Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The answer is moo as far as I'm concerned. A religion is just a cult with social standing. It's a very arbitrary distinction.
It would certainly be more interesting
Well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_ayahuasca_by_country
So there's certainly precedent.
A religion is a cult with a track record, which is way more useful than social standing. Mass movements that turn into disasters over a decade or more are a dime a dozen; only if a movement has been around for several decades already do you have enough data to guess what disasters it's probably vulnerable to.
"Several decades" would mean that $cientology, Hare Krishnas, and arguably Moonies have made the transition from "cult" to "religion" by now. Certainly in the UK, the anti-cult crowd think that Scientology and Moonies are the most dangerous religious cults.
Yes, and perhaps.
The point of several decades of data isn't that the group definitely isn't going to be an ongoing disaster, it's that there's been time for the disasters to be ongoing rather than sudden. If you joined Scientology in 1960 and couldn't stay on their good side, you might have been quite unpleasantly surprised by what was to follow. I'm told the Readers' Digest exposes in the 1980s were quite brave. But by 1995 or so, if you weren't a kid dragged in by parents, joining Scientology was kinda on you.
Whereas, these guys? They might be perfectly fine. But even if they're not showing the classic "cult warning signs" now, who knows what might be going on after a couple decades of social churn and personal change? Cult leaders have gone downhill on that time scale even if they weren't using psychoactive drugs from the start. Lots of people thought Jim Jones seemed like a decent guy for a long time before the eventual paranoid spiral and the mass murder-suicide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I suspect that the ratio of "cults" doing something so odious that they become newsworthy to the actual number popularly accepted as cults isn't particularly significant.
It's not like established religions don't get up to shenanigans, while having more clout to enact their will.
In something like the example provided by OP, I strongly suspect that if they ever get rapped, it'll be because of something like the founder being a sex pest or coercing people into taking drugs. They're not about to launch the next intifada.
Not that I think anyone should join a religion or cult in the first place.
This is way more common than basically rolling your own violently-rebellious religion.
As for religion...it binds people together and is valuable; I've even heard that every religion creates a society in its image.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link