How do you define a cult and what are some good examples of contemporary cults?

I think you got it pretty covered. The groups you mentioned would’ve been my choices, except I never heard of wahhabism. There are some cult groups that marry very young girls to old men and control all the women in there community but I don’t know the name of them. Jehova witness is kind of a cult. If members don’t abide by their rules they band them forever and the parents will sometimes kick them out. I had a friend who parents kicked him out at 17 because they found out he would go to clubs and dance. His brother also got kicked out for dating a catholic girl.

According to those criteria, pretty much all organised religion qualifies.
Though Scientology is indeed a particularly clear-cut example.

@Fyrius – When you say pretty much, which of the very few in your opinion wouldn’t qualify?

Cult’s are an interecting phenomenon, and I think they take advantage of people who are more vunerable or ignorant or open minded. Maybe the people who enter into these cults are lacking a spiritual fulfilment or a sense of belonging. I am from Belfast and think the paramilitary organisations there and terroists have a cult like mentality. They have to go by the ethos of the group they are involved, or the alternative is torture or death. I wonder if these people really understand the severity of what they are getting into, or if feeling a sense of belonging is overwhelming and that overshadows the truth of their decision. The word cult has expanded it’s meaning in society and includes “cult movies” or “cult books” which are lesser known but revered by fans. This makes the word cult to me seem ambigious, as it depends on the context it is used.

Definitions of cult:

* followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
* fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; “he always follows the latest fads”; “it was all the rage that season”
* followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
* a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; “it was a satanic cult”

So, if it’s organised, has a leader and a bunch of rules….......is it a cult?
I’d also be interested to know if there are any “good” and “Positive” cults?
My First wife was a mormon, I’ll be honest, not being a religious person, I was amused at the amount of two faced, deceitful, hypocritical and duplicitous things that went on in there. (This was a small church in Scotland) and it sure felt like a cult to me!
My Mother in law is heavily religious (if that’s the term), she is a eucharistic minister in her church, It seems “cultish” to me also but perhaps it’s because I am using the above definitions of a cult?.
I respect peoples beliefs, they can believe whatever they want, they can get involved in whatever they want because so can I.

@mattbrowne
I don’t know. I didn’t have any particular exceptions in mind.
I don’t know if there are any exceptions. I’ll admit I’m not knowledgeable enough about the faiths of the world to be able to tell.

@scotsbloke
“False” religion?
Maybe religions like Pastafarianism are “false” in the sense that it’s not real and just for shits and giggles, but otherwise… are there really true religions and false ones? How do you tell them apart?

(By the way, since you asked: I believe “heavily religious” people are more commonly called “deeply religious”. Personally I usually say “chronically religious” for severe cases or “terminally religious” for those with no hope of recovery.)

@scotsbloke, to answer your question, I’d think ‘no”. You left out the fanaticism bit, and this to me seems to be the defining characteristic. If the followers believe so completely in the leader that they are willing to allow him/her to; govern their lives, give up their individual freedoms in favor of a communal/tribal/collective way of living, act in a manner that is contrary to what they would do without his/her direction, kill or even commit suicide, then I believe this falls under the definition of cult.
Are you now going to refer me back to the middle ages and the Crusades? I don’t know whether I’d argue back or not. Generally though, cult members are outside of the mainstream of society, and the Church itself called for the Crusades.
Being “religious” isn’t in the same category. You can religiously brush your teeth. It does indicate a state of devotion, but the missing element here, again, is fanaticism. One can be religious without carrying it to that extreme.
Your observations of the Mormon church are fairly typical of any organization that includes a group of people. People are fallible and prone to doing unsavory things. Some have a better system of checks and balances than others, it’s true. WE hold church members to a high standard that is in reality unobtainable for anyone. I do not dismiss the points you bring out about churches, I only say that to expect otherwise is unrealistic. As Job himself said “For all have sinned and fallen short…”
What you and most people seem to overlook is that many of those church people try and try again to be better people. We just never hear about that part. Sorry, I didn’t mean to go off in the weeds like that.

@Fyrius thanks for that. Deeply Religious fits much better.
@Trillian Like I said, I respect people beliefs, whether I share them or not. I dont doubt for a second that the majority of people in most religions are there for the “good” rather than the bad in it.
Any organisation, Business, Club, knitting group, Religion, cult or whatever, will have a diversity of people in it. And you are right, we, as a people, (it seems) generally tend to focus on all the bad parts of what’s going on.
Also bear in mind my opinion is based on a lifetime of non-religion, and an element of some family members trying to force it on me. (and is possibly biased because of that)
It’s an interesting topic though and the whole cult thing is fascinating.

