cult characteristics

[Mike182]

good breakdown Danisty, frubals

 

[Booko]

Not surprisingly I see Satanism on this list of cults as well even though Booko didn't post it here.

For the record, I intentionally left Satanism off, not because I think it's a cult (how silly) but because I intentionally included only the most uncontroversially benign or confusing items in the list (Amish? Deepak Chopra? Really!)

I can't imagine how Satanism could be considered a cult. In a religion that asserts human individuality, where does mind control fit into that, exactly?

Luciferianism (my own path) does not make it on the list...I'm assuming simply because it isn't as widespread as Satanism or because the people who created this list don't acknowledge a difference between Satanism and Luciferianism and simply lump them all together.

I assumed the latter, though I have no reason to make the assumption other than prior experience with other people.

 

[Booko]

A couple of things - Booko’s list came from about of the blue apparently.

It wasn't out of the blue, exit -- I found the longer list on the site and just listed some of the more obvious candidates for non-cultishness.

HOWEVER, obviously other groups SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST.

Some of them I left off my list because I do in fact consider them cults. Heaven's Gate is one of those examples.

The point was to create a cult checklist - and consider it for onself - instead of having to defend against diatribes (like why didn't mine make the list? or are you implying mine is a cult?).

Except by having such a list with such obvious non-cult groups, the site leaves the door open to people wondering about their credibility in other areas. The Amish? A cult? Oh c'mon now!

By including my religion on that list, the site did imply my religion is a cult.

I looked all over for some other commentary that would explain the list in a different way, but I didn't find anything. If you do, I'd like to go check it out.

There was one book on "cults" by a reputable scholar, and he included the Baha'i Faith in it, but if you read the book you noticed he specifically stated he included it as an example of what was NOT a cult.

 

[Booko]

thanks to jkdenm for finding more cult checklists...
i only wish people would actually check these lists out and confirm
their suspicions about one of these groups...

What's to confirm, Exit?

Do I know anyone who's in a cult or about to join one? Uh...no. In which case, why do I need to confirm any suspicions?

I find it pretty easy really to see what is a dangerous cult. See my previous post on the subject of how cults try to separate the person from all their family and friends.

Now, if they did it to stop an alcoholic from hanging with alcoholic family members, that could be legit. But cults separate members from their non-cult connections as a rule.

 

[des]

I personally dislike the word cult because if you think about it everybody but you (not really you you-- just someone who doesn't believe as you do) is a cult. If you take any religions if you analyze them really rationally you would find that they all contain ideas that might be unusual or strange if you don't believe them (some examples: communion, baptism, etc.).
Therefore, I really like to reserve the word for people who do extremely dangerous and crazy things like drinking cynanide Kool Aid or handling snakes. I was brought up as a Christian Scientist, and though I think some things are really strange now (and perhaps dangerous-- like not going to doctors), CS are usually really typically normal and nice people who you could not pick out of a group.

I would agree that some groups not practicing things that are extremely dangerous and crazy, such as Amish, are cultish, or perhaps xenophobic.
In fact, xenophobic would be how I would describe Amish behavior. It doesn't have the negative connotation of cult.

--des

 

[Ðanisty]

Aw, Danisty you got to it first.
Of course I probably would have added a great deal of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.

Ian, feel free to add to what I write about Satanism. Afterall, I'm not even a Satanist anymore. I'm just used to being the only person here who can answer questions about it.

 

[IanAlmighty]

Ian, feel free to add to what I write about Satanism. Afterall, I'm not even a Satanist anymore. I'm just used to being the only person here who can answer questions about it.

You pretty much said everything I would have said.

 

[DeepShadow]

I'd litke to see an attempt to answer Booko's question about why certain groups are on the list. Here's a start, from the ICSA home page:

Groups vary significantly and different persons will respond differently to the same group. We urge inquirers to read our definitional essays to avoid the temptation to oversimplify.
ICSA does NOT maintain a list of "bad" groups or "cults." We nonjudgmentally list groups on which we have information.

A listing on ICSA's web site does not mean that ICSA perceives any group to be a cult, practices coercive or destructive tactics, or is in violation of any law. It simply means that ICSA has information on the group and/or has received inquiries from current and former members, their family, professionals, researchers, the media, or the general public.

