Why No One Should Ever Use the Word "Cult"

Sleazy organizations, headed by greedy egomaniacs--like the one you mentioned, cooked up by a hack science fiction writer--deserve pejoratives.

I would rather refer to all religions as cults than say all religions are valid.

Organized religions will let you leave their congregation at will, they won't force you to change your child's birth certificate or force you to give all of your money to their cause, and they won't murder their own congregation in a mass suicide. The people's temple did all of these things. How many recently converted Catholics do you know changed their child's birth certificate so that the pope is listed as their father? How many Hindus and Muslims forced their own men, women, and children to drink toxic flavorade? Have you ever seen Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate initiation videos? The world was supposed to be recycling itself. Supposedly that includes a mass suicide with matching sneakers.
I think there's a fine line between religions and cults. With religions, you can actually leave if you don't agree with their viewpoints. With cults, they go through your trash if they suspect a nonbeliver and then force to you comply. I think the difference lies solely in the human rights involved. There a huge difference in wearing a hijab and being forcibly locked in Hubbard's dungeon for three days to be starved to death and eaten by cockroaches.

An onion by any other name would smell as pungent.

Trying to define "cult" is like trying to define "pornography".

USA Supreme Court Justice P. Stewart is famously quoted as having said that although he could not give a specific, legal definition of pornography, still, "I know it when I see it."

I have to concur with him and with earlier commenters who have said pretty much the same thing.

While our government very carefully goes out of its way to avoid using the word "cult", and very carefully avoids offering any specific definition of what is vs what is not a "religion", nevertheless, cults happen.

Cults exist, no matter what you choose to call them. The government of France has been a little more bold and assertive in tackling this issue; the French government has fined and/or banned organizations it deems "cult-like", such as The Church of Scientology, the Hare Krishna movement, and the Unification Church. I admire the French government's efforts, and I can think of another cult-like sect that they would probably very much like to ban altogether.

Here is a list of characteristics common to cult-like groups, of any size, any culture, any race, any creed:

*The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether s/he is alive or dead) regards his/her belief system, ideology, and practices as The Truth, as The Law.

*Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

*Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, "sacred herbs", food restriction, sleep deprivation, isolation, group pressure, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

*The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, who the member may or may not have sex with, being required to hand one's child over to the leader for sexual purposes, and so forth).

*The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity). The group has a polarized us-versus-them elitism, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

*The leader claims supreme authority and that he or she is not accountable to any other authorities (not accountable to teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations, the police, or to local, state or federal government laws).

*The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before they joined the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

*The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

*Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and to radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before they joined the group.

*The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

*The group is preoccupied with making money.

*Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

*Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

*The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

*Any member who actually leaves the group in spite of pressure or coercion not to, or speaks out against the group, is harassed, surveilled, possibly threatened with dire consequences, including being subjected to endless lawsuits, being financially ruined, being prevented from contacting family members still inside the group, having property vandalized, subjected to smear campaigns, etc.

And frankly, any group that states openly that if you leave the group, YOU WILL BE KILLED (and probably your entire family as well), automatically qualifies as a freakin' cult in my opinion.

That would include organized crime mobs, street gangs, some highly dysfunctional biological family groups, and the most extreme, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and other long-established religious belief systems.

Whereas most long-established religions have, for the most part, evolved over millennia into more moderate, secularized, non-fundamentalist interpretations of and practices of their core beliefs, there are entire countries that practice extreme, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, ISIS being the bloody "poster child" of extreme, fundamentalist Islam.

Quotes from the Quran:

Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Verse 4:65 says that those who have faith are in "full submission" to Muhammad's teachings. This verse explains what should happen to Muslims who do not have faith.

Hadith and Sira

The most reliable Hadith collection contain numerous accounts of Muhammad and his companions putting people to death for leaving Islam. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran: "Those who obey the Messenger obey Allah."

Quotes from the Hadith and Sira:

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations:
(1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,)
(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Cult-like organizations and groups:

Here is a list of some of the more well-known (or infamous) cult-like groups or sects operating in the USA (some current, some self-destructed, some disbanded) that formed around religious beliefs:

Branch Davidians (David Koresh)

The Manson Family (Charles Manson)

Heaven's Gate (Applewhite - Nettles)

The People's Temple (Jim Jones)

Scientology / Dianetics (L. Ron Hubbard)

Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy)

Unification Church ( Sun Myung Moon)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Hinduism sect (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu)

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (self-named Hindi mystic)

Children of God - Family International (David Berg)

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
(Warren Jeffs)

Twelve Tribes (Elbert Eugene Spriggs)

The Tibetan Nyingma Meditation Center (Tarthang Tulku, a Tibetan Buddhist lama)

There are also non-religious, for-profit organizations called "Large Group Awareness Training" or "New Age, human-potential training" organizations that have cult-like characteristics, such as isolating recruits for days at a time, the use of thought-reform techniques and methods of psychological coercion that can sometimes cause psychological breakdowns.

