Misplaced Pages

Cult: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:59, 5 February 2007 editSmee (talk | contribs)28,728 edits restore highly relevant info← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:25, 6 January 2025 edit undoZac67 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,641 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Oct13 (talk) to last revision by PARAKANYAATags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Group controlled by a leader and/or an idea}}
{{NPOV}}
{{verylong}} {{Other uses}}
{{Update|part=Entire article needs updating, with attention paid to sources|reason=Some of these sources are over 50 years old, and academic thinking in this area has changed profoundly even in the past twenty-five years|date=September 2024}}
{{cults}}
{{Use Oxford spelling|date= July 2020}}
{{Use dmy dates|date= March 2019}}


'''Cult''' is a term often applied to ] and other ] which have unusual, and often extreme, ], ], or ] beliefs and ]s. Extreme devotion to a particular person, object, or ] is another characteristic often ascribed to cults. The term has different, and sometimes divergent or ], definitions both in ] and academia and has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.
: ''This article does not discuss "cult" in its original sense of "religious practice"; for that usage see ]. See ] for more meanings of the term "cult"''.


Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements became an object of ] study within the context of the ]. Since the 1940s, the ] has opposed some ]s and new religious movements, labeling them cults because of their ]. Since the 1970s, the secular ] has opposed certain groups, which they call cults, accusing them of practicing ].
In ] and ], a '''cult''' is a cohesive group of people (sometimes a relatively small and recently founded religious movement, sometimes numbering in the hundreds of thousands) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream, sometimes reaching the point of a ]. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful effects on members, or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.


Groups labelled cults are found around the world and range in size from small localized groups to some international organizations with up to millions of members.
In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons.
Understandably, most, if not all, groups that are called "cults" deny this label. Some ] and ] studying cults have argued that no one yet has been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to identify only groups that have been claimed as problematic{{fact}}.


== Definition and usage ==
The literal and traditional meanings of the word ''cult'' is derived from the ] ''cultus,'' meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ]; or: the body of adherents to same"{{fn | 32}}. In English, it remains neutral and a technical term within this context to refer to the "cult of ] at ]" and the "cult figures" that accompanied it, or to "the importance of the ''Ave Maria'' in the cult of the ]." This usage is more fully explored in the entry ].
In the English-speaking world, the term ''cult'' often carries ] connotations.{{sfn|Dubrow-Marshall|2024|p=103}} The word "cult" is derived from the Latin term {{Lang|la|cultus}}, which means worship.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} An older sense of the word cult, which is not pejorative, indicates ] that is conventional within its culture, is related to a particular figure, and is frequently associated with a particular place, or generally the collective participation in rites of religion.<ref>{{oed|cult}} – "2.a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremonies or rituals which are directed towards a specified figure or object."</ref>{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} References to the ], for example, use the word in this sense. A derived sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century, and usage is not always strictly religious.{{efn|Compare the '']'' note for usage in 1875: "cult:...b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.… 1875 ''Brit. Mail 30'' Jan. 13/1 Buffaloism is, it would seem, a cult, a creed, a secret community, the members of which are bound together by strange and weird vows, and listen in hidden conclave to mysterious lore." {{Cite OED|cult}}}}{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} The term is variously applied to abusive or coercive groups of many categories, including gangs, organized crime, and terrorist organizations.{{sfn|Dubrow-Marshall|2024|p=96}}


] may identify a cult as a social group with ] or ] beliefs and practices,{{sfn|Stark|Bainbridge|1996|p=124}} although this is often unclear.{{sfn|Stark|Bainbridge|1980|p=1377}}{{sfn|Olson|2006}} Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults, saying that they arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.{{sfn|Stark|Bainbridge|1987}} Cults have been compared to miniature ] political systems.{{sfn|Stein|2016}} Such groups are typically perceived as being led by a ] leader who tightly controls its members.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bell |first=Kenton |date=2013 |title=cult |url=https://sociologydictionary.org/cult/ |access-date=March 17, 2023 |website=Open Education Sociology Dictionary.}}</ref> It is in some contexts a ] term, also used for ] and other ] which are defined by their unusual ], ], or ] beliefs and ]s,<ref>{{Cite Merriam-Webster|cult}}</ref> or their ] in a particular person, object, or ]. This sense of the term is weakly defined{{snd}}having divergent definitions both in ] and academia{{snd}}and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.{{sfn|Rubin|2001|p=473}}{{sfn|Richardson|1993|pp=348–356}}
In non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a case where English speakers might use the word "]", as in "], ] and ] are ''sects'' (or ''denominations'') ''within'' ]". In ] or ], ''culte'' or ''culto'' simply means "worship" or "religious attendance"; thus an ''association cultuelle'' is an association whose goal is to organize religious worship and practices.


According to Susannah Crockford, "he word ‘cult’ is a shapeshifter, semantically morphing with the intentions of whoever uses it. As an analytical term, it resists rigorous definition." She argued that the least subjective definition of cult referred to a religion or religion-like group "self-consciously building a new form of society", but that the rest of society rejected as unacceptable.{{sfn|Crockford|2024|p=172}} The term cult has been criticized as lacking "scholarly rigour"; Benjamin E. Zeller stated "abelling any group with which one disagrees and considers deviant as a cult may be a common occurrence, but it is not scholarship".{{sfn|Thomas|Graham-Hyde|2024a|p=4}} However, it has also been viewed as empowering for ex-members of groups that have experienced trauma.{{sfn|Thomas|Graham-Hyde|2024a|p=4}} Religious scholar ] argued the term was dehumanizing of the people within the group, as well as their children; following the ], it was argued by some scholars that the defining of the Branch Davidians as a cult by the media, government and former members is a significant factor as to what lead to the deaths.{{sfn|Olson|2006|p=97}} The term was noted to carry "considerable cultural legitimacy".{{sfn|Bromley|Melton|2002|p=231}}
The word for "cult" in the popular English meaning is ''secte'' (French) or ''secta'' (Spanish). In ] the usual word used for the English ''cult'' is ''Sekte'', which also has other definitions. A similar case is the ] word ''sekta''.


In the 1970s, with the rise of ] ]s, scholars (though not the general public) began to abandon the use of the term ''cult'', regarding it as pejorative. By the end of the 1970s, the term cult was largely replaced in academia with the term "new religion" or "]".{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}}{{sfn|Lewis|2004}} Other proposed alternative terms that have seen use were "emergent religion", "alternative religious movement", or "marginal religious movement", though new religious movement is the most popular term.{{sfn|Olson|2006|p=97}} The anti-cult movement mostly regards the term "new religious movement" as a euphemism for cult that hides their harmful nature.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}}
== Definitions ==
=== Dictionary definitions of "cult" ===


== Scholarly studies ==
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different meanings of the word "cult"{{fn | 32}}.
{{Further information|Academic study of new religious movements}}]'s church–sect typology, based on ]'s original theory and providing the basis for the modern concepts of cults, ]s, and ]s]]
Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements perceived as cults became an object of ] study within the context of the ].{{sfn|Fahlbusch|Bromiley|1999|p=897}} The term in this context saw its origins in the work of sociologist ] (1864–1920). Weber is an important theorist in the academic study of cults, which often draws on his theorizations of ], and of the ] between ] and ].{{sfn|Weber|1985}}{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} This concept of church-sect division was further elaborated upon by German theologian ], who added a "mystical" categorization to define more personal religious experiences.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} American sociologist ] further bisected Troeltsch's first two categories: ''church'' was split into ] and ]; and ''sect'' into '']'' and ''cult''.{{sfn|Swatos|1998a|pp=90–93}}{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=321}} Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion", Becker's ''cult'' refers to small religious groups that lack in organization and emphasize the private nature of personal beliefs.{{sfn|Campbell|1998|pp=122–123}}] (1864–1920), an important theorist in the study of cults]]Later sociological formulations built on such characteristics, placing an additional emphasis on cults as ] religious groups, "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture."{{sfn|Richardson|1993|p=349}} This is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with religious sects.{{sfn|Stark|Bainbridge|1987|p=25}} According to this sociological terminology, ''sects'' are products of religious ] and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, whereas ''cults'' arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.{{sfn|Stark|Bainbridge|1987|p=124}}


Scholars ] and ] have argued for a further distinction between three kinds of cults: cult movements, client cults, and audience cults, all of which share a "compensator" or rewards for the things invested into the group. In their typology, a "cult movement" is an actual complete organization, differing from a "sect" in that it is not a splinter of a bigger religion, while "audience cults" are loosely organized, and propagated through media, and "client cults" offer services (i.e. psychic readings or meditation sessions). One type can turn into another, for example the ] changing from audience to client cult.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}} Sociologists who follow their definition tend to continue using the word "cult", unlike most other academics; however Bainbridge later stated he regretted having used the word at all.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}} Stark and Bainbridge, in discussing the process by which individuals join new religious groups, have even questioned the utility of the concept of '']'', suggesting that '']'' is a more useful concept.{{sfn|Bader|Demaris|1996}}
# Formal religious veneration
# A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
# A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
# A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;
# Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).


In the early 1960s, sociologist ] studied the activities of ] members in California in trying to promote their beliefs and win new members. Lofland noted that most of their efforts were ineffective and that most of the people who joined did so because of personal relationships with other members, often family relationships.{{sfn|Richardson|1998}}{{sfn|Barker|1998}} Lofland published his findings in 1964 as a ] entitled "The World Savers: A Field Study of Cult Processes", and in 1966 in book form by as '']''. It is considered to be one of the most important and widely cited studies of the process of religious conversion.{{sfn|Ashcraft|2006|p=180}}{{sfn|Chryssides|1999|p=1}}
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary definitions are:


] stated that, in 1970, "one could count the number of active researchers on new religions on one's hands." However, ] writes that the "meteoric growth" in this field of study can be attributed to the cult controversy of the early 1970s. Because of "a wave of nontraditional religiosity" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, academics perceived new religious movements as different phenomena from previous religious innovations.{{sfn|Lewis|2004}}
# A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;
# An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;
# The object of such devotion;
# A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;
# Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols;
# A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;
# The members of such a religion or sect;
# Any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.


== Types ==
For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are:
=== Destructive cults ===
''Destructive cult'' is a term frequently used by the ].{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}} Members of the anti-cult movement typically define a destructive cult as a group that is unethical, deceptive, and one that uses "strong influence" or mind control techniques to affect critical thinking skills.{{sfn|Shupe|Darnell|2006|p=214}} This term is sometimes presented in contrast to a "benign cult", which implies that not all "cults" would be harmful, though others apply it to all cults.{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}} ] ], executive director of the anti-cult group ], defines a destructive cult as "a highly manipulative group which exploits and sometimes physically and/or psychologically damages members and recruits."{{sfn|Turner|Bloch|Shor|1995|p=1146}}


In ''Cults and the Family'', the authors cite Shapiro, who defines a ''destructive cultism'' as a ] ], whose distinctive qualities include: "behavioral and ]s, loss of ], cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders."{{sfn|Kaslow|Sussman|1982|p=34}} Writing about ] in the book '']'', Julius H. Rubin said that American religious innovation created an unending diversity of sects. These "new religious movements…gathered new converts and issued challenges to the wider society. Not infrequently, public controversy, contested narratives and litigation result."{{sfn|Rubin|2001|p=473}} In his work ''Cults in Context'' author ] writes that although the ] "has not been shown to be violent or volatile," it has been described as a destructive cult by "anticult crusaders."{{sfn|Dawson|1998|p=349}} In 2002, the German government was held by the ] to have ] the ] by referring to it, among other things, as a "destructive cult" with no factual basis.{{sfn|Seiwert|2003}}
:cult
::1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
::2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
::3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.


Some researchers have criticized the term ''destructive cult'', writing that it is used to describe groups which are not necessarily harmful in nature to themselves or others. In his book ''Understanding New Religious Movements'', ] writes that the term is overgeneralized. Saliba sees the ] as the "paradigm of a destructive cult", where those that use the term are implying that other groups will also commit ].{{sfn|Saliba|2003|p=144}}
:sect
::1 a group of people with different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.
::2 a group with extreme or dangerous philosophical or political ideas.


=== Doomsday cults ===
British "sect" formerly included a contextually implied meaning, of what "cult" now means
{{Main|Doomsday cult}}
<ref>Examples of contemporary British "cult" usage: ; Example of contemporary British "sect" usage: ''"Before beginning counselling the counsellor needs to be sure that it was indeed a cult and not a sect in which the person was enmeshed. A sect may be described as a spin-off from an established religion or quite eclectic, but it does not use techniques of mind control on its membership."'' Cult Information Centre]</ref>
''Doomsday cult'' is an expression which is used to describe groups that believe in ] and ], and it can also be used to refer both to groups that predict ], and groups that attempt to bring it about.{{sfn|Jenkins|2000|pp=216, 222}}{{sfn|Chryssides|Zeller|2014|p=322}} In the 1950s, American ] ] and his colleagues observed members of a small ] called the Seekers for several months, and recorded their conversations both prior to and after a failed prophecy from their charismatic leader.{{sfn|Stangor|2004|pp=42–43}}{{sfn|Newman|2006|p=86}}{{sfn|Petty|Cacioppo|1996|p=139}} Their work was later published in the book '']''.{{sfn|Stangor|2004|pp=42–43}}
in both USA and the UK. Some other nations still use the foreign equivalents of old British "sect" ("secte", "sekte", or "secta", etc.) to imply "cult". Both words, as well as "cult" in its original sense of ] (e.g., Middle Ages ''cult of Mary''), must be understood to correctly interpret 20th century popular cult references in world English.


In the late 1980s, doomsday cults were a major topic of news reports, with some reporters and commentators considering them a serious threat to society.{{sfn|Jenkins|2000|pp=215–216}} A 1997 psychological study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter found that people turned to a cataclysmic ] after they had repeatedly failed to find meaning in mainstream movements.{{sfn|Pargament|1997|pp=150–153, 340}}
=== Theological definition ===
Conservative Christian authors, especially some Protestants, define a cult as a religion which claims to be in conformance with Biblical truth, yet (in their view) deviates from it. By this definition, a cult would be a group which calls itself Christian yet deviates from (what they see as) a core Christian belief, e.g. the Trinity.


