Talk:Cult/Archive 1

message: I miss three important apects of cults aka new religious movements. 
* Some researchers like David Lane thinks that one can draw conclusion about the origins of mainstream religions by studying cults
* The difference in government interference. Among the free democracies e.g French government keeps lists of them warnst against them and I think there is even a law against 'brainwashing' and mental exploitation of vulnerable people. I have to check this though. In contrast the USA government and the Netherlands have no law or even warnings about the dangers of cults, as far as I know. All governments interferes if the law has been broken. The problem with government interference is that in most countries the government is supposed to be religiously neutral. And the side effect of strong government interference or even from anti cult activist or media campaigns may be that members feel threatened and besieged making defection more difficult. 
* What happens psychologically to people who leave a cult because they found out that it is a scam? They must experience both a liberation and a loss because there are both negative and positive aspects of cult involvement. See the article by late Mrs Jan Groenveld of Cult Awarenes and Information Center http://www.caic.org.au/leaving/ithurts.htm 
**According to the book 'The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power' by Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad ex-members may suffer from a generalized cynicism without but giving references for this. I have to say that I believe they are right though based on my own experience. I mean the examples given in the article are extreme and very rare but this, I believe, unfortunately not rare at all. 
 
2004-01-20 Andries
::I don't think we need to recreate a debate about whether NRMs are dangerous here, in miniature. These viewpoints belong to "anti-cult movement" anyway. - User:ExitControl
Two more things, 
* I though that the sociological definition of a cult is not the one mentioned in the article but a group with a powerful charismatic leader who has founded the group. 
* I want to add the opinion of some scholars like David V. Barrett who wrote the book the 'New Believers' that the classification of a new religious movement as a cult has no added value. Instead he argues that one should study what a religious movement believes, does and its power structure. I also want to add the book as a reference.
One more thing
* I think the subject is so big that we need a list for cult related articles
2004-01-23 Andries
"I think there is even a law against 'brainwashing' and mental exploitation of vulnerable people."
The idea was floated around but the law does not mention it. David.Monniaux 10:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David, I find the law quite remarkable taking into account that the assertion that people who join cults are normal, intelligent people is widely considered to be true by ex-members. I believe it too. Do you know whether there were any people convicted using this law? Andries 19:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The law is mostly concerned about making it possible to prosecute organizations as opposed to individuals for certain crimes (organized embezzlement of people etc...) exploiting mental subjection. As far as I know, no person or organization has ever been convicted using this law. David.Monniaux 10:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing aspects

message: This has four basic aspects:
* Control of behavior and activities: The way of life is rigidly laid down in detail (dress, food, contacts, music, motion pictures, computer and video games, Web sites, rites to be observed) and members are kept so busy that little spare time remains.
* Thought control: Members are taught techniques to stop thinking processes involving questions or doubts immediately. Criticism is labelled unethical or sinful.
* Control of emotions and feelings: Members are kept under control by means of feelings of guilt and fear which supposedly can only be relieved by means of the group.
* Information control: Access to independent information, education and culture is reduced or forbidden. Contact with former members is forbidden.
These techniques make a mature, critical reflection of one's attitudes and the one-sided information given by the group largely impossible.
See also: Mind control, Purported cults, Christian countercult movement.
----
I cut this paragraph which seems to be two opposing POV pieces of analysis that add nothing to the article:
: The hereabove mentioned extreme but rare examples of suicides and homicides can be and are interpreted in almost opposite ways by cult apologists and by people who belong to the anti-cult movement. Cult apologists will conclude from the rare occurence of this extreme behavior that the warning about cults are very exaggerated. People who belong to the anti-cult movement will say that this extreme behavior is caused by the control that most cults have over its members which is usually acquired by manipulation and deception . They say that the violent, self-destructive behavior is rare but the control over the members that cults exert and the manipulation and deception of cults is not rare at all and will often harm families and psychologically harm members of the cults without making the headlines of newspapers. Hence, they say, the warnings about cults are not exaggerated at all.
UninvitedCompany 21:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Read e.g the website of Jan Groenvel or the book by David V. Barrett. Andries 22:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: but this data came from a small set of cults. So one can't conclude that a group is not a cult if more than 10% of the cult members stay.
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree, but with cults it is extreme. Read the Barrett book if you don't believe it. It is referenced hereunder.  Andries 22:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totalitarian control 

