Countries other than the US have convinced people to change the laws, which is what you mentioned back on July 19, so I was making some assumptions that you were implying something about the US. I’ll try to keep on the broader topic.
They’re all cults
Now you are changing the definition. CSI and political parties could maybe get called “cultish” as an epithet, but you’re trying to go somewhere that lacks support with facts.
Why have this discussion?
You brought up this thing about skeptics being cults. I completely disagree with that and I’m trying to get you to use the correct definitions of the terms so we can talk about it.
Marriage
A Justice of the Peace has you come into their office and do paperwork, that’s not the idea of a marriage that most people want. They want something officially recognized and that conforms to their beliefs. The laws as written don’t allow for that. I’d rather not go off on that tangent.
Lausten, why do you consider CSI and political parties exempt from cult status? Many skeptics, dems and republicans are as strong in their beliefs as any other cult. They have leaders that guide and, in the case of political parties, attempt to direct, certain actions. I fail to see any evidence they are not cults.
As to why have this discussion? We can’t change a cult from the outside - it must come from the inside, through its current or future leadership. If you want to change how marriage is performed, you have to identify and effect change through the leadership of whatever cult controls the ability to change. This includes your desire to perform marriages, which seems to actually have nothing to do with religions, but, rather, secular rules, and, hence, political parties.
So now it’s just all cults. You’ve defined the word to mean everything, therefore it means nothing. Cults are usually small and co-opt some form of religion or spirituality and direct that toward one charismatic leader, or maybe a symbol that stands in for the ideas the leaders want the cult members to follow. The OP says all religions are cults, so the part about being small is somewhat being stretched, but it also clarifies that current religious mega-organizations BEGAN as cults, so it’s not saying they fit the definition perfectly now. She’s specifically making the point about dragging around the old dogma and calling it sacred.
If you want to drop the religion requirement, that’s fine, since religion is so hard to define anyway, but you still can’t say political parties (ones that have actually got more than a few people elected) are cults, because members are free to pick and choose from a list of platform items and those items are openly debated and voted on constantly. If they aren’t then they are a really bad party or a religion disguised as a party. No cult operates that way, although they might say they do and pretend to listen to the members.
Lausten, we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree. I understand your point, however, I see little difference between, say, the way a religion operates and the religious fervor for pet political ideas and demagogues apparent in many political parties, or the nation-level personality cults surrounding leaders like Putin, Mugabe, et al. And there are any number of smaller non-religious organizations that look, smell, and act like cults, even if some folks don’t want to call them that. To me, they all seem part of a spectrum, with only the extremes recognized as cults, perhaps, but all operating on essentially the same organizational principles, all acting as tools for one or a small set of leaders who direct/manipulate/use/guide these tools for their own purposes.
Player, I’m still waiting on your specifics regarding a climate solution - apparently you can only act the part of the proverbial peanut gallery.
BTW, Player, did you see the book review on Surviving Global Warming in the latest SI issue? Sounds like a very interesting and timely book, according to the reviewer. Given your negative reaction to my suggestions regarding preparing for global warning, I expect you won’t like it though. The author, Roger Sedjo, “a senior fellow emeritus at Resources for the Future in Washington and a contributor to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, argues that we must go beyond just trying to curb greenhouse gas emissions and instead enact strategies for adapting to a warmer world. Rising sea levels, changes to agriculture, increasing hurricane intensities, destruction of forests and biodiversity—all these must be planned for. Even if we were to reduce emissions, natural forces might keep warming the climate, as they have at times in the past.”
Don’t religions/cults have to have some sort of supernatural aspect to them?
Some groups are cult-like or have members who follow them with the fervor of religious fanatics, but those uses of the words ‘cult’ and ‘religion’ are metaphorical. In the west there is no political religion or scientific religion or anything like that (unless they bring in the supernatural as one of their core concepts.)
Politics in North Korea is a cult/religion because the Kim’s are believed to be god-like. The middle east has countries that are controlled by religions, so they mess with the western ideal of politics and religion being separate.
Political parties in western countries can have religious followers who adhere to them and their leader with the same mindless faith they give their religion, but those parties are typically not religious.
My opinion on the “Religions are cults” statement is that it is true. They are exactly the same, except that cults haven’t crossed some undefined age and/or number of followers.
Some groups are cult-like or have members who follow them with the fervor of religious fanatics, but those uses of the words ‘cult’ and ‘religion’ are metaphorical.
That's exactly how Gene is using the word, but then he says they are cults in the next breath. It's just one more step and he's a conspiracy theorist.
I wouldn’t write off Gene yet. He seems more rational and thoughtful than some others here. (Plus, he’s new, and if you chase him away, you’ll continue to be stuck with me and the rest of the regulars.)
It’s hard to separate fanatical words and actions that are based on religion from those based on politics. When a person spouts false political opinions as facts, they really do come across as being brainwashed religious fanatics. The difference is only definitional, not practical, and there is overlap when political stances are based on religion, so mixing the two up is forgivable in my mind.
The confusion is especially forgivable in the States where religion is a major dividing line between the political parties. When most of the people at a Trump rally are in-your-face Christians who treat the party like a religion, thinking of the party as a religion isn’t a stretch.
All this is mirrored by the climate-change deniers, flat-earthers, 9-11 conspiracy nuts, and any of the countless other non-fact based beliefs that are followed like religions by those who don’t understand how to think critically and filter ideas properly.