=== Political cults ===
{{main|Catholic devotions}}
A political cult is a cult with a primary interest in ] and ]. Groups that some have described as "political cults", mostly advocating ] or ] agendas, have received some attention from journalists and scholars. In their 2000 book '']'', Dennis Tourish and ] discuss about a dozen organizations in the United States and Great Britain that they characterize as cults.{{sfn|Tourish|Wohlforth|2000}}


==Anti-cult movements==
In theology, particularly ] theology, cult is a ] term, from the Latin, ''colere'', to devote care to a person or thing, that is, to venerate, worship). "Cult" is the root of the term "culture," or ''"the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations..."'' . Cult in theology then refers to:


===Christian countercult movement===
:* Liturgy as the actual arrangement and execution of the public Divine worship as authorized by the Church. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, established by Sixtus V, 1587, as the authoritative organ of the Holy See, is the supreme arbiter.
{{Main|Christian countercult movement}}
In the 1940s, the long-held opposition by some established ]s to non-Christian religions and ] or counterfeit Christian sects crystallized into a more organized Christian countercult movement in the United States.{{Citation needed|date=September 2024|reason=what source says it was the 1940s?}} For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christian ], were considered cults.{{sfn|Cowan|2003|p=20}} The countercult movement is mostly evangelical protestants.{{sfn|Chryssides|2024|p=41}} The Christian countercult movement asserts that Christian groups whose teachings deviate from the belief that the bible is inerrant,{{sfn|Cowan|2003|p=31}} but also focuses on non-Christian religions like Hinduism.{{sfn|Chryssides|2024|p=41}} Christian countercult activist writers also emphasize the need for Christians to ] to followers of cults.{{sfn|Cowan|2003|p=25}}


===Secular anti-cult movement===
:* Part III of the New Code of Canon Law is entitled, "On Divine Cultus." After giving the law governing worship in general (canon 1255) and public worship (canon 1256–1264), the Code gives special laws for the custody and cult of the Blessed Sacrament (canon 1265–1275); for the ] (canon 1276–1289); for sacred processions (canon 1290–1295), and for sacred furniture (canon 1296–1306).
{{Main|Anti-cult movement}}
] protest in Japan, 2009]]Starting in the late 1960s, a different strand of anti-cult groups arose, with the formation of the ] anti-cult movement (ACM).{{sfn|Chryssides|2024|p=46}} This was in response to the rise of new religions in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly the events at ] and the deaths of nearly 1000 people.{{sfn|Chryssides|2024|p=47}} The organizations that formed the secular anti-cult movement (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of "cult" ] who did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their own ]. A few ]s and ]s working in this field suggested that ] techniques were used to maintain the loyalty of cult members.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001}}{{sfn|Chryssides|2024|p=46}}


The belief that cults brainwashed their members became a unifying theme among cult critics and in the more extreme corners of the anti-cult movement techniques like the sometimes forceful "]" of cult members was practised.{{sfn|Shupe|Bromley|1998a|p=27}} In the ], and among average citizens, "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like ], brainwashing, ], ], and other ], and ]. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally ], however peaceful or law abiding it may be.{{sfn|Wright|1997}}{{sfn|van Driel|Richardson|1988}}{{sfn|Hill|Hickman|McLendon|2001}}{{sfn|Richardson|1993|pp=348–356}}
:* In Hagiology, we must distinguish between public and private cult of the saints. Privately, cult (dulia) can be paid to any deceased of whose holiness we are certain. "Public cult may be shown only to those Servants of God who by the authority of the Church are numbered among the Saints and Beatified" (canon 1277), by the regular processes of canonization and beatification. Canonized saints may receive public cult everywhere and by any act of dulia; the beatified, however, only such acts and in such places as the Holy See permits (canon 1277, § 2). Saints may be chosen with papal confirmation, as patrons of nations, dioceses, provinces, confraternities, and other places and associations.


While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part sceptical of their ability to explain conversion to ].{{sfn|Barker|1986}} In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic ] psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a ].{{sfn|Ayella|1990}}{{sfn|Cowan|2003|p=ix}}
: Catholic theology makes a distinction between the "cult" (Latin ''cultus''), in its technical sense here, of ''dulia'' and ''latria''.
::''']''' is the "honor," "respect," "affection," due to saints -- Mary, as the mother of Christ, is given "]," and traditionally St. Joseph as "foster-father and guardian" of Christ is honored with "]," but in all cases, this dulia is best termed respect and honor. In no way is dulia owed to statues, icons or other depictions of saints, but to the saints themselves, of whom such depictions are mere reminders. This dulia is specifically defined as qualitatively different from 'worship," hence saints are never in fact prayed "to" (despite common inaccuracies of speech), but requested to "pray for us."


==Governmental policies and actions==
::''']''' is the cult of worship, and this belongs, in Catholic theology, to God alone -- hence, to the Eucharist (as, for Catholics, this is one way that Christ is "truly present") and to each person of the Trinity. In Catholic terminology, God and God alone may be said to be "worshipped" and "adored."
{{main|Governmental lists of cults and sects}}
The application of the labels ''cult'' or ''sect'' to religious movements in government documents signifies the popular and negative use of the term ''cult'' in English and a functionally similar use of words translated as 'sect' in several European languages.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=143–168}} Sociologists critical to this negative politicized use of the word ''cult'' argue that it may adversely impact the religious freedoms of group members.{{sfn|Davis|1996}} At the height of the counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s, some governments published lists of cults.{{efn|Or "sects" in German or French-speaking countries, the German term ''sekten'' and the French term ''sectes'' having assumed the same derogatory meaning as English "cult".}} Groups labelled "cults" are found around the world and range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions.{{sfn|Barker|1999}}


While these documents utilize similar terminology, they do not necessarily include the same groups nor is their assessment of these groups based on agreed criteria.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=143–168}} Other governments and world bodies also report on new religious movements but do not use these terms to describe the groups.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=143–168}} Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements.{{efn|{{Multiref2
=== Definition of 'cult' by Christian 'countercult' groups===
|1=Austria: Beginning in 2011, the ]'s ] no longer distinguishes sects in Austria as a separate group. {{Cite web|title=International Religious Freedom Report for 2012|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=208288|access-date=3 September 2013|publisher=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor}}
{{see also|heresy}}
|2=Belgium: The Justice Commission of the ] published a report on cults in 1997. A Brussels Appeals Court in 2005 condemned the House of Representatives on the grounds that it had damaged the image of an organization listed.
|3=France: A parliamentary commission of the National Assembly compiled a list of purported cults in 1995. In 2005, the Prime Minister stated that the concerns addressed in the list "had become less pertinent" and that the government needed to balance its concern with cults with respect for public freedoms and ].
|4=Germany: The legitimacy of a ] listing cults (''sekten'') was defended in a court decision of 2003 (Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin 25 September 2003). The list is still maintained by Berlin city authorities: .
}}}} While the official response to new religious groups has been mixed across the globe, some governments aligned more with the critics of these groups to the extent of distinguishing between "legitimate" religion and "dangerous", "unwanted" cults in ].{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001}}{{sfn|Edelman|Richardson|2003}}


=== China ===
], the pioneer of the ] gave in his 1955 book the following definition of a cult:
{{Main articles|Heterodox teachings (Chinese law)}}
] books being symbolically destroyed by the ]]]


For centuries, governments in China have categorized certain religions as '']'' ({{Zh|c=]|s=|t=|p=|labels=no}}), translated as "evil cults" or "heterodox teachings".{{sfn|Penny|2012}} In ], the classification of a religion as {{Lang|zh-latn|xiejiao}} did not necessarily mean that a religion's teachings were believed to be false or inauthentic; rather, the label was applied to religious groups that were not authorized by the state, or it was applied to religious groups that were believed to challenge the legitimacy of the state.{{sfn|Penny|2012}}{{sfn|Zhu|2010|p=487}} Groups branded ''{{Lang|zh-latn|xiejiao}}'' face suppression and punishment by authorities.{{sfn|Heggie|2020|p=257}}{{sfn|Zhu|2010|p=}}
: "By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith."


===Russia===
Author ] defines cult as
In 2008 the ] prepared a list of "extremist groups". At the top of the list were Islamic groups outside of "traditional Islam", which is supervised by the Russian government. Next listed were "]".{{sfn|Soldatov|Borogan|2010|pp=65–66}} In 2009 the ] created a council which it named the "Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis." The new council listed 80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society, and it also mentioned that there were thousands of smaller ones. The large sects which were listed included: ], the ], and other sects which were loosely referred to as "]s".{{sfn|Marshall|2013}}


=== United States ===
: ''"A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: "cultic" (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status)."'' {{fn | 33}}
In the 1970s, the scientific status of the "]" became a central topic in ] cases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forceful ] of cult members{{sfn|Lewis|2004}}{{sfn|Davis|1996}} Meanwhile, sociologists who were critical of these theories assisted advocates of ] in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001}}{{sfn|Edelman|Richardson|2003}} In the United States the religious activities of cults are protected under the ], which prohibits governmental ] and protects ], ], ], and ]; however, no members of religious groups or cults are granted any special ] from ].{{sfn|Ogloff|Pfeifer|1992}}


In 1990, the ] of ''United States v. Fishman'' (1990) ended the usage of brainwashing theories by expert witnesses such as ] and ]. In the case's ruling, the court cited the ], which states that the ] which is utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields. The court deemed ] to be inadmissible in expert testimonies, using supporting documents which were published by the ], literature from previous court cases in which brainwashing theories were used, and expert testimonies which were delivered by scholars such as ].{{sfn|Introvigne|2014|pp=313–316}}
=== Sociological definitions of religion ===


=== Western Europe ===
According to what is one common typology among sociologists, religious groups are classified as ]s, ]s, cults or ]s.
{{See also|MIVILUDES|Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu|Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France}}
The governments of France and Belgium have taken policy positions which accept "brainwashing" theories uncritically, while the governments of other European nations, such as those of Sweden and Italy, are cautious with regard to brainwashing and as a result, they have responded more neutrally with regard to new religions.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|pp=144–146}} Scholars have suggested that the outrage which followed the mass murder/suicides perpetuated by the ], have significantly contributed to European anti-cult positions.{{sfn|Richardson|Introvigne|2001|p=144}}{{sfn|Robbins|2002|p=174}} In the 1980s, clergymen and officials of the French government expressed concern that some ] and other groups within the ] would be adversely affected by anti-cult laws which were then being considered.{{sfn|Richardson|2004|p=48}}


== See also ==
A very common definition in the sociology of religion for ''cult'' is one of the four terms making up the ]. Under this definition, a cult refers to a religious group with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs. This is distinguished from sects, which have a high degree of tension with society but whose beliefs are traditional to that society, and ecclesias and denominations, which are groups with a low degree of tension and traditional beliefs.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References ==
According to ]'s the ''Theory of Religion'', most religions start out their lives as cults or sects, i.e. groups in high tension with the surrounding society. Over time, they tend to either die out, or become more established, mainstream and in less tension with society. Cults are new groups with a new novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to (what the sect views as) their original purity. <ref>Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, Willia S. ''A Theory of Religion ", Rutgers University Press, ISBN 0-8135-2330-3</ref>
=== Explanatory notes ===
{{notelist}}


=== Citations ===
Since this definition of "cult" is defined in part in terms of tension with the surrounding society, the same group may both be a cult and not a cult at different places and times. For example, Christianity was a cult by this definition in 1st and 2nd century Rome, but in fifth century Rome it is no longer a cult but rather an ecclesia (the state religion). Or similarly, very conservative Islam would (when adopted by Westerners) constitute a cult in the West, but the ecclesia in some conservative Muslim countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban). Likewise, because novelty of beliefs as well as tension is an element in the definition: in India, the Hare Krishnas are not a cult, but rather a sect (since their beliefs are largely traditional to Hindu culture), but they are by this definition a cult in the Western world (since their beliefs are largely novel to Christian culture).
{{reflist}}