Some of the more well-known are, or were:

EST: Erhard Seminars Training (Werner Erhard) and its offshoots
The Landmark Forum, The Forum, Transformational Technologies, and TransTech

Lifespring (John Hanley, Sr.)

Actualizations (Stewart Emery)

(see various sites on the Internet that list cult groups and LGAT groups, for more information.)

So, yeah. Doesn't matter what you call it. If it has the characteristics listed earlier, or most of them, or sometimes even just a few of them but practiced in frequent, intense ways, then, yeah, its a cult.

If you like, I'll use the word "pack" (like referring to "a pack of wolves") to refer to cult-like organizations.

Packs can form for various reasons, not just religious reasons.

Their key trait is that the pack shares a singular vision, whether that’s a religious faith, a racist ideology, organized criminal activity, or a political agenda, or some combination of those reasons, and each member of the pack has surrendered his or her own individual identity to the pack.

Note: kidnapping is a characteristic or hallmark trait of political terrorist packs in particular. Tracking down and murdering “apostates”, deserters, turncoats, or escapees is a hallmark trait of extreme fundamentalist Islam, and of organized crime groups (including street gangs.) And probably lots of other packs as well, that we just haven't heard about yet.

Also, I forgot to include fraternal organizations that are elitist, have secret rites, an agenda that includes changing the world in religious or political ways, and in some cases, does not allow members to just leave. These would be packs like the "Skull and Bones", the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Ordo Templis Orientis (Alexander Crowley), the Bilderberg Group, etc.

Have led me to understand that a cult is a group whose members disagree with culturally held views and who insist without a members freewill or knowledge, that they follow the agenda. Many are persecuted when they attempt to or leave the cult. In some cases, cult beliefs cause members to endure pain suffering and death. Now it could be argued that mainstream religions cause such things too. I will not argue against that, however fewer people stigmatize it because of their large population base and years of history used to back up their story.
Please, as a favor to others and yourself, don't write such an article again. It makes you look uninformed. If you had any experience with a cult personally, you would not be writing this.

There are so many definitions of the word "cult", most of them--I think--very misleading. It seems like the writer of this article thinks a cult is merely a theologically deviant branch of a major religion, or perhaps a group that looks and acts weird. However, some of the worst cults can be theologically identical to the majority and have the surface appearance of a normal, if unusually zealous, church group.

That's because a cult is any group that uses manipulative, hierarchical authority structures and thought-control techniques to force its members to conform. There are religious cults, social cults, business cults: they can exist anywhere. And when we see a cult, we ought to call it out!

If someone is in an unhealthy, manipulative, abusive marriage, do we tell them, "Oh, don't use the word 'abuse' because it undermines your partner's personality"? Of course not! Cults are abusive in EXACTLY the same way.

If one controls your emotions, they control your mind. There are people who strive only to control your emotional state. They use words that are subjective such as growth, both spiritual or psychological. How do we measure growth? Who confirms growth and how? Are you sure your growth isn't aging and experience, something totally unattributable to the "organization" in question? People who utilize these ambiguous philosophies can often controll individuals. An alternate word that might be found insulting is "conman/(woman)". They trick you into believing you have found the answer and if you stray you will be ostracized (and possibly lose all connection to your new found family). While there, you are loved but at a price. Maybe the words sect or faction better describes the "cult". I could see the word "faction" being tossed out next as it denotes possible ties to Osama Bin Ladden.

While I appreciate alternate opinions, and I love reading the other side of avid argument...

Describing something as unpopular or potentially dangerous is downright STUPID written it fits the definition of a cult. Also if taste dangerous, don't call them "potentially dangerous", wow.

When it comes to the DEFINITION of the word cults and it's proper usage, as with any word, there IS no other side.

This statement however is VERY TRUE:

'"Cult" is an unsavory stealth weird word with an unjust mission'.

Please add bigot, homophobe, xenophobe and transphobe, cultural appropriation etc, to that list.

