What's the Difference Between a Cult and a "Legitimate Religion"?
In this interesting letter to the editor Jeffrey Kline is found bewailing cultist mind control. Does he not see the equivalent mind control of an enculturated "legitimate religion." Didn't every single religion start out as a cult in the first place? Then what causes one religion to eventually become a "legitimate religion"? Time? Numbers? What is a "legitimate religion" anyway?
9 comments:
Whats the difference between a cult and a legitimate religion?
The number of people sitting in the pews.
This is an easy topic to turn into a version of Loki's Wager. Almost all "legitimate religions" have some cultish attributes, and most "cults" have some kind of "legitimate" tendencies, but just because there is a continuum doesn't mean they aren't distinguishable.
Well, let's be careful here. My extended family has had experience with cults and a relative, a child, lost his life to a cult-directed murder.
Presbyterians, to pick a Christian denomination out of the air, wouldn't stand for a minister limiting their access to protein-rich foods or a decent amount sleep or their non-believing loved ones and friends. And a Presbyterian elder is, on paper at least, beholden to the session.
Now, all religions share some aspects of mind control: repetition of ritual, ritualizing and separating out notions of holy time and space from mundane time and space, design worship spaces to focus concentration (medieval cathedrals are masterworks of sensory manipulation), separating believers from non-believers, appeal to authority. But you could also say that's true on some level for military life, corporations, crime syndicates, civil organizations or even sports fandom. Typically, the cultures and internal experiences of these kinds of organizations have many authors, or are an organic bouillabaisse of cultural cues.
But "cults", the sort of organizations that make adherents lose themselves and give their wills over utterly to a guru, aren't reliant on anonymous traditions built up over years. Rather they are consciously designed by a psychotic personality, to serve the appetites of the guru. They may co-opt the trappings of "tradition" (and, like I said, there are aspects of mild-to-severe mind control already present in traditional religions, e.g. Opus Dei), but the de facto "goals" of the belief system are designed for the gratification of the guru, who may or may not be drinking their own bath water.
Time.
Cults are a threat to "legitimate religion." "Legitimate religions" are a threat to humanity.
A cult reaching critical mass gets called a religion. Few people know much about Emperor Constantine's history. But more recent examples such as Mormonism, Scientology and cargo cults are very telling.
Regarding what Greg says, it is abolutely true. However, many religions start off with rules that plain absurd and then more or less relax them depending on the times. Again, you don't need to read the Book of Acts. Just look at the more recent history of Mormonism.
I remember hearing this many years ago: A cult is a religion with no political leverage.
A cult is a religion you disapprove of.
A religion is a cult that has gained acceptance. [Eller]
Cheers
Greg said... "But "cults", the sort of organizations that make adherents lose themselves and give their wills over utterly to a guru, aren't reliant on anonymous traditions built up over years. Rather they are consciously designed by a psychotic personality, to serve the appetites of the guru. They may co-opt the trappings of "tradition" (and, like I said, there are aspects of mild-to-severe mind control already present in traditional religions, e.g. Opus Dei), but the de facto "goals" of the belief system are designed for the gratification of the guru, who may or may not be drinking their own bath water."
So then maybe that "guru" could simply be classed as being "God" .
In my "opinion" i dont really see very much difference seperating the two.
Even if i do admit yes some cults are less harmful that others are.
Naming the cult "Guru" as being known as "God" ,doesnt remove the ability of use of threats and mindcontrol tactics to manipulate opress and control people.Neither does it remove the ability to create another way to subtract money or value from the followers.So i fail to see such a real big difference between the two.
Clamat mentions its "time" that seperates the two .I tend to agree but might also tend to add "luck" to the mix.And random effect of "situations" might come into play.
It only takes the wrong person to be born into or come into power ,and a religion or even a government for that matter, can morph into a type of cult.
That we see it happens within governments etc, dont make it any more right that it happens in religion.
Religion is said to supposedly connected to Gods .Its far worse when connected to things that are said to supposedly to care about humans the most .(my opinion)
Where as atleast governments etc dont often make that type of claim.
Post a Comment