;Books
The English sociologist ]<ref>]. ''New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction'' (1990), Bernan Press, ISBN 0-11-340927-3</ref> argues that a cult is characterized "] individualism" by which he means that "the cult has no clear locus of final authority beyond the individual member." Cults, according to Wallis are generally described as "oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive", making "few demands on members", without possessing a "clear distinction between members and non-members", having "a rapid turnover of membership", and are transient collectives with vague boundaries and fluctuating belief systems Wallis asserts that cults emerge from the "cultic milieu". Wallis contrast a cult with a ] that he asserts are characterized by "] authoritarianism": sects possess some authoritative locus for the legitimate attribution of heresy. According to Wallis, "sects lay a claim to possess unique and privileged access to the truth or salvation and their committed adherents typically regard all those outside the confines of the collectivity as 'in error'". <ref>Wallis, Roy ''The Road to Total Freedom A Sociological analysis of Scientology'' (1976) </ref> <ref>Wallis, Roy ''Scientology: Therapeutic Cult to Religious Sect'' (1975)</ref>
* {{Cite book|last=Ashcraft |first=W. Michael |year=2006 |chapter=African Diaspora Traditions and Other American Innovations| title=Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-275-98717-6 |editor-last=Gallagher|editor-first=Eugene V.}}
* {{Cite book|editor-last1=Wilson |editor-first1=Bryan |editor-last2=Cresswell |editor-first2=Jamie |last=Barker |first=Eileen|author-link=Eileen Barker |chapter=New Religious Movements: their incidence and significance |year=1999 |title=New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response |publisher=]|isbn=978-0-415-20050-9|language=en}}
* {{Cite book |title=Cults, Religion, and Violence |date=2002 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-521-66064-8 |editor-last=Bromley |editor-first=David G. |editor-link=David G. Bromley |language=en |editor-last2=Melton |editor-first2=J. Gordon |editor-link2=J. Gordon Melton}}
* {{Cite book |last=Chryssides |first=George D. |author-link=George D. Chryssides |title=Exploring New Religions |publisher=] |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-304-33652-4 |series=Issues in Contemporary Religion |location=London; New York |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |title=The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements |publisher=] |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-4411-9005-5 |editor-last=Chryssides |editor-first=George D. |editor-link=George D. Chryssides |series=Bloomsbury Companions |location=London |language=en |chapter=Resources: A–Z |editor-last2=Zeller |editor-first2=Benjamin E.}}
* {{Cite book |last=Cowan |first=Douglas E. |author-link=Douglas E. Cowan |year=2003 |title=Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult |location=Westport, CT |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-275-97459-6}}
* {{Cite book |last=Dawson |first=Lorne L. |author-link=Lorne L. Dawson |year=1998 |title=Cults in Context: Readings in the Study of New Religious Movements |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7658-0478-5}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia|editor-first=Erwin|editor-last=Fahlbusch|editor-link=Erwin Fahlbusch |editor-first2=Geoffrey W. |editor-last2=Bromiley|editor-link2=Geoffrey W. Bromiley|chapter=Sect|volume=4 |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Christianity|access-date=2013-03-21|page=897 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C5V7oyy69zgC&pg=PA897 |year=1999|isbn=978-90-04-14595-5 |via=]}}
* {{Cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Phillip |title=Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History |title-link=Mystics and Messiahs |publisher=], US |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-19-514596-0}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Kaslow |first1=Florence Whiteman |last2=Sussman|first2=Marvin B. |title=Cults and the Family |publisher=Haworth Press |year=1982 |isbn=978-0-917724-55-8}}
* {{Cite book |last=Lewis |first=James R. |author-link=James R. Lewis (scholar) |year=2004 |title=The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements |location=US |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-514986-9}}
* {{Cite book|last=Marshall |first=Paul |year=2013 |title=Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians |publisher=]}}
* {{Cite book |last=Newman |first=Dr. David M. |title=Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life |publisher=Pine Forge Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-4129-2814-4}}
* {{Cite book |last=Pargament |first=Kenneth I. |author-link=Kenneth Pargament |title=The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice |publisher=Guilford Press |year=1997 |isbn=978-1-57230-664-6}}
* {{Cite book |last=Penny |first=Benjamin |title=The Religion of Falun Gong |date=2012 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-65501-7 |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |last=Petty |first=Richard E. |author-last2=Cacioppo|author-first2=John T. |title=Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches |publisher=Westview Press |year=1996 |isbn=0-8133-3005-X}}
* {{Cite book |last=Saliba |first=John A. |title=Understanding New Religious Movements |publisher=] |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-7591-0356-6 |edition=2nd |location=Walnut Creek |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Stark |first1=Rodney |author-link1=Rodney Stark |last2=Bainbridge |first2=William Sims |author-link2=William Sims Bainbridge |year=1987 |title=The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-05731-9}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Stark |first1=Rodney |author-link1=Rodney Stark |last2=Bainbridge |first2=William Sims |author-link2=William Sims Bainbridge |year=1996 |title=A Theory of Religion |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-8135-2330-9}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Swatos |editor-first=William H. Jr. |year=1998 |pages=90–93 |title=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society |publisher=AltaMira |location=Walnut Creek, CA |isbn=978-0-7619-8956-1}}
** {{Harvc |last=Shupe |first=Anson |last2=Bromley |first2=David G. |chapter=Anti-Cult Movement |year=1998 |anchor-year=1998a |in=Swatos |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/anticult.htm}}
** {{Harvc |last=Swatos |first=William H. Jr|chapter=Church-Sect Theory|year=1998 |anchor-year=1998a |in=Swatos |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cstheory.htm}}
** {{Harvc |last=Campbell |first=Colin |chapter=Cult |year=1998 |in=Swatos |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cult.htm}}
** {{Harvc |last=Barker |first=Eileen |chapter=Conversion |year=1998 |in=Swatos |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/conversion.htm}}
** {{Harvc |last=Richardson |first=James T. |chapter=Unification Church |year=1998 |in=Swatos |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Unification.htm}}
* {{Cite book |title=Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe |publisher=] |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-306-47887-1 |editor-last=Richardson |editor-first=James T. |editor-link=James T. Richardson |series=Critical Issues in Social Justice |location=New York |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Shupe |first1=Anson |title=Agents of Discord: Deprogramming, Pseudo-science, and the American Anti-cult Movement |last2=Darnell |first2=Susan |date=2006 |publisher=Transaction Publishers |isbn=978-0-7658-0323-8}}
* {{Cite book|author-link=Andrei Soldatov|last1=Soldatov |first1=Andreĭ|first2=I. |last2=Borogan |year=2010|title=The new nobility : the restoration of Russia's security state and the enduring legacy of the KGB| location=New York|publisher=] |isbn=978-1-61039-055-2}}
* {{Cite book |last=Stangor |first=Charles |title=Social Groups in Action and Interaction |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-84169-407-8}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Stein |first1=Alexandra |title=Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems |publisher=Taylor and Francis |year=2016 |isbn=9781138677951}}
* {{Cite book |title='Cult' Rhetoric in the 21st Century: Deconstructing the Study of New Religious Movements |publisher=] |year=2024 |isbn=978-1-350-33323-9 |editor-last=Thomas |editor-first=Aled |series=Religion at the boundaries |location=London |language=en |editor-last2=Graham-Hyde |editor-first2=Edward}}
** {{Harvc |last=Thomas |first=Aled |last2=Graham-Hyde |first2=Edward. |author-link=George D. Chryssides |chapter='Cult' rhetoric in the twenty-first century: The disconnect between popular discourse and the ivory tower |year=2024 |in=Thomas |in2=Graham-Hyde |anchor-year=2024a}}
** {{Harvc |last=Chryssides |first=George D. |author-link=George D. Chryssides |chapter=A history of anticult rhetoric |year=2024 |in=Thomas |in2=Graham-Hyde}}
** {{Harvc |last=Dubrow-Marshall |first=Roderick P. |chapter=The recognition of cults |year=2024 |in=Thomas |in2=Graham-Hyde}}
** {{Harvc |last=Crockford |first=Susannah |chapter='There is no QAnon': Cult accusations in contemporary American political and online discourse |year=2024 |in=Thomas |in2=Graham-Hyde}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Tourish |first1=Dennis |last2=Wohlforth |first2=Tim |author-link2=Tim Wohlforth |year=2000 |title=On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left |title-link=On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left |location=Armonk |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7656-0639-6}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Turner |first1=Francis J. |first2=Arnold Shanon |last2=Bloch |last3=Shor |first3=Ron |title=Differential Diagnosis & Treatment in Social Work |edition=4th |publisher=Free Press |year=1995 |page=1146 |chapter=105: From Consultation to Therapy in Group Work With Parents of Cultists |isbn=978-0-02-874007-2}}
* {{Cite book |title=Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field |title-link=Misunderstanding Cults |publisher=] |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-8020-8188-9 |editor-last=Zablocki |editor-first=Benjamin |editor-link=Benjamin Zablocki |language=en |editor-last2=Robbins |editor-first2=Thomas |editor-link2=Thomas Robbins (sociologist)}}
** {{Harvc |first=Julius H. |last=Rubin |chapter=Contested Narratives: A Case Study of the Conflict between a New Religious Movement and Its Critics |year=2001 |in=Zablocki |in2=Robbins}}


;Articles
=== Definition of 'cult' according to secular opposition ===
* {{Cite journal |doi=10.1177/0002764290033005005 |last=Ayella |first=Marybeth |year=1990 |title=They Must Be Crazy: Some of the Difficulties in Researching 'Cults' |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=562–577 |s2cid=144181163}}

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.2307/1386560| issn = 0021-8294| volume = 35| issue = 3| pages = 285–303| last1 = Bader| first1 = Chris| last2 = Demaris| first2 = Alfred| title = A Test of the Stark-Bainbridge Theory of Affiliation with Religious Cults and Sects| journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion| date = 1996 |jstor = 1386560}}
Secular cult opponents define a "cult"
* {{Cite journal |last=Barker |first=Eileen |year=1986 |title=Religious Movements: Cult and Anti-Cult Since Jonestown |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |volume=12 |pages=329–346 |doi=10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.001553}}
as a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Here are two definitions by ] and ], scholars who are widely recognized among the secular cult opposition:
* {{Cite journal| volume = 11| issue = 1| pages = 145–172| last = Davis| first = Dena S| title = Joining a Cult: Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration| journal = Journal of Law and Health| date = 1996}}

* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.2307/3711011| issn = 0038-0210| volume = 49| issue = 2| pages = 171–183| last1 = van Driel| first1 = Barend| last2 = Richardson| first2 = James T.| title = Categorization of New Religious Movements in American Print Media| journal = Sociological Analysis| date = 1988| jstor = 3711011}}
: ''Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called '']'', and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.''{{fn | 1}}
* {{Cite journal |doi=10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312 |last1=Edelman |first1=Bryan |last2=Richardson |first2=James T. |year=2003 |title=Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China |journal=Nova Religio |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=312–331}}

* {{Cite journal |last=Heggie |first=Rachel |date=2020 |title=When Violence Happens: The McDonald's Murder and Religious Violence in the Hands of the Chinese Communist Party |journal=Journal of Religion and Violence |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=253–280 |doi=10.5840/jrv202131682 |issn=2159-6808 |jstor=27212326}}
: ''"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." ''{{fn | 8}}
* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.2307/3512241| issn = 0034-673X| volume = 43| issue = 1| pages = 24–38| last1 = Hill| first1 = Harvey| last2 = Hickman| first2 = John| last3 = McLendon| first3 = Joel| title = Cults and Sects and Doomsday Groups, Oh My: Media Treatment of Religion on the Eve of the Millennium| journal = Review of Religious Research| date = 2001| jstor = 3512241}}

* {{Cite journal |last1=Introvigne |first1=Massimo |title=Advocacy, brainwashing theories, and new religious movements |journal=Religion |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=303–319 |doi=10.1080/0048721X.2014.888021 |year=2014 |s2cid=144440076}}
] has attempted to address the issue of multiple definitions of "cult"<ref></ref>.
* {{Cite journal|last1=Ogloff|first1= J. R.|last2=Pfeifer|first2=J. E.|title= Cults and the law: A discussion of the legality of alleged cult activities.|journal= Behavioral Sciences & the Law|year= 1992|volume= 10|issue= 1|pages= 117–140|doi= 10.1002/bsl.2370100111}}

* {{Cite journal| issn = 0021-8294| volume = 45| issue = 1| pages = 97–106| last = Olson| first = Paul J.| title = The Public Perception of "Cults" and "New Religious Movements"| journal = Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion| date = 2006| doi = 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00008.x| jstor = 3590620}}
The common anti-cult definition summarised,
* {{Cite journal |last1=Richardson |first1=James T. |last2=Introvigne |first2=Massimo |author-link2=Massimo Introvigne |year=2001 |title='Brainwashing' Theories in European Parliamentary and Administrative Reports on 'Cults' and 'Sects'. |journal=] |volume=40 |number=2 |pages=143–168 |doi=10.1111/0021-8294.00046}}

* {{Cite journal |last=Richardson |first=James T. |author-link=James T. Richardson |year=1993 |title=Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative. |journal=] |volume=34 |pages=348–356 |doi=10.2307/3511972 |jstor=3511972 |number=4}}
* Manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members
* {{Cite journal |last=Seiwert |first=Hubert |date=2003 |title=Freedom and Control in the Unified Germany: Governmental Approaches to Alternative Religions Since 1989 |journal=Sociology of Religion |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=367–375 |doi=10.2307/3712490 |issn=1069-4404 |jstor=3712490}}
* Communal and totalistic in their organisation
* {{Cite journal |doi=10.1111/0021-8294.00047 |last=Robbins |first=Thomas |year=2002 |title=Combating 'Cults' and 'Brainwashing' in the United States and Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne's Report |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=169–176}}
* Aggressive in proselytizing
* {{Cite journal |last1=Stark |first1=Rodney |last2=Bainbridge |first2=William Sims |date=1980 |title=Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to Cults and Sects |journal=] |language=en |volume=85 |issue=6 |pages=1376–1395 |doi=10.1086/227169 |issn=0002-9602 |jstor=2778383}}
* Systematic program of indoctrination
* {{Cite journal |last1=Weber |first1=Max |title="Churches" and "Sects" in North America: An Ecclesiastical Socio-Political Sketch |journal=Sociological Theory |date=Spring 1985 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=7–13 |doi=10.2307/202166 |jstor=202166 |language=en}}
* New membership of cults by middle class
* {{Cite journal| doi = 10.2307/3512176| issn = 0034-673X| volume = 39| issue = 2| pages = 101–115| last = Wright| first = Stuart A.| title = Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any "Good News" for Minority Faiths?| journal = Review of Religious Research| date = 1997| jstor = 3512176}}

* {{Cite journal |last=Zhu |first=Guobin |date=2010 |title=Prosecuting "Evil Cults:" A Critical Examination of Law Regarding Freedom of Religious Belief in Mainland China |journal=Human Rights Quarterly |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=471–501 |doi=10.1353/hrq.2010.0004 |issn=0275-0392 |jstor=40784053}}
=== Definition of 'cult' in popular culture ===

In his book ''In Our Time'', ] defines a cult as a religion without political power.

== Differing opinions of the various definitions ==
Unlike popular definitions, sociological definitions exclude considerations of harm and abuse and are not used in a pejorative manner.

According to professor ] from the ], in his 2003 ''Religious Movements in the United States'', during the controversies over the new religious movements in the 1960s, the term "cult" came to mean something sinister, generally used to describe a movement that was at least potentially destructive to its members or to society, or that took advantage of its members and engaged in unethical practices. But he argues that no one yet has been able to define "cult" in a way that enables the term to identify only problematic groups. Miller asserts that the attributes of so-called cults (see ]), as defined by cult opponents, can be found in groups that few would consider cultic, such as ] religious orders or many ] ] churches. Miller argues:
<blockquote>
If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of the racial term for african americans{{Request quote}}—it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.{{fn | 31}}
</blockquote>
<!-- "cults" are usually defined by ] by a list of attributes they possess (see ]), but that such attributes are perfectly capable of belonging to groups that few would consider "cultic", such as ] religious orders or many ] ] churches. Miller further argues that if the term does not enable the distinction between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no value and it is in fact the religious equivalent of "]": it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.{{fn | 31}} -->

Due to the usually pejorative connotation of the word "cult", new religious movements (NRMs) and other purported cults often find the word highly offensive. Some purported cults have been known to insist that other similar groups are cults but that they themselves are not. On the other hand, some ] have questioned the distinction between a cult and a mainstream religion. They say that the only difference between a cult and a ] is that the latter is older and has more followers and, therefore, seems less controversial because society has become used to it. See also '']'' and '']''.