People today use with weeds divorced of their meaning & without cutter, this is the real problem, for instance, a real homophobe would act similar to someone whom is claustrophic or aranophobic, it's not a hate, THESE ARE IRRATIONAL FEARS.

Lobbying groups & other groups changed the meaning of their weird to fit their agenda and cult IS a useful weird when use Properly, but it should not be used often.

People use words such as cult & homophobe to silence the opposition, someone who disagrees with Gay marriage is not a "homophobe", they just have a different view. A real homophobe would runaway screaming or go hide or have a panic attack at the sight of a gay or lesbian, I have only met one such person, as know those are very rare. AND saying fear manifest in different ways is absurd bc phobias are not normal fears.

HOWEVER real cults are INHERENTLY dangerous and will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS harm everyone involved! How do I know? I've been involved in 3. They hurt you mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and often physically. It's not about fearing something different when probably using this term, and a psychologist not understand this is HIGHLY disturbing. There is no reason to defend cults and not using the term on cults and Darlinghurst cults, it's dangerous to advocate not using the term, just advocate that ppl actually understand the meaning, like ppl need to understand what sexual harassment & sexual assault actually are.

My point is saying a word shouldn't be used is not the right thing to say, but target just call into question it's improper usage.

I am a Christian and excluding the cult of Islam(yes it is for the most part, I've actually studied their actual beliefs, and saying Islamic and not studying what the Qran and musings traditionally believe, and a Muslim calling themselves a muslim, but they don't know or follow the Qran or pick & choose, is like saying you're a Christian& doing that with the bible, you're not a Christian at all).

Understand this, there are currently many FAKE Christian cults, and I'm ONLY going to talk about Christian ones here, operating today such as:

- JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
- CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS
- NAR AKA New Apostolic Reformation
- Many so-called progressive churches as well bc they discourage questioning and will twist youre emotions to control you, and do not show dissenting opinions.
- Seventh Day Adventist
- and many others I won't go into.
------------
I only want to make a note about the NAR here, and is formal not an organization.

C Peter Wagner is the man who coined the term NAR and he clarified, as well as denied its cult status, and to find it by searching on charisma News with "the new apostolic reformation is not a cult" is now dead, and I will not go into all of his history just to say that he is a very twisted and dishonest person. But he took many teachings that were popular in what used to be called the New Order of the latter Rain, then because What's called the third wave, and out of the third wave came the New Apostolic Reformation. The difference between the New Apostolic Reformation beliefs and every other Church Prior, as well as a new order the latter, is that people have always universally agreed, even Pentecostals and Pentecostals are quite recent, is that Apostles and Prophets are not active today, nor have they been active since the time of the Apostles and Prophets. This is not something that should be questioned any more than whether or not Mormons are Christians, Mormons are not Christians at all they don't follow the Bible they follow the Book of Mormon which denies core Christians teachings and teaches polytheism.

It is hard to distinguish what makes the New Apostolic Reformation dangerous, if you have not study the Bible for years and are not a actual Christian. I've had many people called me names because of trying to help them understand the nature of the New Apostolic Reformation.

The nature of the New Apostolic Reformation is inherently evil, because it's a nice that God's word is sufficient, it continually adds to the word of God and continually adds to what God apparently has said. Which has a Christian is detestable, if you're not a Christian you may not understand this and even if you are you may never have been taught the sufficiency of scripture. But this is how and New Apostolic Reformation teachers silence people. Is by having new prophecies which tell people they have to be silent and they have to touch not my anointed. Which is a scripture, which has a cross reference, which is taken grossly out of context, in order to control people.

There are higher call order which are dangerous, prophets answer to Apostles and vice versa Apostles are supposed to go to profits for direction, in the New Apostolic Reformation churches.

It is extraordinairly important to understand that most places do not say they are NAR, because they don't actually know what the Nara is. Of course it is possible to be something and not understand it or do something and not understand it, we do this every day especially as children. But in the New Apostolic Reformation churches it is not essential that they understand what the New Apostolic Reformation is only that they understand it's higher or cool devices and means of control.

If anyone is dissenting they are attacked they are called names such as Jezebel, Pharisee, legalistic, and any other name that has a somewhat condescending tone that comes or seems to come from the Bible. This is the danger of being in these groups, if you do not agree with them they ostracize you.
I highly recommend going to fighting for the faith pirate Christian radio for more information.