@Fyrius – Well, to me religious cults are the minority, which also means that the majority of religious leaders do not meet the criteria listed above. Here are 7 leaders I’d like to mention as examples. Inerrancy? Lack of critical thinking? Coercive recruitment methods? Hidden agendas? Deceit? Financial exploitation? How can deceitful religious leaders win the Nobel Peace Prize? Is the whole Nobel Committee a cult?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer (German Lutheran pastor and theologian who was also a participant in the German Resistance movement against Hitler)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi (political and spiritual leader of India during the Indian independence movement and a pioneer of resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King (an American clergyman, activist and prominent leader in the African-American civil rights movement. His main legacy was to secure progress on civil rights in the United States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu (a South African cleric and activist who was an opponent of apartheid and who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama (who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fuehrer (a German pastor who helped to organize the Peace Prayers as part of a joint protest action of Protestant youth organizations in the GDR since September 1982. He was also one of the leading figures and organizers of the 1989 Monday demonstrations in East Germany which finally led to the German reunification and the end of the GDR in 1990)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lerner_(rabbi) (who founded the Network of Spiritual Progressives and who promotes religious pluralism and progressive or liberal approaches to political problems)

@Fyrius – Now it’s your turn to back up your extraordinary claim. Show me why Bonhoeffer, Gandhi, King, Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Fuehrer are leaders of cults based on the criteria defined by Michael Shermer (who is a tolerant atheist I greatly admire and who also is the leader of the Skeptics Society whose goals I share). I’m looking forward to our debate.

I would say that Jehovah’s Witnesses qualify as a cult, though perhaps not by all of Shermer’s criteria. As @Pandora mentioned there is the element of coercion, in that social exclusion or public shaming is used punitively to keep members in line (enforcing the ban on taking blood transfusions, voting, etc.). But even more indicative is the ideological control exercised by the leadership. The “governing body” has absolute authority in matters of doctrine, and their interpretations of scripture as spelled out in their copious literature are simply not to be openly questioned. Members meet three times a week to pore over this literature.

Proselytization is required, and actual records are kept of each member’s monthly proselytizing activity. Prospective converts are offered free “bible studies”, which are nothing more than guided readings of the organization’s literature.

Any “apostate” writings (defined as anything written by ex-members critical of the organization) is completely off-limits to members, on pain of exclusion.

I think the definition has pretty much been covered. The only thing I would add would be either taking away free will or altering it.

As for more recent cults, the Moonies are still around. Not as much as they were in the 70s, but they’re still there. Dahn Yoga http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/05/yoga.lawsuit.lee/ is being investigated for cult behavior and in my they are

I think there are more out there than we know about. Think of the ones we didn’t hear about until everyone was dead like the Heavens Gate people.

@mattbrowne I too am interested to hear an argument positing that those you have listed are cult leaders. One thing I believe sets them apart (at least those I am familiar with), is that they are about making fundamental changes to what they see as a flawed system – cult leaders not so much. Most cult leaders are all about accumulating money, power, and minions.

I would consider the Fundamentalist Church Latter Day Saints a cult.

I grew up hearing my father, who is a practicing Catholic, tell me the biggest cult in the world is the Catholic church. If you go through the points one by one it is pretty clear that the Catholic church fits them all. I suppose the biggest difference is that – if only because of sheer size – it is impossible to keep all adherents to the faith completely in line with the teachings of the Pope and enforce blind obedience.

Heck one cult that came to mind as I read this question was the Cult of Bernie Madoff. Did that situation not fit many of these criteria?

@SuperMouse – My experience with the Catholics: many folks in the Vatican have lost touch with all the real Catholics out there. On a communal level many including the priests are really quite progressive.

Robert Zollitsch is the new head of all the German Catholic bishops. Very modern and liberal views. He has expressed his belief that priestly celibacy should be voluntary rather than law and that it is not theologically necessary, as well as supporting children’s day-care nurseries as opposed to stay-at-home mothers, and the establishment of legal guidelines for homosexual marriages by the German Church.

@mattbrowne
This can’t end well.

Yes, Christians can be nice people. Does that mean Christianity is not a cult? Do all participants in a cult have to be evil to the bone for it to be a cult? You presented more sophisticated criteria up there.
And surely “how can deceitful religious leaders win the Nobel Peace Prize” can’t be a serious question. Is a nobel peace prize proof of absolute and unfaltering honesty in everything?