== The cult debate==
This section describes a ] sociological phenomenon known as the ''cult debate'' also called ''cult war''.

=== History of debate ===

As the ] wound down in the early 1970s, and the US public's preoccupation with the so-called ] declined, a new ''idée fixe'' arose in its place: what it saw as the menace of cults.<ref>Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford University Press, USA.ISBN13: 9780195178661</ref>

Throughout the decade, various organizations both dangerous (] "The Family") and harmless{{fact}} (]) came to the forefront of debate over the changing mores of US society. Newspapers and broadcast news, as well as religious leaders and parents who worried over losing their teenaged and college-aged children to the ] of the ] and 70s, frequently focused attention on groups they described as "dangerous cults." <sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }}

While some of these groups were, in fact, notoriously criminal, engaging in behavior such as murder (Manson), kidnapping and armed robbery (]), prostitution and child sexual abuse (]), and enforced separation from family members (various), others were culpable of nothing more "dangerous" than ] of into religious faiths or groups whose doctrines seemed unfamiliar, strange or even ] to outsiders. <sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }} Some of the groups that entered the national cult debate in the early and mid 1970s were ] (est), ]).<sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }}, ], the ], and ] (TM).

=== Connotative change ===
During the period, the word "cult" lost its traditional meaning (a system of religious worship) and came to be associated with concepts such as ], ], coercive ] and ]. <sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }}

These negative associations were cemented in 1978 with the Reverend ] and the mass suicide of members of the ].

During this period, certain religious clerics and lay members of some ] Christian groups ], and began using the term "cult" as a pejorative to describe any religious faith group whose doctrines or theology were different from their own. <sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }} Members of "]" ministries began publishing and distributing disparaging checklists with titles such as "Checklist of Cult Characteristics", , , where each entry on the checklist described unique beliefs or doctrines of a target religious faith. By disparaging doctrines such as ] or ], these groups attempted to calumniate even large, established faiths such as ] and ] with the label "cult." <sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint">&#91;]&#93;</sup>{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || }}

=== Post-debate change ===
Acknowledging the now-disparaging connotation of the once-useful term "cult," some scholars of religion and sociology began in the 1980s to use the term "]" to describe smaller and newer religious faith groups. Whilst not in common use -- due in some measure to its unwieldy name -- the newer term has wide currency in the academic community, including amongst religious scholars.{{fact}}

== Non-religious groups characterized as cults ==

According to the views of what some scholars call the "]," although the majority of groups to which the word "cult" is applied are religious in nature, a significant number are non-religious.{{fact}} These may include political, psychotherapeutic or ] oriented cults that are organized in a manner very similar to their religious counterparts.{{fact}} The term has also been applied to certain channelling, human-potential and self-improvement organizations, some of which do not define themselves as religious movements although they clearly draw on ideas derived from various religions.{{fact}}

Groups that have been labeled as "political cults," mostly far-leftist or far-rightist in their ideologies, have received some attention from journalists and scholars but are only a minute percentage of the total number of alleged cults in the United States. Claims of cult-like practices exists for only about a dozen ideological cadre or racial combat organizations, although vague charges have been leveled at a somewhat larger number. See Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, "On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left," Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. Both Tourish and Wohlforth are former members of Trotskyist sects who now attack their former organizations and the Trotskyist movement in general.<ref>Bob Pitt, Review of Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left. ''What Next Journal'' (online), No. 17, 2000 </ref>

The idea seen in political discussions that is closest to the idea of a political cult is that of a ]. The idea of a political cult tends to invalidate any strong or committed belief in any political system, policy, or leader, and thus raises philosophical questions about the nature of society.{{fact}}

Although most groups labeled as ]s involve a "]", the latter concept is a broader one. It has its origins in the excessive adulation said to have surrounded Soviet leader ].{{fact}} It has also been applied to several other despotic heads of state. It is often applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders, and sometimes in the context of certain businessmen, management styles, and company work environments. The use of this term in its broadest sense serves as a reminder that cultic phenomena (as opposed to full-blown "cults") are not just found inside small ashrams and splinter churches but also are spread throughout mainstream institutions in democratic societies as well as permeating in a far more toxic form the governments and ruling parties of some nondemocratic societies.{{or}}

== Societal and governmental pressures ==
{{not verified}}

American novelist and critic ] gave the definition of cult as a religion which has no political power, implying that there is no functional difference between religions and cults except their acceptance within the general community and the way they are perceived by others.{{fact}} Many majoritarian religions generally have their doctrinal tenets legitimized by society in one way or another (and by the state in some countries although not in most modern democracies), while groups with non-mainstream beliefs may experience social and media disapproval either permanently (if their beliefs and practices are just too unorthodox) or until either the group, or society, or both, evolve in a converging way resulting in a higher level of social acceptance.{{fact}}

In the 19th century ] (the Mormons) were singled out by the U.S. government, which even sent the U.S. Army against them in 1857. This military action has been referred to as the ] although no battles occurred. The US Army's charge was to depose ] as Governor of the Utah Territory and install a more acceptable, non-Mormon individual, ]. The motivation for this action was a rumor that the Mormons were planning to rebel against the United States government. When it became clear that the rumor was false and that ] had ordered military action without verifying his sources, the incident became known as "Buchanan's Blunder."

The question of social acceptance should not be confused, however, with that of governmental acceptance. Most governmental clashes with groups alleged to have cult-like characteristics in the ] in recent years have been the result of real or perceived violations of the law by the groups in question.{{fact}} There have been no well documented recent cases of the U.S. government persecuting a supposedly cult-like group based solely on its religious beliefs. It has been argued that the "]" ideology promulgated by theorists in the anti-cult movement has been a key contributing factor in recent violent events, including the deaths of close to 100 members of the ] group in ].<ref>Anthony D, Robbins T, Barrie-Anthony S. Cult and Anticult Totalism: Reciprocal Escalation and Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 14, Special Issue 1, Spring 2002, pp. 211-240.</ref> Revelations in the ]s by the U.S. Senate's ] investigating the FBI's ] program revealed extensive evidence that the Agency had engaged in an illegal, large-scale covert program which included portraying various political dissident organizations as violent criminals and extremists as a prelude to and justification for crackdowns on these groups.<ref></ref> It is also possible that negative perceptions of a group by prosecutors could make them more quick to prosecute than they might otherwise be; the ] case against Reverend Moon is sometimes cited as such an incident.)<ref>Sherwood, Carlton (1991) Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Washington, D.C.: Regnery (ISBN 0-89526-532-X)</ref>

In addition, the ] has never had an established church. Groups characterized as cults or as having non-mainstream beliefs have often been able to gain political clout; for instance, the ] (by way of ownership of the influential newspaper, the ''Washington Times''), and ] (by way of its Hollywood connections, which some observers have suggested gave it clout with the ]).{{fact}}

A ] French Parliamentary Commission issued a , in which a list of groups it considered cults compiled by the general information division of the () was given. In it were listed 173 groups, including , the Theological Institute of Nîmes (an Christian Bible college), and the . Members of some of the groups included in the list have alleged instances of intolerance due to the ensuing negative publicity.{{fact|date=25 Jan 2007}} Although this list has no statutory or regulatory value, it is at the background of the criticism directed at France with respect to freedom of religion.{{or|date=25 Jan 2007}}

The "Interministerial Mission in the Fight Against Sects/Cults" was formed in ] to coordinate government monitoring of sect . In February ] MILS released its annual report on the monitoring of sects. The president of MILS resigned in June under criticism and an interministerial working group was formed to determine the future parameters of the Government's monitoring of sects. In November the Government announced the formation of the Interministerial Monitoring Mission Against Sectarian Abuses , which is charged with observing and analyzing movements that constitute a threat to public order or that violate French law, coordinating the appropriate response, informing the public about potential risks, and helping victims to receive aid. In its announcement of the formation of MIVILUDES, the Government acknowledged that its predecessor, MILS, had been criticized for certain actions abroad that could have been perceived as contrary to religious freedom. On May ], former prime minister ] issued a circular indicating that the list of cults published on the parliamentary report of ] should no longer be used to identify cults. <ref></ref>

== Study of alleged cults ==

Among the experts studying alleged cults and new religious movements are sociologists, religion scholars, psychologists, and psychiatrists. To an unusual extent for an academic/quasi-scientific field, however, nonacademics are involved in the study of and/or debates concerning alleged cults, especially from the "anti-cult" point of view.{{fact}} These include investigative journalists and nonacademic book authors (who sometimes make positive contributions by methods such as examining court records and studying the finances of groups, which academics are not accustomed to doing),{{Unverifiable}} writers who once were members of purported cults, and professionals who work with ex-members of alleged cults {{fact}} in a practical way (for instance, as therapists) but are not university affiliated. Less widely known are the writings by members of organizations that have been labelled cults, defending their organizations and replying to their critics (such works are less well known, in part, because they have to contend against popular conceptions of cults and also because they are usually published by the purported cult itself rather than by mainstream publishers).{{fact}}

Nonacademics are sometimes published, or their writings cited, in the ''Cultic Studies Journal'' (''CSJ''), the journal of the ] (ICSA), a group that is strongly critical of groups they identify as cults. In addition, nonacademics, including former group members, lawyers who have litigated against groups, psychotherapists who treat former members, and others with personal knowledge or experiences, often give presentations at ICSA conferences. It should be noted that sociologist Janja Lalich began her work and conceptualized many of her ideas while an "anti-cult" activist writing for the "CSJ" years before obtaining academic standing, and incorporated her own experiences in a leftwing political group into her later work as a sociological theorist.

The hundreds of books on specific groups by nonacademic critics (as well as the hundreds by current members defending or elaborating their organization's doctrines) comprise a large portion of the currently available published record on alleged cults. The books by "anti-cult" critics run the gamut from memoirs by ex-members, which may take the form either of thoughtful analyses or of "cult captivity" narratives (or a bit of both), to detailed accounts of the history and alleged misdeeds of a given group written from either a tabloid journalist, investigative journalist, or popular historian perspective.{{fact}}

The work of several non-academic authors is cited in this article. Journalists ] and ] wrote the book '']'', which set forth speculations on how mind control works that have been criticized by some psychologists and praised by others. Others mentioned in this article include Tim Wohlforth (co-author of ''On the Edge'' and a former follower of British Trotskyist ]); Carol Giambalvo, a former ] member; activist and consultant ]; and mental health counselor ], a former ] member and author of the book '']'', who, like Ross, runs a business specializing in servicing people involved with alleged cults or their family members.]] Another example is the work of journalist/activist ], without whom the study of "political cults" might scarcely exist today.{{fact}} Barbara G. Harrison's ''Vision of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah's Witnesses'', can be regarded as an example of a serious study by an ex-group member (she was raised as a Witness) whose thinking transcends the "cult captivity" genre.{{or}} Current members of the ] movement as well as several former leaders of the ] also have written with critical insight on "cult" issues, using terminologies and framings somewhat different from those of secular experts but well within the circle of rational discourse.{{or}} Members of the ] have produced books and articles that argue the case against excessive reactions to new religious movements, including their own, with intellectual rigor and a sense of history.{{fact}}

Within this larger community of discourse, the debates about "cultism" and specific groups are generally more polarized than among scholars who study new religious movements, but there are heated disagreements among scholars as well. What follows is a summary of that portion of the intellectual debate conducted primarily from inside the universities:

=== Alleged cults, NRMs, and the sociology and psychology of religion ===

The problem with defining the word ''cult'' is that (1) the word ''cult'' is often used to marginalize religious groups with which one does not agree or sympathize, and (2) accused cult members generally resist being called a cult. Nearly all academic researchers of ] and ] prefer to use the term '']'' (NRM) in their research on religious groups that may be referred to as cults by other academics, non-academics and the media. However, some researchers have stated{{fact}} that this is an imperfect replacement for the term cult because some religious movements are "new" but not necessarily cults, and have expanded the definition of cult to include those which are not religious or overtly religious. Furthermore, some religious groups commonly regarded as cults are in fact no longer particularly "new"; for instance, ] and the ] are both over 50 years old; and the ] came out of ], a religious tradition that is approximately 500 years old.

When a group (and generally one with teachings regarded as out of the mainstream) practices physical or mental abuse, some mental health professionals may use the term ''cult''. Others prefer more descriptive terminology such as ''abusive cult'' or '']''. Since cult critics using these terms rarely mention any alleged cults ''except'' abusive ones, their use of the two terms is in effect redundant. The popular press also commonly uses these terms.

Not all sectarian groups labeled as cults or as "cult-like", function abusively or destructively to any degree greater than many mainstream social institutions, however, and even among those cults that psychologists believe ''are'' abusive to an exceptional degree, few members (as opposed to some ex-members) would agree that they have suffered abuse. Other researchers like David V. Barrett hold the view that classifying a religious movement as a cult is generally used as a subjective and negative label and has no added value; instead, he argues that one should investigate the beliefs and practices of the religious movement.{{fn | 9}}

Some groups, particularly those labeled by others as cults, view the designation as insensitive and may feel persecuted by opponents; those opponents may in fact be affiliated with organizations that are self-defined as anti-cult (or strongly critical of cults). <ref>A discussion and list of ACM (anti-cult movement) groups can be found at .</ref> Even when no affiliation with such a group exists, the opponents of a particular cult will usually be influenced to varying degrees by the ]'s ideas — which are summarized in this article in the sections "Definition by secular cult opposition" and "Definition by Christian anti-cult movement."

Groups accused of being "cults" or "cult-like" often defend their position by comparing themselves to more established, mainstream religious groups such as ] and ]. The argument offered can usually be simplified as, "except for size and age, Christianity and Judaism meet all the criteria for a cult, and therefore the term ''cult'' simply means ''small, young religion''."