Groups listed, described, or referred to on ICSA's Web sites may be mainstream or nonmainstream, controversial or noncontroversial, religious or nonreligious, cult or not cult, harmful or benign.

We encourage inquirers to consider a variety of opinions, negative and positive, so that inquirers can make independent and informed judgments pertinent to their particular concerns.

 

[des]

I'm quoting a quote here, so that can be "dangerous". Anyway I looked at the page and it looks like quite a professional page whose motivations seem professional. However, when many people see the word "cult" they have their own ideas that aren't the same as ICSAs seem to be-- i.e. study, scholarship. When they see this term they mean that "this group" is not as good or valid as "my group". Hence I see a few Christians using the term cult to apply to CS, JW, or even Catholics, who they dislike or don't agree with or think is false religion.

There are several dictionary definitions that I wouldnt' have a problem with, but the connotation seems to be this one:
(from the web dictionary as I am lazy ):
"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."
This could turn out to be many different things (fill in charismatic leader with pastor, pope, rabbi, teacher, and you get the picture).
Outside society could turn out to be anything that doesn't fit the norms of whatever group you belong to. So that's why I would tend to leave it to the use of something that is very dangerous and very extreme like handling snakes or drinking cynadide Kool-Aid.

Others who wish to study groups of a certain kind might need a more "inclusive" definition, so that's up to them. I think the web site "religioustolerance.com goes further than me and wouldn't even include snake handlers. I guess I'm not that "tolerant". ;-)

--des

I'd litke to see an attempt to answer Booko's question about why certain groups are on the list. Here's a start, from the ICSA home page:

 

[Booko]

I'd litke to see an attempt to answer Booko's question about why certain groups are on the list. Here's a start, from the ICSA home page:

ICSA does NOT maintain a list of "bad" groups or "cults." We nonjudgmentally list groups on which we have information.

<snip>

A listing on ICSA's web site does not mean that ICSA perceives any group to be a cult, practices coercive or destructive tactics, or is in violation of any law. It simply means that ICSA has information on the group and/or has received inquiries from current and former members, their family, professionals, researchers, the media, or the general public.

Groups listed, described, or referred to on ICSA's Web sites may be mainstream or nonmainstream, controversial or noncontroversial, religious or nonreligious, cult or not cult, harmful or benign.

The thing is, this disclaimer was lost on me while I was digging around their site. If they maintain a list, it looks like it's a "list of cults" doesn't it?

And apparently all one has to do to get on the list is to have someone "inquire"? Uh...interesting.

Oh, I did get a response from Religious Tolerance about the issue of inaccuracy that I raised with them. They have some biased and inaccurate information they get from someone who is well known to NOT be a Baha'i, but who persistently says he is.

Now, I could decide to call myself a Christian tomorrow, and there's no way to challenge that. But if I call myself a Roman Catholic and I'm not a member of that denom, there *is* a way to tell if I am or not. And it would be inaccurate to list me as a Catholic if I'm not one.

In the Baha'i Faith, it takes more than hanging out a shingle saying you're a Baha'i to make you one. It's not something the organization made up to "control" things. It's what the Writings say that we have to go by.

It's apparent from Religious Tolerance's response that they have no intention of looking further. It doesn't speak well for their committment to accuracy that they won't consider a bit more research to ensure the accuracy of their information.

Heck if they wanted the quotes to read for themselves, I'd point 'em in the direction so they can figure it out. And then it's just a phone call to National to see if the dude is a member or not. It's about 10 minutes worth of someone's time.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

The definition of "cults" in the first post sounds a little like society as a whole and training in it begins at birth. So prolonged and persistent is the training that the fish in the bowl many times don't even realize that they are in the bowl or that they are fish in the first place- that plastic "captain jack" figurine is real.

 

[DeepShadow]

The thing is, this disclaimer was lost on me while I was digging around their site. If they maintain a list, it looks like it's a "list of cults" doesn't it?

And apparently all one has to do to get on the list is to have someone "inquire"? Uh...interesting.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If people are consistently asking if Mormons are a cult (which they probably are) it might make sense to keep files of all their investigations into everyone, period.

Where did you get the info on Satanism from their web site? I can't find it.