I’m not saying every single religious leader is a cultist, so I don’t think I need to prove that the people on your list in particular show Shermer’s characteristics. That’s not the position I’ve taken.
But Christianity in general, if that’s the religion we’ll be talking about again, shows many of those. This is my point.

1. Veneration and inerrancy to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity: ...virtual sainthood? These guys have actual, official saints. And who was the last pope who wasn’t beatified after he kicked the bucket? And just how many Christians believe Mary ascended to heaven just because the pope made that up?

2. Acceptance of beliefs without critical thinking: I mentioned an example just now. If the pope says “shit”, expect a mass chant of “how much, where do you want it and what colour?”
There are also more than one or two Christians who believe every last comma in the bible is true, some of them without ever having read it, others simply ignoring the parts that clearly aren’t, others even believing the parts that clearly aren’t are true anyway. (If the bible says pi equals three, then the mathematicians are wrong.)
Furthermore, critical thinking is systematically discouraged by the notion that faith is a good thing. If something happens that makes you doubt your beliefs, you must keep faith. Doubt is not a sign that a belief deserves reconsideration, doubt is a sign you’re not believing hard enough. Don’t you trust god?

3. Coercive recruitment: Emotional blackmail. Jesus suffered for YOU! How can you be so heartless not to believe in him? You must be a horrible person!
And remember, kids: there’s a fiery realm of ultimate pain and suffering populated by incarnations of pure evil, where you will be sent to be tortured for all eternity after you die, unless you become one of us! ^_^

4. Hidden agendas and secrets for the believers: I don’t know about this. Not that I would put it past the Vatican to keep secrets. It’s not like the church has never deliberately twisted the truth before.

5. Covering up disturbing or embarrassing aspects: Even if they believe it themselves, Christian priests tell you that god is all about love and peace and happiness. They won’t tell you about the darker sides of the bible, the book their tradition is openly based on.

6. Financial or sexual exploitation: All right, can’t find much of this either besides the coin basket and occasional altar boy scandals.

7. Absolute truth and final knowledge: Uh huh. To a point where a scientist who finds out that the earth orbits the sun risks being imprisoned for blasphemy. More modern examples include, again, those frightening nutjobs who believe that even the most undeniable evidence can by definition not possibly be true if it contradicts “the scriptural record”.

8. Absolute morality: I think you know there are plenty of Christians who believe all morality not only comes from divine law, but cannot possibly come from anywhere else. We’ve had threads about it on this very site.

That’s six out of eight, even giving the Vatican the benefit of doubt on #4.
Christianity shows six out of eight cult characteristics. That either means Christianity is a cult, or you need to find some less uncomfortable criteria.

@Fyrius. You come close and yet you miss the points completely. I speak to you as a rational, converted christian who practiced Wicca for 25 years of her adult life. I used to envy christians their capacity for faith, because I felt that I just knew too much to believe the way that they did. This is not the forum for discussion of my conversion. Suffice it to say that I saw something profound that altered my beliefs. A few counters follow:
1. You speak of Catholic christians. I know a few and they really don’t believe like the mindless ninnies you seem to think they are. They are well aware of the fallacies of the dead popes and take the canonization with a grain of salt. 2. Lack of critical thinking. My critical thinking is what led me away from organized religion to begin with. The minister at my Methodist church is a scholar that would astound you. He knows greek, latin, and aramaic. He can tell you all sorts of things about theactual times of history, the ceasars, political intrigues, all kinds of things. He encourages questioning of the word as a foundation for greater faith. He actively discourages blindness. 3. Coercive recruitment. No guilt trips that I’ve ever seen. From the standpoint of a war happening on the spiritual plane that is reflected on the earth, the death and resurrection were a MASTER counter stroke. A triumph, not a tragedy. 4. Hidden agendas. What? I’ve heard the Catholic church called “the beast”, and that the church is a tool for keeping down the masses. What do you think of a cabal in hollywood with the same purpose?5. Cover ups? Possibly. The church has a lot to be embarrassed about. See my earlier comments about human frailty. 6. Exploitation? See answer 5. You cannot ask me to believe that every church is in business for this reason, though I cannot deny that there are some out there. 7. Absoulte truth? What is that? See answer 2 *. absoulute morality. Theat’s a very deep philosophical question that cannot legitimately be “tossed off” (no pun intended) in a couple sentences. Do attempt to do so is frivolous.
I wanted to address your points. I hope that my language is succinct without being offensive, as that is never my intent. If I have offended by my words or manner, I here beg leave to apologize.

@Trillian
I think you miss my point, too. Quite completely.
Allow me to expound.

