Well, no. When you’re talking about the kind of massive institutional power of the kind that buys politicians and institutes theocratic dictatorships, that kind of power is exclusive to larger religions. You won’t see that kind of thing from a cult. Now a cult may well have beliefs just as vile as a religion, and it may ruin lives, but it doesn’t have the institutional power it takes to crush all opposition like you see from MAGA and Christianity.
The Cult Awareness Network presented itself as a source of information about “cults”; by 1991 it was monitoring over 200 groups that it referred to as “mind-control cults”. It also promoted a form of coercive intervention by self-styled “deprogrammers” who would, for a significant fee, forcibly detain or even abduct the cult member and subject them to a barrage of attacks on their beliefs, supposedly in order to counter the effects of the brainwashing. The practice, which could involve criminal actions such as kidnapping and false imprisonment, generated controversy, and Ted Patrick and others faced both civil and criminal proceedings.
Gee, I fucking wonder why they lost that lawsuit. Scientologists are evil, but so was the Cult Awareness Network. You’re not going to convince anyone that those assholes were doing the right thing. You can’t expect a bunch of kidnappers to have a good opinion about what is and isn’t a cult. Scientology is a large scale religion, which makes it much worse than a cult. Now I don’t want to hear you defending the Scientologists by calling them a cult again.
Were you paying attention earlier in the thread when I said cults are small, or are you expecting me to investigate Scientology and find that surprise, they’re actually very small and don’t have many members?
I thought they were global and pretty large scale, but I haven’t got any numbers for you and I wouldn’t dream of comparing their size with major world religions.
My assertion, which I admit I didn’t express, is that the distinction between cult and religion is less about size and more about how much members lose personal autonomy and how secretive the organisation is about its beliefs and practices.
That’s the way I see it anyway, otherwise there’s not a lot of point having two different words for it. There are grey areas, sure, but that doesn’t mean that there is no distinction.
Anti-theist here, religion in all it’s forms is a blight on humanity, but let’s not muddle the waters with misused vocabulary.
The difference between a cult and a religion is not the number of believers, it’s how much they enforce groupthink, how hard it is to leave and if they are based around a charismatic leader who profits directly from the imposed sameness and thought control. Generally cults:
Rush you into joining and discourage or disallow questions.
Followers are encouraged to worship a specific group leader.
Leaders dictate in great detail all aspects of followers’ lives.
Followers are personally monitored to ensure they’re following guidelines.
Methods of control are used to keep members close.
That’s how, for example the catholic church isn’t a cult but scientology is. The sharp surveilance and strong measures in place to prevent deviancy make all the difference. It’s easy to leave catholicism, but leaving scientology can even be dangerous.
That’s a measure of the abusiveness of a religion and has nothing to do with its size. I already explained in depth in another comment the political motivations for creating a second, fake definition of the word cult. If you consult Merriam Webster you’ll see the first definition of the word cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and none of the definitions mention abuse, because your claim is ahistorical myth.
Cults are completely different from religion and size is not a defining factor. They’re more similar to a con and will sometimes use religion to exert control.
Knitting Cult Lady is great! She has a video outlining 7 defining characteristics of cults but I can’t find it.
That’s a myth perpetuated by Christian mums during the satanic panic. Back in the 60s the hippie movement was in full swing and young people were abandoning Christianity to follow pagan religions like Wicca and Hellenism. Christian pastors felt threatened, so they came up with a conspiracy to take the word cult (which up until then had meant a small religion) and make it a bad word by association with abuse. That’s why all the historical examples of cults that predate the 60s have no association with abuse. You take an example like the Cult of Dionysus and there’s no pejorative meaning to the word.
I don’t think it’s a myth if it has become an area of study. Yes, words have different meanings like “theory” does in and out of academia, but the current understanding of the word is much more comprehensive than a small religion. And MAGA is most definitely a cult of personality that uses religion as a tool.
You can do science on any made up word and reach genuine conclusions with flawed premises. Look at phrenology and scientific racism. If you ignore the question “is this thing real?” and skip straight to “what are the associations with this thing”, you’ll find something. It’ll be nonsense, but it’ll be there.
For example, suppose I look at the habits of clowns and roofers. I don’t question why clowns and roofers are associated, I just assume they are and check the data. The data I find will be the overlay of two different trends. I’ll reach all sorts of conclusions about clowns that are only true of roofers, and vice versa. The data will say clowns love a good beer after being outdoors all day, and roofers visit party stores a lot. That’s nonsense, but if I don’t question the association, the data will show it.
Associating small religions with abusive religions is the same mistake. The data will tell you all sorts of things about small and abusive religions, but it won’t tell you which trend belongs to which group, and people will make all sorts of wrong assumptions based on the wacky data.
Yep, science has churned out some whacky stuff before. But what? So you’re saying that the study of non-religious or coincidentally religious cults as a means to exploit and control is pure made-up nonsense? That’s kind of wild to me considering how characteristic and consistent their modus operandi is. MAGA fits the bill so well, for example, that I have a hard time believing they don’t exist. And I’d like to hear some opinions from people in the know, like Daniella Mestyanek from the link above, who you’re essentially saying her entire field of study is based on a lie.
You’re right. Even the moonies had big politicians kissing up to them once they got big enough and no one blinked, despite their leader openly claiming he was above Jesus Christ of Nazareth on the heavenly totem poll.