According to the Dutch religious scholar ], another problem with writing about alleged cults comes about because they generally hold ]s that give answers to questions about the meaning of ] and ]. This makes it difficult not to write in biased terms about a certain group, because writers are rarely neutral about these questions. In an attempt to deal with this difficulty, some writers who deal with the subject choose to explicitly state their ethical values and belief systems.{{fact}}

For some scholars, psychologists and researchers, usage of the word "cult" applies to groups perceived as exhibiting a pattern of abusive and over-controlling behavior towards members, and not to a belief system.{{who}} For members of competing religions, use of the word remains undeniably pejorative and applies primarily to rival beliefs (see ]s), and only incidentally to behavior. It should be noted that there is no clear, causal connection between extremist belief and the formation of a "destructive cult." Most far-right hate groups are not cults, although they have pathological ideas and are frequently violent. Some groups regarded as cults have relatively benign belief systems.{{fact}}

In the sociology of religion, the term cult is part of the subdivision of religious groups: sects, cults, denominations, and ecclesias. The sociologists ] and William S. Bainbridge define cults in their book, ] and subsequent works, as a "deviant religious organization with novel beliefs and practices", that is, as ]s that (unlike ]s) have not separated from another religious organization. Cults, in this sense, may or may not be dangerous, abusive, etc. By this broad definition, most of the groups which have been popularly labeled cults fit this value-neutral definition.

=== Related Research ===

The following research examines phenomena related to people's reactions to groups identified as some other form of social outcast or opposition group. It relates to the visceral opposition that some religious groups evoke in their opponents.

=== Reactions to social out-groups ===

A new study by Princeton University psychology researchers Lasana Harris and Susan Fiske shows that when viewing photographs of social out-groups, people respond to them with disgust, not a feeling of fellow humanity. The findings are reported in the article "Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuro-imaging responses to Extreme Outgroups" in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society).

According to this research, social out-groups are perceived as unable to experience complex human emotions, share in-group beliefs, or act according to societal norms, moral rules, and values. The authors describe this as "extreme discrimination revealing the worst kind of prejudice: excluding out-groups from full humanity." Their study provides evidence that while individuals may consciously see members of social out-groups as people, the brain processes social out-groups as something less than human, whether we are aware of it or not. According to the authors, brain imaging provides a more accurate depiction of this prejudice than the verbal reporting usually used in research studies.

=== Political partisans and closed-mindedness ===

Recent research reveals that political partisans ignore facts that contradict their own sense of reality, according to a report on research by ], director of clinical psychology at ]

: '' The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.''

: ''Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.''

: ''The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.''

: ''"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."''

: ''Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.''

Simply put, the emotional considerations overwhelm critical thinking. If anything, the rational part of the mind works to rationalize the emotional conclusion that was reached in advance. Thus, in the end, extremes in partisan politics form one of the bases for a "]", where rational thinking and discussion only takes place within narrow us-versus-them parameters, and where emotion-based assumptions and/or unquestioned ideological dogma dominate the political organization, facilitating the other questionable activities cited above and elsewhere.{{or}}

This framework can be extended to provide an explanation of an important aspect of cult-like activity more generally, although it also presents a means for criticism of some counter-cult organisations as well (and perhaps of the larger cult/anti-cult debate).{{or}}

=== Christianity and definitions of "cults" ===

Since at least the ], the approach of orthodox, conservative, or ] Christians was to apply the meaning of ''cult'' such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible, put additional ] on a similar or higher level than the Bible, or had beliefs and/or practices deviant from those of traditional Christianity. Some examples of sources (with published dates where known) that documented this approach are:

* ''Heresies and Cults'', by J. Oswald Sanders, pub. 1948.
* ''Cults and Isms'', by J. Oswald Sanders, pub. 1962, 1969, 1980 (Arrowsmith), ISBN 0-551-00458-4.
* ''Chaos of the Cults'', by J.K. van Baalen.
* ''Heresies Exposed'', by W.C. Irvine.
* ''Confusion of Tongues'', by C.W. Ferguson.
* ''Isms New and Old'', by Julius Bodensieck.
* ''Some Latter-Day Religions'', by G.H. Combs.
* ''The Kingdom of the Cults'', by Walter Martin, Ph. D., pub. 1965, 1973, 1977, ISBN 0-87123-300-2

=== Theories about joining alleged cults ===

Michael Langone gives three different models regarding joining a cult {{fn | 30}}:

: ''"The definitional ambiguity surrounding the term cult has fueled much controversy regarding why people join cults and other unorthodox groups. Three apparently conflicting models attempt to account for conversion to unorthodox groups. The deliberative model, favored by most sociologists and religious scholars, says that people join because of what they think about the group. The psychodynamic model, favored by many mental health professionals with little direct experience with cultists, says that people join because of what the group does for them - namely, fulfill unconscious psychological needs. The thought reform model, favored by many mental health professionals who have worked with large numbers of cultists, says that people join because of what the group does to them - that is, because of a systematic program of psychological manipulation that exploits, rather than fulfills, needs." ''

According to Gallanter{{fn | 11}}, typical reasons why people join alleged cults include a search for community and a spiritual quest.

Jeffrey Hadden summarizes a lecture entitled "Why Do People Join NRMs?" (a lecture in a series related to the sociology of new religious movements{{fn | 12}}) as follows:

# Belonging to groups is a natural human activity;
# People belong to religious groups for essentially the same reasons they belong to other groups;
# Conversion is generally understood as an emotionally charged experience that leads to a dramatic reorganization of the convert's life;
# Conversion varies enormously in terms of the intensity of the experience and the degree to which it actually alters the life of the convert;
# Conversion is one, but not the only reason people join religious groups;
# Social scientists have offered a number of theories to explain why people join religious groups;
# Most of these explanations could apply equally well to explain why people join lots of other kinds of groups;
# No one theory can explain all joinings or conversions;
# What all of these theories have in common (deprivation theory excluded) is the view that joining or converting is a natural process.

Stark and Bainbridge have questioned the utility of the concept of ''conversion''. They suggest, instead, that the concept of ''affiliation'' is a more useful concept for understanding how people join religious groups.{{fn | 13}}

=== Leadership ===

According to Dr. ], new religions are in most cases started by ] leaders whom she considers unpredictable. According to Mikael Rothstein, there is in many cases no access to plain facts both about historical religious leaders and contemporary ones, though there is an abundance of legends, ]s, and theological elaborations. According to Rothstein, most members of any new religious movement have little chance of a personal meeting with the ''Master'' (leader) except as a member of big audience when the Master is present on stage.

See also ]

{{sectstub}}

=== Development of groups characterized as cults ===

Cults based on charismatic leadership often follow the ], as described by the German sociologist ]. The death of the founder may lead to a succession crisis.

In their book ''Theory of Religion'', ] and ] propose that the formation of cults can be explained through a combination of four models:

* The '''psychopathological model''' - the cult founder suffers from psychological problems; they develop the cult in order to resolve these problems for themselves, as a form of self-therapy
* The '''entrepreneurial model''' - the cult founder acts like an entrepreneur, trying to develop a religion which they think will be most attractive to potential recruits, often based on their experiences from previous cults or other religious groups they have belonged to
* The '''social model''' - the cult is formed through a ], in which cult members dramatically reduce the intensity of their emotional bonds with non-cult members, and dramatically increase the intensity of those bonds with fellow cult members - this emotionally intense situation naturally encourages the formation of a shared belief system and rituals
* The '''normal revelations model''' - the cult is formed when the founder chooses to interpret ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural, such as by ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the cult to that of the deity.

{{sectstub}}

=== Relationships with the "outside world" ===

Barker wrote that peripheral members may help to lessen the tension that exists between some groups and the outside world. <sup>]</sup>

In the case where members live in ], custody disputes (if one parent leaves and one stays) may be a source of confrontation between the cult and the outside world.

{{sectstub}}

=== Genuine concerns and exaggerations about "cults" ===
The stigma surrounding the classification of a group as a cult stems from the purported ill effect the group's influence has on its members, and, critics of media sensationalism add, from exaggerated portrayals of weirdness in media stories. The narratives of ill effect include perceived threats presented by a cult to its members (whether real or perceived), and risks to the ''physical'' safety of its members and to their mental and ''spiritual'' growth.

] in the ] and ] made heavy accusations regarding the harm and danger of cults for members, families of members, and societies. The debate at that time was intense and was sometimes called the ''cult debate'' or ''cult wars''.{{fact}}

Much of the actions taken against alleged cults have been in reaction to the harm or perceived harm experienced by some members due to their affiliation with the groups in question. Many commentators have pointed out that not all groups called cults are dangerous. Over a period of time, some minority religious organizations that were at one point in time considered cults have been accepted by mainstream society, such as ] in the USA. Christian Science has been the focus of controversy in recent years over its policy of discouraging members from seeking medical care for their children, but the media has generally treated this as a specific doctrinal issue — like the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood — rather than suggesting that Christian Science is a cult that controls all aspects of a member's life.

====Documented crimes====

], portraying its founder ] as the loving father of the "Rainbow Family".</sup>]]

Certain groups that have been characterized as cults, such as ], ], ], the ] in Uganda, the ] of ], and the ] have demonstrated by their actions that they do pose an extreme threat to the well-being and indeed to the very lives of their own members and to society in general; these organizations are often referred to as ''doomsday cults'' by the media, and their mass suicides and mass murders are well-documented. According to John R. Hall, a professor in sociology at the ] and Philip Schuyler, the Peoples Temple is still seen by some as ''the'' cultus classicus{{fn | 25}}<sup>,</sup>{{fn | 26}}, though it did not belong to the set of groups that triggered the cult controversy in United States in the ]. Its mass suicide on ], ] led to increased concern about cults. Other groups include the ] cult (a German group settled in Chile) that served as a torture center for the Chilean government during the Pinochet dictatorship.

In 1984, a ] involving ] typhimurium contamination in the salad bars of 10 restaurants in ] (a city in ]) was traced to the ] group.<ref>, '']''</ref><ref>

The ] in 1995, by members of ] has also raised awareness of the danger posed by some groups. Aum Shinrikyo had a laboratory in 1990 where they cultured and experimented with ], ], ] and ]. In ] they traveled to Africa to learn about and bring back samples of the ] virus.

====Other controversial groups====
Certain other groups, while not universally condemned, remain suspect to the general public; this is the case with ] and to a lesser extent, the ] and the ], although media criticism of the latter two groups has subsided in recent years and they are no longer notorious in the way they were in the 1970s.{{fact}} A problem in casually examining such high-profile groups is to distinguish between a group's public image (which may have become fixed decades earlier) and the group's actual practices in the here and now. This is one reason (among many) that empirical studies by social scientists trained in scientific methods are important. It is especially important to make objective observations with proper scientific methods of the current state of a group in the case of a group whose founder has died or that has splintered, or a group with foreign origins that is gradually integrating itself into the culture of its host country.

===="Doomsday cults"====
It is worth noting that despite the emphasis on narratives of "doomsday cults" by the media and the anti-cult movement, the number of groups that have been characterized as cults known to have fallen into that category is approximately ten, which is very few when compared with the total number of new religious movements, which E. Barker estimates to be in the tens of thousands{{fn | 10}} (including groups that are psychologically destructive but not extremely violent or doomsday-oriented).

Furthermore, of the total number of groups that have been characterized as cults in the United States alone, only a hundred or so have ever become notorious for alleged misdeeds either in the national media or in local media; it is essentially these groups that are to varying degrees the targets of the anticult and countercult movements in any meaningful sense. As scholarly study of these groups is to an extent media driven,{{fact}} with notorious groups inviting sympathetic scholars to study them and provide a more favorable picture than the media has,{{fact}} and "anti-cult" scholars looking for a publishable topic, it is mostly the notorious groups that are studied. The vast majority of cults are terra incognita with no one having anything more than rough estimates of the number of groups that have been characterized as cults and number of cult adherents either in the U.S. or internationally, or indeed if the majority of the groups in such tallies are cults at all. <!-- This paragraph doesn't seem to belong in this section or sub-section. -->

====Potential harm to members====
In the opinion of ], a professor of Sociology at ], groups that have been characterized as cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members' adulation of ] leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power. Zablocki defines a cult here as an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and that demands total commitment.{{fn | 17}}

There is no reliable, generally accepted way to determine which groups will harm their members. In an attempt to predict the probability of harm, ]s have been created, primarily by anti-cultists, for this purpose.{{fact}} <!-- Odd to call Bonewits, for instance, and anti-cultist, in that he was trying to promote his NRM, not all checklists are from anti-cultists! --!> <!-- Rephrased; hope it's better. --> According to critics of these checklists, they are popular but not scientific.

According to Barrett, the most common accusation made against groups alleged to be cults is ]. See ].

According to Kranenborg, some groups, like ], are risky when they advise their members not to use regular medical care.{{fn | 15}}

Barker, Barrett, and ] all advise seeking information from various sources about a certain group before getting deeply involved, though these three differ in the urgency they suggest.

== Stigmatization and discrimination ==

Many feel that because the terms "cult" and "cult leader" have acquired such a strong stigma, and because some assert that these terms are used pejoratively by opponents of cults, argue that they are to be avoided. A website affiliated with ] sees the activities of cult opponents as the exercise of prejudice and discrimination against them, and regards the use of the words "cult" and "cult leader" as similar to the manner in which "]" and "commie" were used in the past to denigrate blacks and Communists.

In an essay by ]{{fn | 20}}, the argument is made for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign. Ryan refers to ''New Religious Movements: Some Problems of Definition'', where ] identifies two types of definitions: opponents define them in terms of negative characteristics, while scholars attempt to study these groups and be value free. The movements themselves may have different definitions of religion as well. Chryssides cites a need to develop more appropriate definitions to and allow for common ground in the debate. These definitions have political and ethical impact beyond just scholarly debate. In ''Defining Religion in American Law'', for example, Bruce J. Casino presents the issue as crucial to international human rights laws. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations."{{fn | 34}}

Also, several authors in the cult opposition are not happy with the word cult. Some definitions used imply that there is a continuum with a large gray area separating "cult" from "noncult". {{fn | 34}} Others authors, e.g. ], differentiate by using terms like "]", or "Cult" (totalitarian type) vs. "benign cult".

