A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents' (Collins English Dictionary)
A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents' (Collins English Dictionary)
sources: http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
Towards one end of this spectrum are established mainstream religious and secular/humanist systems of belief and practice, in the middle are non-conformist sects and fashionable fads of various kinds, and towards the other end are various religious and secular groups which tend towards being exclusive coteries. These more cultish groups are sometimes characterised by a collective hubris among their members, who, seeing themselves as part of an elect, look down rather sniffily upon the mores and values of established mainstream institutions.
With this perspective in mind, this analysis uses the term cult primarily in the Collins 3 sense of: 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents'. Leaving aside for now the alleged 'devious psychological techniques', cult is here defined as being a quasi-religious organization as distinct from a religious one. The cultish-ness is related to the quasi-ness of the religion or belief system. Therefore, a theological definition of a cult, based on examination of the group's belief system (or a tenelogical definition, based on examining the tenets of a secular belief system), may be more useful here than a sociological definition, based on the observation of outward characteristics. For example, Alan Gomes, in his book 'Unmasking the cults' gives the following definition of a (Christian - based) cult:
'A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.' [9]
A belief system implies some kind of ethical or moral code, whether explicit or implicit. A moral code is concerned with the distinction between right and wrong, and with the goodness or badness of human behaviour.
Depending on how strongly a particular group, in terms of its belief system, denies particular tenets of the relevant mainstream belief system, and how strongly it distinguishes and separates itself off from the mainstream belief system, to that degree its belief system may be said to be self-originated, in the sense that the belief system originates primarily from, and is also interpreted by, the group's leadership.
If the belief system originates primarily from the group's leadership, then the group's leadership are also the ethical preceptors and moral arbiters. They act as both law maker and judge, and can therefore make up the rules as they go along. The danger is that their ethical standards may become fungible, if they succumb to the temptation to deflect any criticism of themselves or their behaviour, by adjusting definitions of right and wrong to put themselves in the right. If the moral arbiters are unwilling to modify their behaviour, they can instead modify their moral codes to justify their behaviour. Freedom of belief can become freedom without responsibility.
The former Bishop of Durham, UK, the Revd Dr David Jenkins, usually regarded as someone whose views tend to the heterodox as much as to the orthodox, commented that: 'Nowadays, freedom of belief is defined in terms of a post-modern relativism. Freedom of belief can mean; anything goes.' [10]
Many organised groups holding to wholly or partly self-originated belief systems are keen to defend religious freedom, because of the 'anything goes' potential inherent in freedom of belief. For example, a lawsuit filed in 1999 by a coalition of plaintiffs, including the Seventh-day Adventists and the 'International Coalition for Religious Freedom' (Moonies) claims that the State of Maryland's task force studying religious cults on college campuses is violating constitutional rights and conducting a 'religious inquisition'. Representing the plaintiffs, Los Angeles civil rights attorney Kendrick Moxon (believed to be a Scientologist), was quoted as saying: 'The government cannot, absolutely cannot, get involved in adjudicating what's a right religion and what's a wrong religion.' [11]
If a group is classified as a religion, then leaders of that group have considerable freedom, within the group at least, to set their own moral codes and to adjudicate between right and wrong. Potentially, any methods of persuasion, short of those which involve actual, legally provable physical coercion, may be considered reasonable within the ethical codes of a self-originated belief system. A sincere believer may feel that, in religious matters, the end justifies the means, and therefore various deceptive and devious practices may, in the mind of a believer, be justified as skillful means, crazy wisdom, or heavenly deception.
In most cases, cult leaders probably do not set out to establish cults. However, in practice they can tend to fall into cultish patterns almost by default, as they attempt to assert and defend unorthodox positive visions of the world, in the face of potentially destructive (to them) cynical or questioning orthodoxies. Actions which, to an outsider, might seem devious or immoral, may, in the mind of a believer, seem perfectly just and ethical. For example:
'Outright lying means to tell people things that you do know are not true - Scientologists do that at times, when they are honestly convinced that this is better for Scientology. .
'Scientologists do have their own definition about ethics which does not fully correspond with the general understanding about ethics. .
'Scientologists are formally and informally told how to best explain Scientology to others, what to mention, how to mention it, what not to mention - all with the best intent, but the result is still, that you cannot, as an outsider, get fully informed about Scientology by a Scientologist. I do know that, because I did it myself and I taught it myself for years.' [12]
Moonies , may justify deception and misrepresentation as part of a greater process of 'deceiving evil into goodness'. The FWBO rejects 'conventional morality' in favour of its own self-serving 'natural morality', and advises senior members to be discrete about discussing the movement's more radical principles with the public.[13] This sort of secrecy and deception means that it is not really possible for a newcomer to exercise informed free choice about the benefits or otherwise of becoming involved with such a group.