When I think of a cult I think of a group of people who gather to either worship a alter or person such as God. I never realized that so many people have such prejudice against those who are in a cult until I read this following article. I also never realized that people in cults are not that different from people who are apart of a church and practice religion.

Cult is a word and it's a word that should be used. It names groups and organizations that are secretive and isolate their members from others and alternative views. A cult is not for the benefit of the group, but is designed to keep leaders in power. They are dangerous. They are real.

I know what the author is trying to say, which is really that religions don't deserve any sort of special respect and can be just as harmful as small groups with unique belief systems. But "cult" is a well-established word that has particular attributes, such as having a single charismatic leader who is self-described special / important person. In fact, "traditional" religion-based groups can also be cults. It has nothing to do with the underlying dogma, but the manipulative and oppressive way that a group is organized, and other touchstones like brainwashing.

Ultimately, this author doesn't know what the ef they're talking about. A real cult is not just a "small religion." It's defined by its uniquely harmful effects.

The word or label 'cult' does not need to be taken offensively. 'Cult' comes from the Latin word 'cultus', which means to tend to or care for. Other instances of the stem include 'culture' and 'cultivate'. Most dictionary definitions just say a cult is to have a common belief. I don't think it needs to be taken as a slight or a slur in anyway. Many words are used to classify both negative a positive things. For instance- 'extremists' or 'extreme groups' are frequently seen as having seriously negative connotations. However, obviously there are extreme groups that are not violent or severely prejudice, and being called an 'extreme group' in and of itself does not need to be taken offensively.

I am highly disappointed that this article is allowed to be on Psychology Today. Cults are not all minority religions. There are meditation cults, political cults, therapy cults, sex cults. I am a survivor of cultic abuse and I find this article really misses the point on how cults operate using information control, emotional control, deception, behaviour control and can cause serious psychological harm. 'Unpopular' or 'potentially dangerous' group really doesn't cut it in my opinion.

Sometimes a duck is a duck.
Sometimes a cat is a feline.
Sometimes a cult is a cult.

Most religions are like cults or are cults based on the fact that their beliefs lack evidence and the participants are required to trust unquestioningly in practices that do not benefit the individual or the whole, but only benefit the ones in control.

Chastising a word because of what it means does not invalidate the point of which many claims are accurate.

Here are three google definitions:

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

[The revere of any thing or person as an external object of devotion is a recipe for disaster. The participants must give up their responsibility to become devotees and in doing so, they become pawns to the preacher, minister, or leader. All that is required for power to increase is for the control to ask for something small, and then gradually ask for more until the participants are in the habit of delivering the request with ever greater sacrifices of personal will.

Having someone to look up to, admire, and present a template of behavior can be beneficial, so long as the admirers know where that example ends, and where their own responsibilities begin. ]

2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

[This here is just a gossip based definition. It lacks proof, just as the religious lack proof or address it erroneously on accident. This is what should be addressed, not the word itself. It is the users of the word, when they use it based on their own insecurities and prejudices instead of on verifiable proof and/or personal experience of the cultiness of the group that makes this word a invalid judgement instead of a valid discernment.]

3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

[This definition aligns with the first more accurately and unbiasedly. For whenever one person is held above the many, while the many overlook the importance of their own life, path, and consequences of action, do they PARTICIPATE in the formation of a cult with cult like systems of belief.]

Having said all of this, based on my experiences with exploring many different religious practices and striving to understand why they do what they do, I can confirm for myself that many, if not most, are cult like in nature, potential, and/or embodiment.

A religion in and of itself is a system of beliefs and practices, ideally aimed at the betterment of the participant's life, but more often than not, it is used as an empty label of affiliation to buffer the egoic sense of connection while realistically encouraging more separation between belief systems.

This second portrayal is my definition of a cult: An organization of people that blindly believe what they are told without seeking proof, without seeing improvement in their lives as a whole, and while remaining hypocrites in their own lives. It is the blind leading the blind. And as it stands, every christian church I have seen falls into this rut in some shape, way or form.

The differences are just a matter of degree.

We should not blame the word for what it defines.

Instead, we should address the fact that it is not being used accurately and by that inaccurate usage, those that use it as such are just as cult-like as those they accuse.

Whereas based on my own experience and understanding of a cult and what is not a cult, if I see one, I will call it as it is.

Not in judgement with emotional emphasis. But in discernment, lacking all emotions, I will see that it is exactly what I do not want to follow or promote in any shape, way or form.

I.e. I would not recommend it.