=== Leaving a "cult" ===

There are at least three ways people leave a "cult": {{fn | 18}}<sup>,</sup>{{fn | 37}}

* On their own decision (walkaways);
* Through expulsion (castaways);
* By intervention (], ])

Lalich in ''Bounded Choice'' (2004) describes a fourth way of leaving — rebellion against the leader or majority. Although in the atypical case she describes based on her own experience in the Marxist-Leninist Democratic Workers Party, where the entire membership quit, more often rebellion is a combination of the walkaway and castaway patterns in that the rebellion may trigger the expulsion — essentially, the rebels provoke the leadership into being the agency of their break with an over-committed lifestyle. Tourish and Wohlforth (2000) and Dennis King (1989) provide what they consider several examples in the history of political groups that have been characterized as cults. The 'rebellion' response in such groups appears to follow a longstanding behavior pattern among leftwing political sects which began long before the emergence of the contemporary political cult.

The majority of authors agree that there are some people who experience problems after leaving a cult. There are, though, disagreements regarding the frequency of such problems and regarding the cause.

According to ], the biggest worry about possible harm concerns the relatively few dedicated followers of a ] (NRM). Barker also mentions that some former members may not take new initiatives for quite a long time after disaffiliation from the NRM. This generally does not concern the many superficial, short-lived, or peripheral supporters of a NRM. <!-- Membership in a cult usually does not last forever: 90% or more of cult members ultimately leave their group by death{{fn | 2}}<sup>,</sup>{{fn | 4}}. -->

Exit Counselor Carol Giambalvo believes most people leaving a cult have associated psychological problems, such as feelings of guilt or shame, depression, feeling of inadequacy, or fear, that are independent of their manner of leaving the cult. Feelings of guilt, shame, or anger are by her observation worst with castaways, but walkaways can also have serious problems with feeling inadequate or guilty. She says people who had interventions or a rehabilitation therapy do have similar problems but are usually better prepared to deal with them.{{fn | 37}}

Sociologists of Religion Bromley and Hadden point out that there is lack of empirical support for alleged consequences of having been a member of a cult or sect, and that there is substantial empirical evidence against it such as: the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs do leave, most short of two years; the overwhelming proportion of people leave of their own volition; and that two-thirds (67%) felt "wiser for the experience"{{fn | 14}}.

Popular authors Conway and Siegelman, though having no training in social science methods, conducted a survey and published it in the book ''Snapping'' (rather than in a peer-reviewed journal) regarding after-cult effects and deprogramming and concluded that people deprogrammed had less problems than people not deprogrammed.

The ] writes that in a survey done by Jill Mytton on 200 former cult members most of them reported problems adjusting to society and about a third would benefit from some counseling. {{fn | 36}}

Burks (2002), in a study comparing Group Psychological Abuse Scale (GPA) and Neurological Impairment Scale (NIS) scores in 132 former members of cults and cultic relationships, found a positive correlation between intensity of thought reform environment as measured by the GPA and cognitive impairment as measured by the NIS. Additional findings were a reduced earning potential in view of the education level that corroborates earlier studies of cult critics (Martin 1993; Singer & Ofshe, 1990; West & Martin, 1994) and significant levels of depression and dissociation agreeing with Conway & Siegelman, (1982), Lewis & Bromley, (1987) and Martin, et al. (1992). {{fn | 39}}

According to Barret, in many cases the problems do not happen while in a movement, but when leaving a movement, which can be difficult for some members and may include a lot of ]. Reasons for this trauma may include: ] by the religious movement; avoidance of uncertainties about life and its meaning; having had powerful religious experiences; love for the founder of the religion; emotional investment; fear of losing ]; bonding with other members; anticipation of the realization that time, money, and efforts donated to the group were a waste; and the new freedom with its corresponding responsibilities, especially for people who lived in a community. Those reasons may prevent a member from leaving even if the member realizes that some things in the NRM are wrong. According to Kranenborg, in some religious groups, members have all their social contacts within the group, which makes disaffection and disaffiliation very traumatic.{{fn | 15}}

According to F. Derks and J. van der Lans, there is no uniform ]. While psychological and social problems upon resignation are not rare, their character and intensity are greatly dependent on the personal history and on the traits of the ex-member, and on the reasons for and way of resignation.{{fn | 16}}

{{see also|Shunning}}

== Criticism by former members of purported cults ==

The public generally hears criticism of an alleged cult from the mass media, which often quotes law enforcement sources, public interest researchers, lawyers involved in civil litigation involving the group in question, and anti-cult spokespersons as well as persons with direct experience. Those with direct experience provide the foundation for most criticisms of the quality of life within the alleged cult and for much of the description of controversial types of member behavior.

Such primary sources of criticism may include: parents, relatives, and close friends of alleged cult members (who often have carefully observed personality changes in their loved one which they rightly or wrongly interpret as changes for the worse); victims of scams perpetrated on the general public by a minority of cults; people who go to recruitment-oriented meetings and then back away as a result of their perceptions of such events; persons raised in groups considered cults who left after coming of age; and former adult members.

Usually, the most dramatic allegations, as well as the most systematic and detailed ones, will come from adult former members and to a lesser extent from persons who were raised in the in groups considered cults, although a fair percentage of former members in these categories are ''not'' strongly critical of their former spiritual or ideological home. The former members who voice strong criticisms are termed "]s" by some scholars. But this term is regarded as pejorative by other scholars. <!-- and also as misleading because the term's religious connotation doesn't apply readily to non-religious cults.--><!-- I'll have to insist on a source that the apparently anticult concept of "non-religious cults" has been adopted by scholars. --> One scholar who uses the term "apostate" frequently is ], who in turn has been labelled a ] by scholars (Kent, Krebs) strongly critical of cults.

The allegations of former members include: sexual abuse by the leader; failed promises and failed ]; causing suicides through neglect or abuse; failing to allow an ex-cult parent to have access to his or her child or children being raised within the cult; leaders who neither admit nor apologize for mistakes; false, irrational, or even contradictory teachings; ]; ] in recruitment (by using "front groups"); pressure to engage in illegal financial activity or manipulative sexual behavior; demands to turn over all (or an excessive amount) of one's assets and income; demands for total immersion in the religious mission, ideological cause or day to day organizational activities of the group at the expense of career, education, family, and friends; and more.

The role of former members in the controversy surrounding cults has been widely studied by social scientists. Former members in some cases become public opponents against their former group. The former members' motivations, the roles they play in the anti-cult movement, the validity of their testimony, and the kinds of narratives they construct, are controversial with some scholars who suspect that at least some of the narratives are colored by a need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates,<ref>Wilson, Bryan R. ''Apostates and New Religious Movements'', Oxford, England, 1994</ref> and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents.<ref>Melton, Gordon J., ''Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory'', 1999</ref>. Other scholars conclude that testimonies of former members are at least as accurate as testimonies of current members.

Scholars that challenge the validity of ] testimonies as the basis for studying a religious group include ], ], ], and ]. Bromley and Shupe, who studied the social influences on such testimonies, assert that the apostate in his current role is likely to present a caricature of his former group and that the stories of critical ex-members who defect from groups that are subversive (defined as groups with few allies and many opponents) tend to have the form of "captivity narratives" (i.e. the narratives depict the stay in the group as involuntary). Wilson introduces the ] that is rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion, or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns. Introvigne found in his study of the ] in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming "professional enemies" of the group they leave. Kliever, when asked by the ] to give his opinion on the reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices, writes that these dedicated opponents present a distorted view of the new religions, and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. He claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. Scholars and psychologists who tend to side more with critical former members include ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Zablocki performed an empirical study that showed that the reliability of former members is equal to that of stayers in one particular group. ] found the same empirical results.

According to Lewis F. Carter, the ] and ] of the testimonies of believers are influenced by the tendency to justify affiliation with the group, whereas the testimonies of former members and apostates are influenced by a variety of factors.{{fn | 21}} Besides, the interpretative frame of members tends to change strongly upon conversion and disaffection and hence may strongly influence their narratives. Carter affirms that the degree of knowledge of different (ex-)members about their (former) group is highly diverse, especially in hierarchically organized groups. Using his experience at ] (the ] of the followers of ]) as an example, he claims that the ] exerted by the group may influence the accounts of ] and of ]{{fn | 21}}. He proposes a method he calls ''triangulation'' as the best method to study groups, by utilizing three accounts: those of believers, apostates, and ethnographers. Carter asserts that such methodology is difficult to put into practice. <sup>]</sup> ]{{fn | 22}} writes that even the triangulation method rarely succeeds in making assertions with certitude.{{fn | 21}}

] contends that there are a large number of cults, and a tendency among scholars to make unjustified generalizations about them based on a select sample of observations of life in such groups or the testimonies of (ex-)members. According to Richardson, this tendency is responsible for the widely divergent opinions about cults among scholars and social scientists.{{fn | 24}}

] (2001) wrote that critical former members of cults complain that academic observers only notice what the leadership wants them to see.{{fn | 23}}

''See also ], and ]''.

=== Allegations made by scholars and skeptics ===

* False, irrational or even contradictory teaching, made by ] with regards to ];
* False ]s performed or endorsed by the leadership, made by the ]s ], ], and ] for a variety of ]s and ]s;
* Discouraging regular medical care but instead relying on ], made by the magazine ] with regards to ];
* ], allegations made by David C. Lane;
* Incitement to ] and other forms of hate, as documented in the writings of ] and ];
* Child abuse, for example subjecting blindfolded children to many hours of meditation, as documented by Dr. ] with regards to ]{{fn | 29}}; and
* Forced labour and confinement of members, made by ] regarding ] {{fn | 40}}.

=== Other allegations ===

* Threats, harassment, excessive lawsuits and ] attacks against critics. Allegations regarding the use of such tactics have been made against ], the ] organization, and the now defunct ] drug-treatment cult. Although such harassment has been widely reported in the media, the number of purported cults engaging in such behavior to any significant extent (as opposed to the shunning of ex-member critics) has been extremely small, with most such groups dropping the method when it proved ineffective. Continued use of such tactics should be regarded as a peculiarity of the offending group's history and not as a common feature of cults or NRMs.{{fact}}

== Prevalence of purported cults ==

By one measure, between 3,000 and 5,000 purported cults existed in the ] in ].{{fn | 6}} Some of the more well-known and influential of these groups are frequently labelled as cults in the mass media. Most of these well-known groups vigorously ] the label and refuse to be classified as such, and often expend great efforts in ] campaigns to rid themselves of the stigma associated with the term ''cult''. But most of the thousands of purported cults live below the media's radar and are rarely or ever the subject of significant public scrutiny. Such groups rarely need to speak up in their own defense, and some of them just ignore the occasional fleeting attention they may get from the media.

A ] presents a listing of groups referred to as cults by various non-related, reasonably unbiased sources.

== Cults and governments ==
{{main|Cults and governments}}

In many countries there exists a ] and ]. Governments of some of these countries, concerned with possible abuses by cults, have taken restrictive measures against some of their activities. Critics of such measures claim that the counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement have succeeded in influencing governments in transferring the public's abhorrence of doomsday cults and make the generalization that it is directed against all small or new religious movements without discrimination. The critique is countered by stressing that the measures are directed not against any religious beliefs, but specifically against groups whom they see as inimical to the public order due to their totalitarianism, violations of fundamental liberties, inordinate emphasis on finances, and/or disregard for appropriate medical care. {{fn | 40}}

There exists a controversy regarding religious tolerance between the ] and several European countries, especially ] and ], that have taken legal measures directed against "cultic" groups that they believe violate human rights. The 2004 annual report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states that these initiatives have "...fueled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religions in France". On the other hand, the countries confronted with such allegations see the United States' attitude towards NRMs as failing to take into account the responsibility of the state for the wellbeing of its citizens, especially concerning children and incapacitated persons. They further claim that the interference of the United States in their internal affairs is at least partially due to the domestic lobbying of cults and cult apologists. {{fn | 40}}

== The BITE model ==
{{Merge|cult checklist|date=October 2006}}

The "BITE" model (standing for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion control) is ]'s model of the patterns that he says are used by harmful cults."<ref>Hassan, Steven (2000) ''Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves''. Aitan Publishing. (ISBN 0-9670688-0-0). .</ref>

<!-- ACTUAL MODEL IS COMMENTED OUT UNTIL WRITTEN PERMISSION OBTAINED PER WEB PAGE
THIS SHOULD BE ON A SEPARATE PAGE ANYWAY (as should many other sections); THIS PAGE IS 3 TIMES THE RECOMMENDED SIZE
and includes lots of nonsense.

; Behavior Control
# Regulation of individual's physical reality
#: ''Where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates, what clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears, what food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects, how much sleep the person is able to have, financial dependence, little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations.''
# Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals
# Need to ask permission for major decisions
# Need to report thoughts, feelings, and activities to superiors
# Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques — positive and negative)
# Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails
# Rigid rules and regulations
# Need for obedience and dependency

; Information Control

# Use of deception
#: ''Deliberately holding back information, distorting information to make it more "acceptable", outright lying.''
# Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged
#: ''Media (books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio), critical information, former members, keep members so busy they don't have time to think and check things out.''
# Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
#: ''Information is not freely accessible, information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid, leadership decides who "needs to know" what and when.''
# Spying on other members is encouraged
#: ''Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control, reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership, individual behavior monitored by whole group.''
# Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda
#: ''Media (newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc), misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources.''
# Unethical use of confession
#: ''Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries, past "sins" used to manipulate and control (no forgiveness or absolution).''