 

[Booko]

The definition of "cults" in the first post sounds a little like society as a whole and training in it begins at birth. So prolonged and persistent is the training that the fish in the bowl many times don't even realize that they are in the bowl or that they are fish in the first place- that plastic "captain jack" figurine is real.

Or like frogs, who if tossed into boiling water will hop out, but if you put them in water and then turn on the heat, they'll sit there and boil to death...

 

[Ðanisty]

It's apparent from Religious Tolerance's response that they have no intention of looking further. It doesn't speak well for their committment to accuracy that they won't consider a bit more research to ensure the accuracy of their information.

They have inaccurate information on Luciferianism too. I've had to repeatedly correct the same mistake over and over again from people who've read their site and the worst part is people tend to believe the site's information over the information from actual Luciferians.

 

[Katzpur]

It's apparent from Religious Tolerance's response that they have no intention of looking further. It doesn't speak well for their committment to accuracy that they won't consider a bit more research to ensure the accuracy of their information.

That was my experience exactly. About all I can say with respect to their information on Mormonism is that they are more accurate than the average non-official website.

Interestingly, though, I just went into their website (I have it bookmarked but hadn't really been there much for the past three or four years) and noticed a change from when I was last there. They have one page entitled, "Terminology, Practices, Opposition and Off-shoots." The "Opposition" section has been removed entirely. I guess they finally did check into what our detractors were saying about us and got their facts straight. For quite some time, they had a whole page devoted to some of the criticisms leveled against us, but included no rebuttals. Now, the "anti" stuff is just gone.

 

[Booko]

They have inaccurate information on Luciferianism too. I've had to repeatedly correct the same mistake over and over again from people who've read their site and the worst part is people tend to believe the site's information over the information from actual Luciferians.

Oy vey and begorrah! That's quite ridiculous.

What do they have on the site that's wrong? I likely couldn't spot it, but would like to know.

At least the inaccurate information about us is mostly limited to some guy who likes to downplay the numbers.

Heck I would've been considered "inactive" for several years, as I was "not seen" in my community at the usual events. But I was hardly "inactive" -- I was spending 10-20 hours a week working at a local Baha'i Center. Um...yeah, "inactive."

Inactive doesn't mean you don't think of yourself as a Baha'i still, which is what the one dude seems to insist is the case.

Now, there are people who are on the list who don't really think of themselves as Baha'is, and we make an effort to remove them. There isn't much point bothering people about things they don't want to be bothered with, eh?

 

[Booko]

That was my experience exactly. About all I can say with respect to their information on Mormonism is that they are more accurate than the average non-official website.

Yeah, the mistake they have on our page is like if they took info from Warren Jeffs and passed it off as real LDS. Uh huh...

Interestingly, though, I just went into their website (I have it bookmarked but hadn't really been there much for the past three or four years) and noticed a change from when I was last there. They have one page entitled, "Terminology, Practices, Opposition and Off-shoots." The "Opposition" section has been removed entirely. I guess they finally did check into what our detractors were saying about us and got their facts straight. For quite some time, they had a whole page devoted to some of the criticisms leveled against us, but included no rebuttals. Now, the "anti" stuff is just gone.

Well, that's progress! I wonder if maybe enough people complained, so they finally saw fit to do something about it.

 

[Ðanisty]

Oy vey and begorrah! That's quite ridiculous.

What do they have on the site that's wrong? I likely couldn't spot it, but would like to know.

I don't know if they still have this posted on their site, but their claim was that Luciferianism was a term for theistic Satanism. Luciferianism is an entirely different path and can include both theists and atheists. It took me several seperate debates with people to determine where exactly they were getting this information. It just irritates me that they refused to be corrected.

 

[exit_and_how]

here's another characteristic:

cults may try to remove from publication any material that criticizes the group or exposes negative aspects of it. Cults may also try to make their publications mainstream - for example, placing them in public libraries. These groups would also try to get their agendas put into schools - public or private.

 

[FatMan]

These groups would also try to get their agendas put into schools - public or private.

I believe most cults are far too small or disorganized to do such things. If they get bigger - they really aren't cults anymore, but become fringe-like religions.

Or in the case of Scientology - it can be an organization who only declared themselves as a religious one for tax purposes