Lausten, mostly centered around religion and conservatives - I can find specific examples if you like, but it seems a number of CSI members/contributors, probably because of their own political/religious beliefs, ascribe nothing good to either group. One senior CSI member baldly stating to me that all wars were/are caused by religion - an easily proven falsehood (okay, Player, how may examples do you need?). Another aspect is the arrogance of some (Dawkins is a good example) in regards to those who don’t accept science/fact-based views (creationists, UFOers, etc.). Such obtuse, closed minded behavior doesn’t bode well for skepticisim. There have been a number of recent articles in SI on this topic, trying in a nice way to 'splain to skeptics that such attitudes only harden opposition, and are unlikely to change any minds.
This behavior amongst CSI members isn’t unexpected - their attitudes are continually reinforced by their CSI peers, they’re frustrated by the, for lack of a better phrase, stubborn ignorance of those who disagree, etc., but such behavior doesn’t gain much ground either.
Gene; that’s not what I would call cult behavior. At best you’ve pointed to some logical fallacies. Dawkins gets hauled out a lot, but whenever someone quotes him directly, I can almost always defend him. Except in extreme cases like “Dear Muslima”. To you and 3point, here’s my evidence for what you’re doing that bothers me. This should not chase you away, only lay some groundwork for further discussion. You said:
Many skeptics, dems and republicans are as strong in their beliefs as any other cult.
And there are any number of smaller non-religious organizations that look, smell, and act like cults,
Which are uses of “cult” as a metaphor, as in “cult-like”. But then you take it a step farther and start using words like “all” and “essentially the same”.
but all operating on essentially the same organizational principles, all acting as tools for one or a small set of leaders who direct/manipulate/use/guide these tools for their own purposes.
That’s too much of a stretch for me. I’ve tried to keep up with all the big cult stories, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, The Bagwhan, and they have principles that set them apart from the orgs you are naming. They demand loyalty to the group, they tell people to separate themselves from family, they cut people off from outside information, they are impervious to logical arguments. You can find these traits in individuals anywhere, but when you have all of them plus some more and to a high enough degree, then you have a cult.
Lausten, your mean JFK wasn’t killed by FBI agents operating under direct alien supervision from Area 51!!??
As regards my use of the word “cult” and that putting me just one step away from being a conspiracy theorist, not likely.
My primary reason for using the word “cult” is to try to show what I see as a very real connection between any group of people fervently committed to, and being lead towards goals, by effective group leadership. Any such group, especially under effective leadership, can accomplish much good - or much bad, largely at the beck and call of that group’s leadership. Religion is just one example of this situation, but this applies to any number of non-religious groups as well, with extremist organizations of any flavor being the best (but not exhaustive) examples, whether small (pick your favorite group) or large (to include political movements such as the Nazis, communists, etc.). My main point is that focusing on specific groups isn’t the answer - its a waste of time and resources. Rather, we need to focus more on how to deal with group leadership (regardless of group) that’s driving a group towards bad goals. What’s their motivation, their real goals, strengths and weaknesses, power sources, etc., and how do we influence them?
Lausten, I get your point, and am willing to admit I’m using the word “cult” a bit broadly, but I disagree that many of the organizations mentioned violate your statement that “They demand loyalty to the group, they tell people to separate themselves from family, they cut people off from outside information, they are impervious to logical arguments.” DPRK and China, among others, meet your criteria, as do a number of extremists groups. Even the far left/right wings of our parties do in the sense that they essentially require “litmus tests” for support, and will broke no disagreement with their platforms.
One more point - just to assuage any fear I may be driven off. Don’t worry about that. I’ve been on the outside looking in, as regards popular views, etc., the vast majority of my life. If I disappear from time to time, its not because I’ve been driven off, but because some other aspect of life demands more of my attention for a while.
I think we’ve taken this about as far as it can go. I agree it’s a spectrum. I tried looking up “cult spectrum” to see if anyone has made a graph. Instead I found this and I think I might be in a cult now. I listened and heard, “Distant galaxies are buried underground in a delicate mix of sounds that are as cosmic as they are organic.” I’ll send word from my alien overlords when they allow me.
The latest cult news story is about NXIVM. I wasn’t following it, but this discussion made me look into it. It isn’t religious, but is apparently considered a cult because of the methods used to control it’s members. According to Rolling Stone,
"Alexandra Stein, who has a PhD in the sociology of cults and wrote a book called Terror, Love and Brainwashing, tells RS that NXIVM does, indeed, qualify as a cult, per her five-point definition: it has a charismatic, authoritarian leader; it’s “steeply hierarchical” in format, with possible front groups; it bears a “total, absolute ideology;” it uses coercive persuasion or brainwashing to isolate members from family; and it exploits followers and shows “potential for violence.”
“Cults come in all forms,” she explains. “Religious, political, self-help, therapy, sports/martial arts, commercial, business. If someone is promising you the world and starting to do [those] other things, beware.”"
So, maybe some political groups are closer to being cults than I thought. If supernatural ideas aren’t required, then the spectrum of what can be called a cult/religion just got a whole lot wider.
I hesitate to mention this because so many people already have a negative opinion, but many military and quasi-military organizations are very cult-like, given Stein’s definition. I spent, between college and career, almost 30 years in a military environment (retired Marine), and, quite frankly, often of necessity, they meet the definition. Although there are certainly examples of military organizations gone bad, there are more that very actively do/support/enable good. But it is very insular, and its taken a lot of effort to broaden my horizons over the years. Having said that, however, I will also say that my military experience has provided me with much more than its taken from me, and I am a far better person for having served.