1. Like I said, I’m not talking about every single Christian. In the first place, this point is about the church. The church is full of religious leaders that have literally been declared to be saints.
And what about Jesus himself? He’s the quintessential religious leader who started all Christianity, and the Christians thinks of him as a freaking god.

2. Like I said, I’m not talking about every single Christian. And again this point is about the Christian tradition itself. Christianity encourages faith, and in doing so, discourages critical thinking.

3. You can say you’ve never heard of any coercive recruitment, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
For a concrete example, there’s the phenomenon of a ”hell house”. It’s an American thing, apparently. It’s a sort of haunted house designed specifically to scare children out of their minds and into the churches.
À propos, for that matter, I find it hard to think of the whole notion of hell as anything other than a ploy to scare impressionable people into conversion.

4. I conceded this one. (What are you talking about?)

7. Like I said, I’m not talking about every single Christian. Suffice it to say there are still way too many Christians who believe Christianity has the last word on everything. (Or indeed, on anything.)

8. That’s my line.
I’m not the one trying to simplify the world by disregarding the complexities of moral philosophy. It’s the people I’m referring to who cannot conceive of any kind of morality other than an authoritarian set of rules dictated by a god.
And once again, like I said, I’m not talking about every single Christian.

Ok, let me just ask you this. Do you believe the same about the other major faiths? Do you believe that Judaism has the samemarkers? What about Islam and its adherents? I’m just curious to know if it is only Christianity that you feel this way about, or the others. If it’s only Christianity, is it because that’s the faith that you were exposed to while you were growing up..
About the Hell house…is that some pentecostal thing? Or baptist? I never heard of that but it sounds like one or the other. That’s a shame, and I readily admit that there are many misguided “christians”..

Some writers distinguish destructive cults from cults in general.

Don’t forget the trait of physical isolation from the world at large.

Jim Jones’s People’s Temple would be my prime example. This one also exhibited the trait of designating the leader (or, the leader’s designating himself) as the only legitimate object of sexual desire.

@Trillian
I know less of the details about Judaism and Islam and all the other religions, but I have the impression the above characteristics will come eerily close for every single one. Like I already said in my first post, with those criteria, I think pretty much all organised religion qualifies.
For example, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find any religion that does not claim a monopoly on truth or morality, and if there’s someone explicitly in charge I think more often than not he (or she… but probably not) will be glorified and revered as someone who is always right.
So no, I don’t have it in for your personal favourite in particular. The reason why I’ve been limiting myself to Christianity now is because Matt asked me to debate that one.

And please don’t go psycho-analysing me. It’s rather bad manners.

@Fyrius – Sorry for my late reply. Well, I think friends can have different views and still be friends. This debate can end well.

My list of people was not about people being nice. It was about whether they are part of a cult. For example, if Judaism were a cult, Rabbi Michael Lerner would not be able to promote religious pluralism. The cult would stop him. If a scientologist or a Jehovah’s Witness behaves this way this will actually happen. It does not happen in mainstream Judaism or Christianity. And deceit is not part of mainstream Judaism or Christianity.

I think you have a point when it comes to certain aspects of the Vatican. The proclaimed inerrancy of the pope does indeed meet one of Shemer’s criteria. However, in practice it seems to me that the Catholic church does not follow its own rules. Generations of popes believed in a sun which revolves around the Earth. This was part of a dogma. One pope even got Galileo arrested for his “heretical” views. Later in history new popes changed their mind admitting earlier popes had made an error after all. So inerrancy is just wishful thinking. It’s also interesting to note that the official Catholic church is far more advanced when it comes to science in general than the Evangelical movement in the US for example. Big bang and evolution are seen as a reality.

It’s very easy to find religions or forms of religions that do not claim a monopoly on truth or morality. Basically all liberal forms have given up this claim as explained in the details section of one of my earlier Fluther questions

http://www.fluther.com/disc/61293/aggressive-atheism-promotes-religious-fundamentalism-what-are-the-pros-and/

and you will notice the part must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many.

Even liberal atheism has given up the claim that the nonexistence of God is a fact.

As @Jeruba pointed out there’s also the issue on how the word cult is really understand. To me it means destructive cult.

Try this one Matt! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8117853208483879448&ei=IEZMS7iDNZPQ-Abg48S2AQ&q=christian+fundamentalism&hl=en&emb=1#

I think your list is excellent Matt. I would say that, number 1 on your list can range from your definition of the qualities of a leader to simply, someone that cannot or should not be crossed and who’s teachings should not be questioned. If anyone should dare to do so they risk punishment/shunning by the inner circle.