I would never suck a MAGA dick. Enjoy being lonely while your cult worships the orange fascist!
MAGA isn’t a cult. Cults are small. MAGA is big enough to be a religion, which is far more dangerous.
Cult is just a word the big congregation uses about the small congregation
The new lexicon is “High demand group”
This encompasses cults, religions, MLMs, and all sorts of other groups that behave cult-like attributes
Well, no. When you’re talking about the kind of massive institutional power of the kind that buys politicians and institutes theocratic dictatorships, that kind of power is exclusive to larger religions. You won’t see that kind of thing from a cult. Now a cult may well have beliefs just as vile as a religion, and it may ruin lives, but it doesn’t have the institutional power it takes to crush all opposition like you see from MAGA and Christianity.
The church of scientology.
Also not a cult.
You telling me that the “religion” that sued the Cult Awareness Network into oblivion so they wouldn’t be labeled a cult is not a cult?
Gee, I fucking wonder why they lost that lawsuit. Scientologists are evil, but so was the Cult Awareness Network. You’re not going to convince anyone that those assholes were doing the right thing. You can’t expect a bunch of kidnappers to have a good opinion about what is and isn’t a cult. Scientology is a large scale religion, which makes it much worse than a cult. Now I don’t want to hear you defending the Scientologists by calling them a cult again.
MEGA cult. Not to be confused with MAGA cult.
Look into it. But not too hard or too publicly.
Were you paying attention earlier in the thread when I said cults are small, or are you expecting me to investigate Scientology and find that surprise, they’re actually very small and don’t have many members?
I thought they were global and pretty large scale, but I haven’t got any numbers for you and I wouldn’t dream of comparing their size with major world religions.
My assertion, which I admit I didn’t express, is that the distinction between cult and religion is less about size and more about how much members lose personal autonomy and how secretive the organisation is about its beliefs and practices.
That’s the way I see it anyway, otherwise there’s not a lot of point having two different words for it. There are grey areas, sure, but that doesn’t mean that there is no distinction.
Anti-theist here, religion in all it’s forms is a blight on humanity, but let’s not muddle the waters with misused vocabulary.
The difference between a cult and a religion is not the number of believers, it’s how much they enforce groupthink, how hard it is to leave and if they are based around a charismatic leader who profits directly from the imposed sameness and thought control. Generally cults:
That’s how, for example the catholic church isn’t a cult but scientology is. The sharp surveilance and strong measures in place to prevent deviancy make all the difference. It’s easy to leave catholicism, but leaving scientology can even be dangerous.
That’s a measure of the abusiveness of a religion and has nothing to do with its size. I already explained in depth in another comment the political motivations for creating a second, fake definition of the word cult. If you consult Merriam Webster you’ll see the first definition of the word cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and none of the definitions mention abuse, because your claim is ahistorical myth.
Cults are completely different from religion and size is not a defining factor. They’re more similar to a con and will sometimes use religion to exert control.
Knitting Cult Lady is great! She has a video outlining 7 defining characteristics of cults but I can’t find it.
That’s a myth perpetuated by Christian mums during the satanic panic. Back in the 60s the hippie movement was in full swing and young people were abandoning Christianity to follow pagan religions like Wicca and Hellenism. Christian pastors felt threatened, so they came up with a conspiracy to take the word cult (which up until then had meant a small religion) and make it a bad word by association with abuse. That’s why all the historical examples of cults that predate the 60s have no association with abuse. You take an example like the Cult of Dionysus and there’s no pejorative meaning to the word.
I don’t think it’s a myth if it has become an area of study. Yes, words have different meanings like “theory” does in and out of academia, but the current understanding of the word is much more comprehensive than a small religion. And MAGA is most definitely a cult of personality that uses religion as a tool.
You can do science on any made up word and reach genuine conclusions with flawed premises. Look at phrenology and scientific racism. If you ignore the question “is this thing real?” and skip straight to “what are the associations with this thing”, you’ll find something. It’ll be nonsense, but it’ll be there.
For example, suppose I look at the habits of clowns and roofers. I don’t question why clowns and roofers are associated, I just assume they are and check the data. The data I find will be the overlay of two different trends. I’ll reach all sorts of conclusions about clowns that are only true of roofers, and vice versa. The data will say clowns love a good beer after being outdoors all day, and roofers visit party stores a lot. That’s nonsense, but if I don’t question the association, the data will show it.
Associating small religions with abusive religions is the same mistake. The data will tell you all sorts of things about small and abusive religions, but it won’t tell you which trend belongs to which group, and people will make all sorts of wrong assumptions based on the wacky data.
Yep, science has churned out some whacky stuff before. But what? So you’re saying that the study of non-religious or coincidentally religious cults as a means to exploit and control is pure made-up nonsense? That’s kind of wild to me considering how characteristic and consistent their modus operandi is. MAGA fits the bill so well, for example, that I have a hard time believing they don’t exist. And I’d like to hear some opinions from people in the know, like Daniella Mestyanek from the link above, who you’re essentially saying her entire field of study is based on a lie.
You’re right. Even the moonies had big politicians kissing up to them once they got big enough and no one blinked, despite their leader openly claiming he was above Jesus Christ of Nazareth on the heavenly totem poll.
We’re dealing with a very strange religion.
Same thing. Cults are never small.