message: One problem with cults is not so much the cults themselves but the inaccurate, exaggerated, scare-mongering or sensationalist media stories about cults. 
According to many scholars and ex-members who oppose "cults" these stories don't help to understand and recognize cults which makes the problem of cults bigger instead of smaller. E.g. if the media give the general impression that in cults people are brainwashed then a person belonging to an abusive group may get a false feeling that the group he is in is not a cult and somewhat illogically think that there is nothing wrong with the group he is in. 
Another problem with these stories, "cult" opponents say, is that the group may lead isolate themselves and even persecution of the group. Isolation can make defection more difficult and hence aggravates the problem. 
Journalists might uncritically believe and write down what spokespersons of the cult tell them. One of the reason for this is, is that it was tedious (before the internet) to find alternative views on the cult, especially when the cult is small or new. Another reason is the propaganda of the cult and the naivety of the journalist who should know better.
: Useful hint: sometimes you can't write about "cults" objectively, risk loosing your job. 
Sociologists who study new religious movements scientifically are often ignored by the media. Rather than uncritcially believing what the groups say about themselves, journalists typically accept what deprogrammers say about "cults":
:"As part of their campaign to destroy a particular religious group or religious freedom in general, many deprogrammers do media interviews and represent themselves as watchdogs of new religious movements. Unfortunately, this frequently leads to reporters quoting deprogrammers, allowing them to give their one sided views without letting the reader know who these people really are or what they have done. Most media outlets are governed by strong ethics and will agree not to use known liars or criminals as expert sources, or at least will not use them without highlighting those facts."  -- statement by the Cult Awareness Network (a Scientology-controlled organization)
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While popular, the value of this kind of "checklist" in determining whether or not a group is a cult is debated by many sociologists. Moreover, some checklists have been designed so that particular marginalized groups (such as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses) will fall within them, though their status as a cult is debatable.
UninvitedCompany 22:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cults and the media

message: Hi UninvitedCompany,
I disagree with your cuts in the cult article. I mostly have references for what I have written even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the article. I will respond on the talk page later. And besides what is written is often plausible even though references are missing. Do you know a lot about the subject?  Andries 22:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert but it is a subject that I follow.  At one time the Cult article was fairly tight and well-referenced.  Since it is controversial, I think it is important that new material added to it be well-referenced as well.  There is a great deal of well-financed propaganda out there from both the cults themselves and their detractors.  I think the article should remain as scholarly as possible, which is why I made the edits.  UninvitedCompany 22:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand and agree to some extent. I have read and thought a lot about the subject and have (unfortunately) a lot of experience in the subject too. But it takes so much time to find all the references. This subject is notorious for disagreeing scholars which is referred to as cult wars which is an article still to be written. It is a fact that some scholars are mistaken sometimes about this subject so I think one should critically examine and distrust every scholar in this field. I do not have this opinion on scholars of most other fields. There is no easy solution, I believe.  Andries 22:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: All of what you say is true.  Cult is a difficult article for Wikipedia, to the point of making a useful case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia way of doing things.  So, the references are important, because every little opinion, every unsubstantiated assertion is going to be used for leverage the next time the cult sympathizers or CCCM radicals come visit the page. UninvitedCompany 22:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the difference between you and me is that you care more about the references than me. And I care more than you about giving the whole subject a complete coverage   Andries 00:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The coming edit war between UninvitedCompany and Andries

message: :By the way, I'm thinking of renaming "List of purported cults" to "public perception of new religious movements". What do you think? --Ed
:: The public perception of new religious movements should be mentioned even though this public perception is sometimes completely baseless. If the public perception is baseless then it should still be mentioned and debunked in wikipedia.  I have to think about the renaming thing. Andries 19:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  UninvitedCompany, I don't think we can mention any movement for which the cult label is undisputed. It is even disputed in the case of Jim Jones' People's Temple with the mass suicide in Jonestwon. See "HEARING THE VOICES OF JONESTOWN" by Mary McCormick Maaga, book review by SCOTT McLEMEE in Salon.com 
I do not believe there is any organization for which the cult label is undisputed.  Yet, it is valuable to have a list, because there are a few egregious examples where it is clear that the label applies, and listing those makes the article better.  --UninvitedCompany 17:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: True, I agree. I hope people can help. Andries 19:35, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Perception Cults and renaming the list