Talk:Cult/Archive 3

message: I removed a paragraph saying that certain countries (with a list of specific countries) gave total freedom to cults as long as they did not break laws. This is largely meaningless, because intolerant countries will probably draft laws that cults would break (for instance, laws against conversions from the state religion, or laws restricting the practice of religion to some official religion, or some official religion plus tolerated religions, as in Iran). What could perhaps be more meaningful would be saying that certain countries do not have laws regulating beliefs and religious practice per se and do not engage in legal action against cults, or other repressive measures, as long as they do not breach non-religious laws (for instance, laws against crimes against people or crime against property). Still, this would make the list highly irrelevant, since this is the case of most developed countries (I believe it includes the whole European Union, as well as the United States). David.Monniaux 20:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaningless paragraph

message: I moved the cult checklists to a new article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine what groups will turn into destructive cults, nor is there such a way to determine what groups will harm its members. In spite of that, popular but non-scientific cult checklists try to predict the probablity of harm.
I like the phrase popular but non-scientific. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Checklists

message: My statement: "Uncritical acceptance of any party line and unthinking obedience to any leader is a danger to a democracy, no matter how respectable or established the cult." is an axiomatic statement derived from the understood connotations of democracy, critical thought, and cult. There seems to be a continuing confusion about cult, linking it to number of members. Perhaps the confusion is essential to some agenda I'm unaware of. Andries challenges me to "find a quote" to justify this obvious statement. What does the neutral reader think?Wetman 00:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral readers with regards to cults?  Let me know if you found one. :) Andries 00:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Note to Wetman. The founding fathers of American democracy did not agree with you (see First Amendment). They explicitly allowed for citizens to retain uncritical acceptance and obedience to religions. Our readers would be interested to know of a source which agrees with your 'axiomatic' statement. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I glanced at the book and saw that I discusses altered state of consciousness and mystical experience. Yes, this is a subject that is missing in the cult article. In some NRMs these experiences reinforce the belief systems. Andries 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Axiomatic statement reverted by [[User:Andries]]

message: For the rest of the section, I only made a minor change to the "China" sub section. Oh and can somebody help with the cult checklist? They need to be referenced again (references were lost during cut and paste job) and put into context. Andries 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I changed the countries into alphabetical order

message: I remember having seen a government document that gives warnings about cults but now I can not find it anymore so that is why I deleted the remark that Germany gives general warning about cults. Andries 22:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: Shall we merge this article with new religious movement into Cults and new religious movements? Like Ed Poor, I am confused what should go where. I will merge if I do not receive objections within one week. The section cults and government (esp. France) can be summarized here and go into a separate article to deal with the max. length constraint. Andries 10:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After what we went through at hate group, just because one single sentence, It gives me a headache to even consider such merge... I will not stop you from trying, though, but please note that the Cult page is now close to 30K, so merging will certainly exceed the alloted 32K. Also note that the Cult article has a very specific header that may limit what can go there. --Zappaz 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yow! The NRM article has been relatively stable, while the Cult articles have raged and raged. This would be bringing the POV battle bull into the quiet china shop. I would advise being very certain before deciding on this, and even then moving very slowly into such a volatile merge. --Gary D 21:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- End copy
If you really intend to go forward with this merge, I would suggest that you merge into a temporary article and when done propose to be evaluated as an alternative to the current article status quo. IMO, it is a waste of time and effort to attempt this merge. It would be nice to have an explanation from you as for the reasons for your considering the need for such a merge. --Zappaz 15:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Zappaz, the subjects are so closely related. I think that alone is sufficient reason for a merge. Where most people would use the word cult, other people use the word NRM. Andries 15:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Definite, definite, definite, definite, definite objection!  Sorry, Andries, but there is a substantial and significant number of people who use the word "cult" in a specific sense that is not a synonym of "new religious movement", nor a superset or subset either.  To merge the two articles together merely muddies the waters about what those of us who don't mean "NRM" when we say "cult" do mean when we use that word. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with NRM into ''Cults and new religious movements'' ?