I was recently reading an article about Mormanism - I think some sort of anniversary just passed. It got me to thinking about cults and religions. Why isn't Mormanism considered a cult? Or Scientology? They are both fairly young 'religions'. How are the Heaven's Gate people different from established religions?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines cult as:
Main Entry: cult
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
And religion:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
1 a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
They are both described as a "system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices (rituals)", although a cult is considered unorthodox/false, while the definition of religion mentions God or the supernatural. The etymology is interesting too.
Was Mormanism ever considered a cult? Scientology? And why are cults bad and religions good?
d
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dawn,
I think what makes a cult a cult is not necessarily the newness of its beliefs, but by its behavior. Scientology often uses misleading methods of proselytizing, takes advantage of its adherents, cuts them off from outside contact, and makes it very difficult for them to leave. It's the religious equivalent of an abusive spouse.
Deciding whether a religion is a cult, then, is something similar to deciding whether a relationship is abusive. Mormonism, for example, sports some very aggressive door-to-door proselytizers. And they do keep tabs on you after you've left in kind of a creepy way. But the Mormons declare who they are at the outset,(complete w/nametags) and if you really turn them down, they really will go away. They don't show up at disasters wearing "volunteer minister" T-Shirts to brow-beat survivors into accepting "adjustments" that don't have any proven medical value.(Scientology) Which is both abusive and deceptive.
Ugh. Makes me so mad.
I agree, though, that newer religions tend to get called cults more often than older ones. But then again there are scary Christian cults, just like there are scary new age ones.
For me, almost all religions are a type of cult. If the argument is that a cult is harmful and/or abusive, where does the Catholic Church fall into this, as it has hidden decades of child molestation? Is it abuse to all members generally or only some of the members?
I think, too, that Scientology is now referred to as a religion, as is Mormanism. When did they graduate from cults (if they were ever called cults)?
Dawn,
I did a quick google search -- I think this site gets at the characteristics of a cult that I'm talking about.
On second thought...
Getting back to your original definitions, I think the key is #3 of the cult definition:
"a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents"
The basic question, going by this definition, is whether or not a religion is unorthodox or spurious (can't remember what this means--something along the lines of made up or flaky). Which is open to a certain amount of interpretation, obviously, and depends as much on who's calling it a cult as it does on the group itself. Some perfectly harmless religions could easily fit into this definition. And the first two definitions don't necessarily have a negative meaning - worship, or a group that worships.
I guess I'm working with my own definition of a cult that might be better described as "scary cult." i.e. Kool-Aid drinkers, free haircut people, new Nikes, leaders having sex with 14-year-old wives, etc. kinds of cults.
I agree with you that the Catholic hierarchy's coverup of priest abuse was totally unacceptable. And the damage was compounded by the more authoritarian structure of the church hierarchy. But if you join the Catholic church, the structure is not designed to cut you off from your friends and family, and you can leave anytime you want without being afraid for your life.
I don't think the same can be said about Scientology. To continue my abusive spouse analogy, there's a difference between being married to a jerk who cheats on you and an abuser who beats you, takes away your economic independence, and threatens to kill you if you try to leave. Clearly, neither behavior is acceptable, and the Catholic church should be doing a LOT more to take responsibility for what has happened, (and clearly child abuse is much worse than cheating) but the basic mission and goal of the Catholic church has never been to facilitate pedophilia. By contrast, abuse of its adherents really is at the heart of a cult's existence.
Thanks for a very interesting question, by the way.
Man, I need to do some work.
Post a Comment