, his zealous Catholicism has led him to be intransigently anti-abortion and also a raving homophobe.
I’m not a fan of these models, because they are never specific enough when they appear in magazines or on TV or websites. I mean what does " When, how and with whom the member has sex" mean? If it means the group advocates having sex only within marriage, that’s one thing. If it means that all women are required to have sex with the leader whenever he wants, that’s quite another. Does “Control types of clothing and hairstyles” mean that my job is engaging in cultish behavior if it has a dress code? Does “Your affiliations are unwise” mean that if my husband and I tell our son he needs to get a better set of friends that we are behaving like a very small cult? I doubt that’s what the person who developed that model actually means - I’m sure he’s referring to the more extreme versions of all those statements, but it’s like those lists of characteristics of serial killers* that just list “bedwetting” or “starting fires” without getting into the details that it’s bedwetting a couple of times a week for at least a few months past the age of 5, or that the firestarting refers to arson , not starting campfires.
- which I think has been debunked, but you still hear about it
Considering that the book is a minor part of the article and the group has trying to hide her involvement with them, specifically linking the book to the group is not a big deal. Seems to me that, If it was really a big deal, the group would be trying to distance themselves from the book rather than trying to delete all ties with Barrett.
Many of you are using a very narrow definition of “cult”. While they certainly CAN be all controlling and insular, they’re not necessary to be a cult.
Dictionary.com:
cult
[ kuhlt ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR cult ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers:the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
the members of such a religion or sect.
any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
If being at an extreme on a religious spectrum is the problem, then one extreme is where you look to your religion for guidance in as many areas of life as possible — who your friends can be, what entertainment is acceptable, what you can read, where you can vacation, and what secular occupations are acceptable.
The other extreme, on a religious spectrum, would be atheism.
I don’t think I will like many 5-4 or 6-3 decisions where she is in the majority. But I think there are conservative atheist lawyers out there who would vote just as she will.
And of course I think atheists should be allowed to be judges. That’s because I support the no religious test idea.
Atheists don’t adhere to ideologies that supersede the Constitution. Religious fanatics do.
The debunked claim is literally the first sentence of the article:
" Amy Coney Barrett, a favorite to be President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is affiliated with a type of Christian religious group that served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale."
O.K., that one claim is debunked, and nobody is bringing it up…except you, over and over again. What precisely are you wanting to happen here?