; Thought Control

# Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"
#: ''Adopting the group's map of reality as "Reality" (]), Black and White thinking, Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them (inside vs. outside).''
# Use of "loaded" language (for example, "thought-terminating clichés").
#: ''Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words or phrases constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words."''
# Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.
# Use of hypnotic techniques to induce altered mental states
# Manipulation of memories and implantation of false memories
# Use of thought-stopping techniques, which shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts
#: ''Focus (denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking), chanting, meditation, prayer, speaking in "tongues", singing or humming.''
# Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate
# No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

; Emotional Control

# Manipulate and narrow the range of a person's feelings
# Make the person feel that if there are ever any problems, it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's
# Excessive use of guilt
#: ''Identity guilt (who you are, not living up to your potential, your family, your past, your affiliations, your thoughts, feelings, actions), social guilt, historical guilt.''
# Excessive use of fear
#: ''Fear of thinking independently, fear of the "outside" world, fear of enemies, fear of losing one's "salvation", fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group, fear of disapproval.''
# Extremes of emotional highs and lows
# Ritual and often public confession of "sins"
# Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.
#: ''No happiness or fulfillment outside of the group, terrible consequences will take place if you leave (hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc), shunning of leave takers (fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family), never a legitimate reason to leave (from the group's perspective, people who leave are "weak," "undisciplined," "unspiritual," "worldly," "brainwashed by family or counselor," or "seduced by money, sex, rock and roll").''

-->

== Cults and NRMs in literature ==
:<div class="noprint">''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: ]{{#if:{{{2| }}}
|{{#if:{{{3|}}}|,&#32;|&#32;and&#32;}}]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}
|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,&#32;|,&#32;and&#32;}}]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}
|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|,&#32;|,&#32;and&#32;}}]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}
|, and ]}}''{{#if:{{{6| }}}|&#32; (too many parameters in &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;)}}</div>

Cults and ]s have been a subject or theme in ] and ] since ancient times. There are many references to it in the 20th century.

== See also ==
{{wikiquote}}
{{wikisource|Category:Cults}}

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== External links == == External links ==
* {{Wiktionary inline}}
* {{Wikiquote inline|Cult}}


{{New Religious Movements}}
*
{{Opposition_to_NRMs}}
* - Website published by ], who speaks from an evangelical Christian point of view but offers a variety of viewpoints.
* See ] (a network of scholars working in the field of ])
* - Website of the ] affiliated with ]
* - Scholarly articles, group descriptions and news by the ]
*
* - A library of articles and essays promoting religious understanding, tolerance and freedom.
* - website by private consultant/"cult intervention specialist" ].
*
* - Website with entries on definitions, controversies and many religious groups, by the late sociologist ], now edited by ]
* - Defense of the use of the term "cult" to describe the ]
* - Romans 12:1 explains "cult".
* - An online community in which each user has a fictional cult.
* - A very short 'movie' demonstrating cultic recruiting methods.
* - A poem about losing faith and leaving a "cult" by the late Mrs. Jan Groenveld, an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. The poem is popular among ex-members of many different groups.
* The

== Bibliography ==
=== Books ===

* Bromley, David et al.: ''Cults, Religion, and Violence'', 2002, ISBN 0-521-66898-0
* ]: ''Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America'', 1992, ISBN 0-8153-1140-0
* House, Wayne: ''Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements'', 2000, ISBN 0-310-38551-2
* Kramer, Joel and Alstad, Diane: ''The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power'', 1993.
* Lalich, Janja: ''Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults'', 2004, ISBN 0-520-24018-9
* Landau Tobias, Madeleine et al. : ''Captive Hearts, Captive Minds'', 1994, ISBN 0-89793-144-0
*] ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'' ], 2004
*Lewis, James R. ''Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy'', ], 2001
* Martin, Walter et al.: ''The Kingdom of the Cults'', 2003, ISBN 0-7642-2821-8
* Oakes, Len: ''Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities'', 1997, ISBN 0-8156-0398-3
* ]: ''Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace'', 1992, ISBN 0-7879-6741-6
* Tourish, Dennis: '''On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left'', 2000, ISBN 0-7656-0639-9
* Zablocki, Benjamin et al.: ''Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field'', 2001, ISBN 0-8020-8188-6
* ] (1989) ''New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction'', London, HMSO
* Enroth, Ronald. (1992) ''Churches that Abuse'', Zondervan, ISBN 0-310-53290-6
* Phoenix, Lena: "The Heart of a Cult", 2006, ISBN 0-9785483-0-2

=== Articles ===

* Langone, Michael: Cults: Questions and Answers
* ]: ''Cult Formation'', ''The Harvard Mental Health Letter'', February 1991
* Moyers. Jim: ''Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups''
* Richmond, Lee J. :''When Spirituality Goes Awry: Students in Cults'', Professional School Counseling, June 2004
* Shaw, Daniel: ''Traumatic abuse in cults''
* Rosedale, Herbert et al.: ''On Using the Term "Cult"''
* Van Hoey, Sara: ''Cults in Court'' The Los Angeles Lawyer, February 1991
* ]: ''What messages are behind today's cults?'', American Psychological Association Monitor, May 1997
* Aronoff, Jodi; Lynn, Steven Jay; Malinosky, Peter. ''Are cultic environments psychologically harmful?'', ''Clinical Psychology Review'', 2000, Vol. 20 #1 pp. 91-111
* Rothstein, Mikael, ''] and Text in the ]: Aspects of the Social Construction of a Religious Leader'', an article which appeared in the book ''New Religions in a Postmodern World'' edited by Mikael Rothstein and Reender Kranenborg, RENNER Studies in New religions, ] press, ISBN 87-7288-748-6
*Phoenix, Lena: "Thoughts on the Word Cult"

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* {{fnb | 1}} William Chambers, Michael Langone, Arthur Dole & James Grice, ''The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse'', ''Cultic Studies Journal'', 11(1), 1994. The definition of a cult given above is based on a study of 308 former members of 101 groups.
* {{fnb | 2}} ] ''The Ones Who Got Away: People Who Attend Unification Church Workshops and Do Not Become Moonies''. In: Barker E, ed. ''Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West'''. Macon, Ga. : Mercer University Press; 1983. ISBN 0-86554-095-0
* {{fnb | 4}} Galanter M. ''] ('Moonie') dropouts: psychological readjustment after leaving a charismatic religious group'', ''American Journal of Psychiatry''. 1983;140(8):984-989.
* {{fnb | 6}} ] with Lalich, J (1995). ''Cults in Our Midst'', San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-7879-0051-6
* {{fnb | 8}} ], & Langone, M. D. (1985). ''Cultism: A conference for scholars and policy makers. Summary of proceedings of the Wingspread conference on cultism, September 9–11''. Weston, MA: American Family Foundation.
* {{fnb | 9}} Barrett, D. V. ''The New Believers - A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions'' 2001 UK, Cassell & Co. ISBN 0-304-35592-5
* {{fnb | 10}} ] (1984), '']'', p.147, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-13246-5
* {{fnb | 11}} Galanter, Marc ](Editor), (1989), ''Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the ]'', ISBN 0-89042-212-5
* {{fnb | 12}} Hadden, Jeffrey K. ''SOC 257: New Religious Movements Lectures'', University of Virginia, Department of Sociology.
* {{fnb | 13}} Bader, Chris & A. Demaris, ''A test of the Stark-Bainbridge theory of affiliation with religious cults and sects.'' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 285-303. (1996)
* {{fnb | 14}} Hadden, J and Bromley, D eds. (1993), ''The Handbook of Cults and Sects in America.'' Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 75-97.
* {{fnb | 15}} Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (Dutch language) ''Sekten... gevaarlijk of niet?/Cults... dangerous or not?'' published in the magazine ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands'' nr. 31 ''Sekten II'' by the ] (1996) ISSN 0169-7374 ISBN 90-5383-426-5
* {{fnb | 16}} F. Derks and the professor of ] ] ''The post-cult syndrome: Fact or Fiction?'', paper presented at conference of Psychologists of Religion, ], 1981, also appeared in Dutch language as ''Post-cult-syndroom; feit of fictie?'', published in the magazine ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands'' nr. 6 pages 58-75 published by the ] (1983)
* {{fnb | 17}} Dr. Zablocki, Benjamin Paper presented to a conference, ''Cults: Theory and Treatment Issues'', May 31, 1997 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
* {{fnb | 18}} Duhaime, Jean (]), ''Les Témoigagnes de Convertis et d'ex-Adeptes'' (English: ''The testimonies of converts and former followers'', an article which appeared in the book ''New Religions in a Postmodern World'' edited by Mikael Rothstein and Reender Kranenborg, RENNER Studies in New religions, ] press, ], ISBN 87-7288-748-6
* {{fnb | 20}} ]: ''New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences'' (2000)
* {{fnb | 21}} Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, ''Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices'' published in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7
* {{fnb | 22}} Johnson, Daniel Carson (1998) ''Apostates Who Never were: the Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives'', published in the book ''The ''Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7
* {{fnb | 23}} ] (2001), ''Watching for Violence: A Comparative Analysis of the Roles of Five Types of Cult-Watching Groups'',
* {{fnb | 24}} Richardson, James T. (1989) ''The Psychology of Induction: A Review and Interpretation'', article that appeared in the book edited by Marc Galanter M.D. (1989) ''Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the ]'' ISBN 0-89042-212-5
* {{fnb | 25}} Hall, John R. and Philip Schuyler (1998), ''Apostasy, Apocalypse, and religious violence: An Exploratory comparison of Peoples Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Solar Temple'', in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7, page 145 "The tendency to treat Peoples Temple as the ''cultus classicus'' headed by Jim Jones, psychotic megaliomanic par excellence is still with us, like most myths, because it has a grain of truth to it. "
* {{fnb | 26}} McLemee, Scott ''Rethinking Jonestown '' on the ] website "If Jones' People's Temple wasn't a cult, then the term has no meaning."
* {{fnb | 27}} ], ''Standing at the Cross-Roads: Politics of Marginality in "Subversive Organizations"'' article in the book ''The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements'' edited by David G. Bromley Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, (1998). ISBN 0-275-95508-7
* {{fnb | 28}} Edby, Lloyd (1999), ''Testimony presented to the Task Force to Investigate Cult Activity on the Campuses of Maryland Public Higher-Education Institutions''
* {{fnb | 29}} ], ''The Guru Has No Turban: Part 2''
* {{fnb | 30}} ], ''"Clinical Update on Cults"'', Psychiatric Times July 1996 Vol. XIII Issue 7
* {{fnb | 31}} ], ''Religious Movements in the United States: An Informal Introduction'' (2003)
* {{fnb | 32}} ] Online Dictionary entry for ''cult''
* {{fnb | 33}} Bowman, Robert M., ''A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy'', 1994,
* {{fnb | 34}} Casino. Bruce J., ''Defining Religion in American Law'', 1999,
* {{fnb | 35}} ], ''On Using the Term "Cult"'',
* {{fnb | 36}} BBC News 20 May, 2000: Sect leavers have mental problems
* {{fnb | 37}} Giambalvo, Carol, ''Post-cult problems''
* {{fnb | 38}} Ross, Rick, ''Ethical standards''
* {{fnb | 39}} Burks, Ronald, ''Cognitive Impairment in Thought Reform Environments''
* {{fnb | 40}} ] ''Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF)'', 1997
*{{fnb | 41}}] Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?
*{{fnb | 42}}] (Japan, cultists)
*{{fnb | 43}}Homeland Defense Business Unit

<References />
</div>

]
]
]
]


] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 07:25, 6 January 2025

Group controlled by a leader and/or an idea For other uses, see Cult (disambiguation).
Parts of this article (those related to Entire article needs updating, with attention paid to sources) need to be updated. The reason given is: Some of these sources are over 50 years old, and academic thinking in this area has changed profoundly even in the past twenty-five years. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (September 2024)

Cult is a term often applied to new religious movements and other social groups which have unusual, and often extreme, religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals. Extreme devotion to a particular person, object, or goal is another characteristic often ascribed to cults. The term has different, and sometimes divergent or pejorative, definitions both in popular culture and academia and has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements became an object of sociological study within the context of the study of religious behavior. Since the 1940s, the Christian countercult movement has opposed some sects and new religious movements, labeling them cults because of their unorthodox beliefs. Since the 1970s, the secular anti-cult movement has opposed certain groups, which they call cults, accusing them of practicing brainwashing.

Groups labelled cults are found around the world and range in size from small localized groups to some international organizations with up to millions of members.

Definition and usage

In the English-speaking world, the term cult often carries derogatory connotations. The word "cult" is derived from the Latin term cultus, which means worship. An older sense of the word cult, which is not pejorative, indicates a set of religious devotional practices that is conventional within its culture, is related to a particular figure, and is frequently associated with a particular place, or generally the collective participation in rites of religion. References to the imperial cult of ancient Rome, for example, use the word in this sense. A derived sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century, and usage is not always strictly religious. The term is variously applied to abusive or coercive groups of many categories, including gangs, organized crime, and terrorist organizations.

Sociological classifications of religious movements may identify a cult as a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices, although this is often unclear. Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults, saying that they arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices. Cults have been compared to miniature totalitarian political systems. Such groups are typically perceived as being led by a charismatic leader who tightly controls its members. It is in some contexts a pejorative term, also used for new religious movements and other social groups which are defined by their unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals, or their common interest in a particular person, object, or goal. This sense of the term is weakly defined – having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia – and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

According to Susannah Crockford, "he word ‘cult’ is a shapeshifter, semantically morphing with the intentions of whoever uses it. As an analytical term, it resists rigorous definition." She argued that the least subjective definition of cult referred to a religion or religion-like group "self-consciously building a new form of society", but that the rest of society rejected as unacceptable. The term cult has been criticized as lacking "scholarly rigour"; Benjamin E. Zeller stated "abelling any group with which one disagrees and considers deviant as a cult may be a common occurrence, but it is not scholarship". However, it has also been viewed as empowering for ex-members of groups that have experienced trauma. Religious scholar Catherine Wessinger argued the term was dehumanizing of the people within the group, as well as their children; following the Waco siege, it was argued by some scholars that the defining of the Branch Davidians as a cult by the media, government and former members is a significant factor as to what lead to the deaths. The term was noted to carry "considerable cultural legitimacy".

In the 1970s, with the rise of secular anti-cult movements, scholars (though not the general public) began to abandon the use of the term cult, regarding it as pejorative. By the end of the 1970s, the term cult was largely replaced in academia with the term "new religion" or "new religious movement". Other proposed alternative terms that have seen use were "emergent religion", "alternative religious movement", or "marginal religious movement", though new religious movement is the most popular term. The anti-cult movement mostly regards the term "new religious movement" as a euphemism for cult that hides their harmful nature.