This characteristic of independent belief systems, that they independently set their own moral codes, does not necessarily mean that devious psychological techniques will be employed to promote the belief system and gain adherents, only that they can be, and that there is little to stop them. Religious and quasi-religious groups alike are largely left to regulate themselves, and to adjudicate for themselves on what is devious and what is not.
Organisations and their Belief Systems
It is the combination of an independent belief system, together with an organisation devoted to promoting that that belief system and gaining adherents, that creates a situation in which cultish patterns of behaviour may develop.[14] In order to identify whether a group or organisation might be a cult, it is necessary to enquire both into the group's organisational structure, and also into the underlying belief system.
Questions which might be asked of a group's belief system include: What sort of position does the belief system occupy along the quasi-religious spectrum? Does the group maintain good communication with a mainstream source belief system, or are they independent and self-referential? Is the group and its belief system open to investigation by outside agencies, or is the group inclined to resist this and to cry 'religious inquisition'? Who are the preceptors for the group? Who decides what is devious and what is not?
Moral non-accountability is one advantage of following an independent, self-originated belief system. There are other advantages which a cult enjoys, in terms of defending itself against investigation and criticism. These advantages stem from the subjective, intangible nature of personal belief and free will.
A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents' (Collins English Dictionary)
Hierarchical and dualistic - cult belief systems revolve around ideas about higher and lower levels of understanding. There is a hierarchy of awareness, and a path from lower to higher levels. Believers tend to divide the world into the saved and the fallen, the awakened and the deluded, etc.
influencing a person's beliefs, it is possible to influence or indirectly control a person's mind. The actual controlling of mind is done by the person themselves, as they attempt to train and discipline their mind in accordance with the tenets of their new belief system. It is the belief system itself which is the primary active agent in cult mind control.
Independent and non-accountable - believers follow their own self-justifying moral codes: e.g. a Moonie may, in their own mind, justify deceptive recruiting as 'deceiving evil into goodness'
Addictive - believers may become intoxicated with the ideals of the belief system, and feel a vicarious pride in being associated with these ideals. Cults tend to be cliquey and elitist, and believers can become dependent on the approval of the group's elite to maintain their own self-esteem
sources: http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents' (Collins English Dictionary)
sources: http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
Towards one end of this spectrum are established mainstream religious and secular/humanist systems of belief and practice, in the middle are non-conformist sects and fashionable fads of various kinds, and towards the other end are various religious and secular groups which tend towards being exclusive coteries. These more cultish groups are sometimes characterised by a collective hubris among their members, who, seeing themselves as part of an elect, look down rather sniffily upon the mores and values of established mainstream institutions.
With this perspective in mind, this analysis uses the term cult primarily in the Collins 3 sense of: 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents'. Leaving aside for now the alleged 'devious psychological techniques', cult is here defined as being a quasi-religious organization as distinct from a religious one. The cultish-ness is related to the quasi-ness of the religion or belief system. Therefore, a theological definition of a cult, based on examination of the group's belief system (or a tenelogical definition, based on examining the tenets of a secular belief system), may be more useful here than a sociological definition, based on the observation of outward characteristics. For example, Alan Gomes, in his book 'Unmasking the cults' gives the following definition of a (Christian - based) cult:
'A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.' [9]
A belief system implies some kind of ethical or moral code, whether explicit or implicit. A moral code is concerned with the distinction between right and wrong, and with the goodness or badness of human behaviour.
Depending on how strongly a particular group, in terms of its belief system, denies particular tenets of the relevant mainstream belief system, and how strongly it distinguishes and separates itself off from the mainstream belief system, to that degree its belief system may be said to be self-originated, in the sense that the belief system originates primarily from, and is also interpreted by, the group's leadership.
If the belief system originates primarily from the group's leadership, then the group's leadership are also the ethical preceptors and moral arbiters. They act as both law maker and judge, and can therefore make up the rules as they go along. The danger is that their ethical standards may become fungible, if they succumb to the temptation to deflect any criticism of themselves or their behaviour, by adjusting definitions of right and wrong to put themselves in the right. If the moral arbiters are unwilling to modify their behaviour, they can instead modify their moral codes to justify their behaviour. Freedom of belief can become freedom without responsibility.
