Yeah, I always liked the Hare Krishnas. They had great cheap food when I was a student, and while they’d happily chat about their faith they were never aggressive proselytisers. They seemed like nice, harmless people.
How would you distinguish a “cult” from the angrier Christian sects who hold public meetings? Are they soiling the street too? Should they be “deprogrammed” as well, or is that fate reserved for those whose beliefs you disagree with?
They moved to Ozone Park, Queens…
Yes, all religious people should be deprogrammed. For those who try to resist attempts at deprogramming, I suggest Electric Shock Therapy. Or, solitary confinement, so that they can not spread their infections mind disease. If all efforts fail and years later there is no reform, I suggest a lobotomy. Hey… it’s not like they were even using their brain to begin with so don’t get so angry when I offer a simple solution, ok?
Depends obviously. Some of the sects which proclaim the name of Christ certainly belong in the category of cults.
Tips fedora
There’s a ISKON temple in Midtown Atlanta, that’s been there at least since the early 90’s. I lived very near there, and used to run in the park next to the temple. Seemed like pretty good neighbors. I would occasionally see them on the streets, but never proselytizing; and every year they’d hold a festival and parade that was always kinda fun.
I know they’ve got some funny business in their history, but I much prefer them to Scientologists or JWs.
One of those irregular nouns, obviously: I belong to a faith, you are superstitious, he is a member of a cult.
Thank you, Bernard.
What would be the point of that? Trying to get them to open? But they have no interest in eating chicken sandwiches. Trying to get them to stay closed? How, by putting psychic barricades around the building? Pull the other one.
Why did they hang around in airports? Were they trying to catch new members immediately upon arrival in a city?
Yes, Minister.
I regard the hindus as the dimwitted relatives of the hindus.
[ Yep, old joke. ]
40 people milling around 40 acres doesn’t strike me as a mob scene from Intolerance.
Actually, that doesn’t strike me as comparable to a crowd of hindus at a political rally in India.
Anyway, while I violently dislike anyone with shaven heads, these people always seem gracious and kind. Their food seems decent; and their beliefs tolerable. Their books are incomprehensible to me, but then so is catholic devotional literature, and I had a French copy of **The Imitation of Christ **around since I was about 8.
Some devotees live in my neighbourhood, they’ve never come round my door like the JWs and LDS do. They also used to run a restaurant I liked a lot. As far as their prescence goes, I’ve got no beef with them (as it should be :)) Their actual beliefs are, of course, a different matter.
I’ll not completely say they’re innocent or don’t have weird/fishy going ons. Although my classmate still saw friends and family, she did disconnect from them, as she spent most of her time in the commune or between commune and work. The onus was mostly on the others to keep the contact with her. Also, the whole marriage thing was weird. It seems it is one that seeks people in conflict or trouble, which sounds like many young adults, and my classmate found escape, solace, and peace through it. At least it sounds better than turning to drugs.
Do adherents of the religion, looking for converts, seek out people in conflict or trouble?
Or are people in conflict or trouble more likely to be seeking meaning, answers, and peace?
In my experience, people tend to stay in the religion they were brought up with or they just give up religion all together. People who actively convert to another religion tend to be people who are looking for meaning. A prosthelytizer (of any religion) may attempt to convert every person who crosses his path but it will probably only be the people who are in conflict or trouble who will take interest. Then, looking at the results- that all these conflicted and troubled people have converted to this religion- it will seem that the prosthelytizer seeks such people out.
There are a lot in the West End (London) who do the thing of dancing single-file down the street singing. Often I see them being joined by tourists just joining in for fun like a conga line. 
They also provide free food (donation genuinely optional) at a square in Bloomsbury. They have leaflets there but they’re just there to take if you happen to want one, and nobody will follow you and harangue you if you take one.
Many of the dancing people and food-giving people, in robes and with shaved heads, seem to be young or youngish, so it seems like they’re not dying out despite not being aggressive about bringing people in to their organisation.
You’re obviously too young to remember…but back in the 1970’s every airport in America was full of Hare Krishna disciples, begging for money. They were thoroughly obnoxious…they would run up to you, physically blocking your path , hold incense under your nose , or put a flower in your lapel, and then ask you for a donation. The airports posted official warning signs, saying basically “We’re sorry about those bastards, but there’s nothing we can do about it.”*
The movie Airplane satirized them in this scene.
And that’s why I posted the OP—I remember being hit on by these people constantly…They were always young (19-20yrs old), and most of them seemed to be what I called “brainwashed”—they had cut off all ties with their family, and lived exclusively for the cult. But I’ve always wondered what happened to them as they grew older.
*Well, actually, the signs said something like: “Be advised that you may be approached by certain individuals, whom the courts have ruled are acting within their first ammendment rights. We, the airport management ,are in no way connected with them, and do not condone their activities.”
The general impression I had growing up in the late 60’s early 70’s was that they were another group that scooped up lost lonely and confused young people and gave them a “group to belong to”. By enforcing a commune lifestyle people felt they ahd a family.
back in the 70’s their entire modus operandi seemed to be begging to support their home base (what else would a bunch of lost kids do for money?). Like many other cults, the question was whether someone up the line was skimming off the extra to support a lavish lifestyle, but unlike TV preachers or Scientology or Moonies or Maharishi Mahesh (?) there did not appear to be a cynical leader at the top pulling the strings and living a nice life.
Good to see they’ve morphed a bit into something more mainstream…
No, you see, he was pooping.
At that moment, at least, I was not mocking the Christian concept of god. Not that I haven’t or wouldn’t, but not at that moment. I was just saying we have a different definition of God and of moksha entirely; and it doesn’t really entail something like Jesus or God or the Holy trinity…it’s more nebulous and a bit harder to categorize.
All that being said, I have heard of individual cases of child molestation within the Hare Krishnas, but I think that any insular religious faculty gets that problem - you mustn’t question the elders, what they say goes, etc. I mean, I’m pretty sure Satya Sai Baba was a child molestor and he’s got about a zillion followers. Not to mention the problems within the Catholic Church. 
I have been to a few Hare Krishna temples and they are always lavish affairs. But they do silly, albeit charming, things. For example, one of our gods, Krishna, loved Radha. It is a matter of legend that they never wed in this life; that they were really two halves of the same soul.
Hare Krishnas do things like stage mock wedding ceremonies of Radha and Krishna, using idols. At least the party was a nice big one, with great food. 
I stayed at the Palace of Gold for a week when I was a young teen, and it is gorgeous. I highly recommend you at least visit the website and look at the pics. And no one tried to push anything on us during that week.