Scholarly studies

Further information: Academic study of new religious movements
Howard P. Becker's church–sect typology, based on Ernst Troeltsch's original theory and providing the basis for the modern concepts of cults, sects, and new religious movements

Beginning in the 1930s, new religious movements perceived as cults became an object of sociological study within the context of the study of religious behavior. The term in this context saw its origins in the work of sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920). Weber is an important theorist in the academic study of cults, which often draws on his theorizations of charismatic authority, and of the distinction he drew between churches and sects. This concept of church-sect division was further elaborated upon by German theologian Ernst Troeltsch, who added a "mystical" categorization to define more personal religious experiences. American sociologist Howard P. Becker further bisected Troeltsch's first two categories: church was split into ecclesia and denomination; and sect into sect and cult. Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion", Becker's cult refers to small religious groups that lack in organization and emphasize the private nature of personal beliefs.

Max Weber (1864–1920), an important theorist in the study of cults

Later sociological formulations built on such characteristics, placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups, "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture." This is often thought to lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it, a characteristic shared with religious sects. According to this sociological terminology, sects are products of religious schism and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, whereas cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.

Scholars William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark have argued for a further distinction between three kinds of cults: cult movements, client cults, and audience cults, all of which share a "compensator" or rewards for the things invested into the group. In their typology, a "cult movement" is an actual complete organization, differing from a "sect" in that it is not a splinter of a bigger religion, while "audience cults" are loosely organized, and propagated through media, and "client cults" offer services (i.e. psychic readings or meditation sessions). One type can turn into another, for example the Church of Scientology changing from audience to client cult. Sociologists who follow their definition tend to continue using the word "cult", unlike most other academics; however Bainbridge later stated he regretted having used the word at all. Stark and Bainbridge, in discussing the process by which individuals join new religious groups, have even questioned the utility of the concept of conversion, suggesting that affiliation is a more useful concept.

In the early 1960s, sociologist John Lofland studied the activities of Unification Church members in California in trying to promote their beliefs and win new members. Lofland noted that most of their efforts were ineffective and that most of the people who joined did so because of personal relationships with other members, often family relationships. Lofland published his findings in 1964 as a doctoral thesis entitled "The World Savers: A Field Study of Cult Processes", and in 1966 in book form by as Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization and Maintenance of Faith. It is considered to be one of the most important and widely cited studies of the process of religious conversion.

J. Gordon Melton stated that, in 1970, "one could count the number of active researchers on new religions on one's hands." However, James R. Lewis writes that the "meteoric growth" in this field of study can be attributed to the cult controversy of the early 1970s. Because of "a wave of nontraditional religiosity" in the late 1960s and early 1970s, academics perceived new religious movements as different phenomena from previous religious innovations.

Types

Destructive cults

Destructive cult is a term frequently used by the anti-cult movement. Members of the anti-cult movement typically define a destructive cult as a group that is unethical, deceptive, and one that uses "strong influence" or mind control techniques to affect critical thinking skills. This term is sometimes presented in contrast to a "benign cult", which implies that not all "cults" would be harmful, though others apply it to all cults. Psychologist Michael Langone, executive director of the anti-cult group International Cultic Studies Association, defines a destructive cult as "a highly manipulative group which exploits and sometimes physically and/or psychologically damages members and recruits."

In Cults and the Family, the authors cite Shapiro, who defines a destructive cultism as a sociopathic syndrome, whose distinctive qualities include: "behavioral and personality changes, loss of personal identity, cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders." Writing about Bruderhof communities in the book Misunderstanding Cults, Julius H. Rubin said that American religious innovation created an unending diversity of sects. These "new religious movements…gathered new converts and issued challenges to the wider society. Not infrequently, public controversy, contested narratives and litigation result." In his work Cults in Context author Lorne L. Dawson writes that although the Unification Church "has not been shown to be violent or volatile," it has been described as a destructive cult by "anticult crusaders." In 2002, the German government was held by the Federal Constitutional Court to have defamed the Osho movement by referring to it, among other things, as a "destructive cult" with no factual basis.

Some researchers have criticized the term destructive cult, writing that it is used to describe groups which are not necessarily harmful in nature to themselves or others. In his book Understanding New Religious Movements, John A. Saliba writes that the term is overgeneralized. Saliba sees the Peoples Temple as the "paradigm of a destructive cult", where those that use the term are implying that other groups will also commit mass suicide.

Doomsday cults

Main article: Doomsday cult

Doomsday cult is an expression which is used to describe groups that believe in apocalypticism and millenarianism, and it can also be used to refer both to groups that predict disaster, and groups that attempt to bring it about. In the 1950s, American social psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues observed members of a small UFO religion called the Seekers for several months, and recorded their conversations both prior to and after a failed prophecy from their charismatic leader. Their work was later published in the book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.

In the late 1980s, doomsday cults were a major topic of news reports, with some reporters and commentators considering them a serious threat to society. A 1997 psychological study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter found that people turned to a cataclysmic world view after they had repeatedly failed to find meaning in mainstream movements.

Political cults

A political cult is a cult with a primary interest in political action and ideology. Groups that some have described as "political cults", mostly advocating far-left or far-right agendas, have received some attention from journalists and scholars. In their 2000 book On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth discuss about a dozen organizations in the United States and Great Britain that they characterize as cults.

Anti-cult movements

Christian countercult movement

Main article: Christian countercult movement

In the 1940s, the long-held opposition by some established Christian denominations to non-Christian religions and heretical or counterfeit Christian sects crystallized into a more organized Christian countercult movement in the United States. For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy, were considered cults. The countercult movement is mostly evangelical protestants. The Christian countercult movement asserts that Christian groups whose teachings deviate from the belief that the bible is inerrant, but also focuses on non-Christian religions like Hinduism. Christian countercult activist writers also emphasize the need for Christians to evangelize to followers of cults.

Secular anti-cult movement

Main article: Anti-cult movement
An anti-Aum Shinrikyo protest in Japan, 2009

Starting in the late 1960s, a different strand of anti-cult groups arose, with the formation of the secular anti-cult movement (ACM). This was in response to the rise of new religions in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly the events at Jonestown and the deaths of nearly 1000 people. The organizations that formed the secular anti-cult movement (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of "cult" converts who did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their own free will. A few psychologists and sociologists working in this field suggested that brainwashing techniques were used to maintain the loyalty of cult members.

The belief that cults brainwashed their members became a unifying theme among cult critics and in the more extreme corners of the anti-cult movement techniques like the sometimes forceful "deprogramming" of cult members was practised. In the mass media, and among average citizens, "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, and other criminal activity, and mass suicide. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant, however peaceful or law abiding it may be.

While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part sceptical of their ability to explain conversion to NRMs. In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.

Governmental policies and actions

Main article: Governmental lists of cults and sects

The application of the labels cult or sect to religious movements in government documents signifies the popular and negative use of the term cult in English and a functionally similar use of words translated as 'sect' in several European languages. Sociologists critical to this negative politicized use of the word cult argue that it may adversely impact the religious freedoms of group members. At the height of the counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s, some governments published lists of cults. Groups labelled "cults" are found around the world and range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions.

While these documents utilize similar terminology, they do not necessarily include the same groups nor is their assessment of these groups based on agreed criteria. Other governments and world bodies also report on new religious movements but do not use these terms to describe the groups. Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements. While the official response to new religious groups has been mixed across the globe, some governments aligned more with the critics of these groups to the extent of distinguishing between "legitimate" religion and "dangerous", "unwanted" cults in public policy.

China

Main article: Heterodox teachings (Chinese law)
Falun Gong books being symbolically destroyed by the Chinese government

For centuries, governments in China have categorized certain religions as xiéjiào (邪教), translated as "evil cults" or "heterodox teachings". In imperial China, the classification of a religion as xiejiao did not necessarily mean that a religion's teachings were believed to be false or inauthentic; rather, the label was applied to religious groups that were not authorized by the state, or it was applied to religious groups that were believed to challenge the legitimacy of the state. Groups branded xiejiao face suppression and punishment by authorities.

Russia

In 2008 the Russian Interior Ministry prepared a list of "extremist groups". At the top of the list were Islamic groups outside of "traditional Islam", which is supervised by the Russian government. Next listed were "Pagan cults". In 2009 the Russian Ministry of Justice created a council which it named the "Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis." The new council listed 80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society, and it also mentioned that there were thousands of smaller ones. The large sects which were listed included: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and other sects which were loosely referred to as "neo-Pentecostals".

United States

In the 1970s, the scientific status of the "brainwashing theory" became a central topic in U.S. court cases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forceful deprogramming of cult members Meanwhile, sociologists who were critical of these theories assisted advocates of religious freedom in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court. In the United States the religious activities of cults are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits governmental establishment of religion and protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly; however, no members of religious groups or cults are granted any special immunity from criminal prosecution.

In 1990, the court case of United States v. Fishman (1990) ended the usage of brainwashing theories by expert witnesses such as Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe. In the case's ruling, the court cited the Frye standard, which states that the scientific theory which is utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields. The court deemed brainwashing to be inadmissible in expert testimonies, using supporting documents which were published by the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control, literature from previous court cases in which brainwashing theories were used, and expert testimonies which were delivered by scholars such as Dick Anthony.

Western Europe

See also: MIVILUDES, Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu, and Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France

The governments of France and Belgium have taken policy positions which accept "brainwashing" theories uncritically, while the governments of other European nations, such as those of Sweden and Italy, are cautious with regard to brainwashing and as a result, they have responded more neutrally with regard to new religions. Scholars have suggested that the outrage which followed the mass murder/suicides perpetuated by the Solar Temple, have significantly contributed to European anti-cult positions. In the 1980s, clergymen and officials of the French government expressed concern that some orders and other groups within the Roman Catholic Church would be adversely affected by anti-cult laws which were then being considered.

See also

References

Explanatory notes

  1. Compare the Oxford English Dictionary note for usage in 1875: "cult:...b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.… 1875 Brit. Mail 30 Jan. 13/1 Buffaloism is, it would seem, a cult, a creed, a secret community, the members of which are bound together by strange and weird vows, and listen in hidden conclave to mysterious lore." "cult". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  2. Or "sects" in German or French-speaking countries, the German term sekten and the French term sectes having assumed the same derogatory meaning as English "cult".

Citations

  1. Dubrow-Marshall 2024, p. 103.
  2. ^ Chryssides & Zeller 2014, p. 321.
  3. "cult". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) – "2.a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremonies or rituals which are directed towards a specified figure or object."
  4. Dubrow-Marshall 2024, p. 96.
  5. Stark & Bainbridge 1996, p. 124.
  6. Stark & Bainbridge 1980, p. 1377.
  7. Olson 2006.
  8. Stark & Bainbridge 1987.
  9. Stein 2016.
  10. Bell, Kenton (2013). "cult". Open Education Sociology Dictionary. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
  11. "cult". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster.
  12. ^ Rubin 2001, p. 473.
  13. ^ Richardson 1993, pp. 348–356.
  14. Crockford 2024, p. 172.
  15. ^ Thomas & Graham-Hyde 2024a, p. 4.
  16. ^ Olson 2006, p. 97.
  17. Bromley & Melton 2002, p. 231.
  18. ^ Chryssides & Zeller 2014, p. 322.
  19. ^ Lewis 2004.
  20. Fahlbusch & Bromiley 1999, p. 897.
  21. Weber 1985.
  22. Swatos 1998a, pp. 90–93.
  23. Campbell 1998, pp. 122–123.
  24. Richardson 1993, p. 349.
  25. Stark & Bainbridge 1987, p. 25.
  26. Stark & Bainbridge 1987, p. 124.
  27. Bader & Demaris 1996.
  28. Richardson 1998.
  29. Barker 1998.
  30. Ashcraft 2006, p. 180.
  31. Chryssides 1999, p. 1.
  32. Shupe & Darnell 2006, p. 214.
  33. Turner, Bloch & Shor 1995, p. 1146.
  34. Kaslow & Sussman 1982, p. 34.
  35. Dawson 1998, p. 349.
  36. Seiwert 2003.
  37. Saliba 2003, p. 144.
  38. Jenkins 2000, pp. 216, 222.
  39. ^ Stangor 2004, pp. 42–43.
  40. Newman 2006, p. 86.
  41. Petty & Cacioppo 1996, p. 139.
  42. Jenkins 2000, pp. 215–216.
  43. Pargament 1997, pp. 150–153, 340.
  44. Tourish & Wohlforth 2000.
  45. Cowan 2003, p. 20.
  46. ^ Chryssides 2024, p. 41.
  47. Cowan 2003, p. 31.
  48. Cowan 2003, p. 25.
  49. ^ Chryssides 2024, p. 46.
  50. Chryssides 2024, p. 47.
  51. ^ Richardson & Introvigne 2001.
  52. Shupe & Bromley 1998a, p. 27.
  53. Wright 1997.
  54. van Driel & Richardson 1988.
  55. Hill, Hickman & McLendon 2001.
  56. Barker 1986.
  57. Ayella 1990.
  58. Cowan 2003, p. ix.
  59. ^ Richardson & Introvigne 2001, pp. 143–168.
  60. ^ Davis 1996.
  61. Barker 1999.
  62. ^ Edelman & Richardson 2003.
  63. ^ Penny 2012.
  64. Zhu 2010, p. 487.
  65. Heggie 2020, p. 257.
  66. Zhu 2010.
  67. Soldatov & Borogan 2010, pp. 65–66.
  68. Marshall 2013.
  69. Ogloff & Pfeifer 1992.
  70. Introvigne 2014, pp. 313–316.
  71. Richardson & Introvigne 2001, pp. 144–146.
  72. Richardson & Introvigne 2001, p. 144.
  73. Robbins 2002, p. 174.
  74. Richardson 2004, p. 48.
Books
Articles

External links

  • The dictionary definition of cult at Wiktionary
  • Quotations related to Cult at Wikiquote
New religious movements
Major groups
Notable figures
By region
Concepts
Public education
Scholarship
Opposition
Lists
Opposition to new religious movements
Concepts
Secular groups
Secular individuals
Religious groups
Religious individuals
Governmental organizations
Individuals in government
Historical events
Publications
Categories: