Today’s Reading List – September 20, 2007
Almost a year ago, I wrote on my "godblog" about the various definitions of the word "cult." I did it there as a part of the early thinking about the subject of this blog, but really thought it was a religious discussion, not a political one, so decided that was the correct venue. Apparently however, the bigs at the Washington Post and Newsweek think different as they found the essential question suitable for their "On Faith" feature.
Various religious groups in America, from Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormons, have been considered cults at some point. What is the difference between a religion and a cult? What constitutes a real religion?
There is something of VERY important note in that question – it assumes that all religions are not cults, and yet, if you refer to my post as linked above you find that the first definition of the word "cult" is, simply:
a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
Therefore, by their very phrasing of the question they are supporting something we have contended here all along. The word "cult" is used in the common vernacular as a perjorative, designed to delegitimize that to which it is attached. This means the word must be used with great care.
Lowell is our resident lawyer here, so maybe he can answer this question: Is there any case law that draws a distinction between "religion" and "cult?" I can't think of any, which means the distinction simply cannot be drawn in political terms as they would be legally interchangeable.
LOWELL adds: I also am unaware of any such case law. I can hardly imagine a context in which that issue would come before a court at all.
All that said, I made my case about this thoroughly and completely in the series of posts I linked above, so I will not make it again.
Responses to the question of the week appear throughout the week at "On Faith," but here are some highlights of what is up at the moment:
The word “cult” in common usage is almost always a pejorative and, in my experience, usually used by someone with an agenda.
You might as well ask what is the difference between a "real" government and a political experiment. For the most part, the only difference between a "real religion" and a "cult" is longevity–a distinction that also applies to governments. If enough people believe in some form of the supernatural for a long enough period of time, we stop calling it a cult and start calling it a religion. Religions are cults that last.
A more useful distinction would separate religions (or factions within religions) that attempt to control nearly every aspect of people's lives from religions that allow their members considerable latitude to choose different ways of existence without being driven from the fold.
The term “cult” has gotten a bad rap in common usage, having been employed most often to describe drug-laden, mind-controlling groups. The term “cult” itself is neutral; cult is a term that merely means a cohesive group that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream. “Religion”, by contrast, is usually used to describe the solidly mainstream and institutionalized forms of faith.
I could go on, but why? Read the whole thing for yourself.
Meanwhile, in London…
The Times thereof does a "profile" that addresses only two things, The Question, and "flip-flop." In an otherwise unremarkable, save for its tone, piece, they do in one paragraph go where no one has dared go before:
Although he refuses to resile from his faith when it might be politically expedient to do so, Mr Romney’s acute sensitivity on the subject chimes with the other persistent charge against him, namely that he has “flip-flopped” on a range of social issues to attract support for the Republican nomination.
And the line from flip-flop to Mormon is drawn, explicitly. I am honestly surprised that such is the case. The real strength of that connection lies in its assumed but never spoken nature – it is simply too easy to factually dispute since it relies on a presumption of Mormons being skilled, cooperative and consistent liars. But then, this is the UK where distance and disinterest in American politics in general would make the likelihood of anyone bothering to do so pretty remote.
Except of course, in the Internet age, some American blog might notice . . . .
LOWELL: One must appreciate the sheer nastiness of the reasoning: Yes, Romney's seemingly shown character regarding his faith, but his . . . "sensitivity on the subject" still makes you wonder about all that flip-flopping. I mean, a guy who's that sensitive about religious questions directed at him must be untrustworthy.
Huh? There is no way to draw that connection, unless, of course, the writer's intent is simply malicious.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post