The former Bishop of Durham, UK, the Revd Dr David Jenkins, usually regarded as someone whose views tend to the heterodox as much as to the orthodox, commented that: 'Nowadays, freedom of belief is defined in terms of a post-modern relativism. Freedom of belief can mean; anything goes.' [10]
Many organised groups holding to wholly or partly self-originated belief systems are keen to defend religious freedom, because of the 'anything goes' potential inherent in freedom of belief. For example, a lawsuit filed in 1999 by a coalition of plaintiffs, including the Seventh-day Adventists and the 'International Coalition for Religious Freedom' (Moonies) claims that the State of Maryland's task force studying religious cults on college campuses is violating constitutional rights and conducting a 'religious inquisition'. Representing the plaintiffs, Los Angeles civil rights attorney Kendrick Moxon (believed to be a Scientologist), was quoted as saying: 'The government cannot, absolutely cannot, get involved in adjudicating what's a right religion and what's a wrong religion.' [11]
If a group is classified as a religion, then leaders of that group have considerable freedom, within the group at least, to set their own moral codes and to adjudicate between right and wrong. Potentially, any methods of persuasion, short of those which involve actual, legally provable physical coercion, may be considered reasonable within the ethical codes of a self-originated belief system. A sincere believer may feel that, in religious matters, the end justifies the means, and therefore various deceptive and devious practices may, in the mind of a believer, be justified as skillful means, crazy wisdom, or heavenly deception.
In most cases, cult leaders probably do not set out to establish cults. However, in practice they can tend to fall into cultish patterns almost by default, as they attempt to assert and defend unorthodox positive visions of the world, in the face of potentially destructive (to them) cynical or questioning orthodoxies. Actions which, to an outsider, might seem devious or immoral, may, in the mind of a believer, seem perfectly just and ethical. For example:
'Scientologists do have their own definition about ethics which does not fully correspond with the general understanding about ethics. .
'Scientologists are formally and informally told how to best explain Scientology to others, what to mention, how to mention it, what not to mention - all with the best intent, but the result is still, that you cannot, as an outsider, get fully informed about Scientology by a Scientologist. I do know that, because I did it myself and I taught it myself for years.'
Moonies , may justify deception and misrepresentation as part of a greater process of 'deceiving evil into goodness'. The FWBO rejects 'conventional morality' in favour of its own self-serving 'natural morality', and advises senior members to be discrete about discussing the movement's more radical principles with the public.[13] This sort of secrecy and deception means that it is not really possible for a newcomer to exercise informed free choice about the benefits or otherwise of becoming involved with such a group.
This characteristic of independent belief systems, that they independently set their own moral codes, does not necessarily mean that devious psychological techniques will be employed to promote the belief system and gain adherents, only that they can be, and that there is little to stop them. Religious and quasi-religious groups alike are largely left to regulate themselves, and to adjudicate for themselves on what is devious and what is not.
Organisations and their Belief Systems
It is the combination of an independent belief system, together with an organisation devoted to promoting that that belief system and gaining adherents, that creates a situation in which cultish patterns of behaviour may develop.[14] In order to identify whether a group or organisation might be a cult, it is necessary to enquire both into the group's organisational structure, and also into the underlying belief system.
Questions which might be asked of a group's belief system include: What sort of position does the belief system occupy along the quasi-religious spectrum? Does the group maintain good communication with a mainstream source belief system, or are they independent and self-referential? Is the group and its belief system open to investigation by outside agencies, or is the group inclined to resist this and to cry 'religious inquisition'? Who are the preceptors for the group? Who decides what is devious and what is not?
Moral non-accountability is one advantage of following an independent, self-originated belief system. There are other advantages which a cult enjoys, in terms of defending itself against investigation and criticism. These advantages stem from the subjective, intangible nature of personal belief and free will.
A cult can be defined in general as any group of people holding to a common belief system, but in practice the term cult is often used pejoratively, to refer specifically to 'a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents' (Collins English Dictionary)
Hierarchical and dualistic - cult belief systems revolve around ideas about higher and lower levels of understanding. There is a hierarchy of awareness, and a path from lower to higher levels. Believers tend to divide the world into the saved and the fallen, the awakened and the deluded, etc.
influencing a person's beliefs, it is possible to influence or indirectly control a person's mind. The actual controlling of mind is done by the person themselves, as they attempt to train and discipline their mind in accordance with the tenets of their new belief system. It is the belief system itself which is the primary active agent in cult mind control.
Independent and non-accountable - believers follow their own self-justifying moral codes: e.g. a Moonie may, in their own mind, justify deceptive recruiting as 'deceiving evil into goodness'
Addictive - believers may become intoxicated with the ideals of the belief system, and feel a vicarious pride in being associated with these ideals. Cults tend to be cliquey and elitist, and believers can become dependent on the approval of the group's elite to maintain their own self-esteem
sources: http://www.fwbo-files.com/CofC.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment