Are all religions cults?

[brewer]

[robvalue]

I think people often use the cult label for organisations that take a keen interest in removing its members from general society, and directly asserting a lot of control over their actions.

Religions tend to be more passive, at least potentially, with people choosing their own level of involvement.

[Sal]

1. How do you define cult?
2. Was your religion ever a cult? For instance, would other people have perhaps defined it as such in the first 50 or 100 years after it's founding?  If so, how come it is no longer a cult?
3. For everyone, what other cults do you belong to?

1. A group of people that follow religious teachings. The other definitions for "cult" in OP notwithstanding.
2. For me it isn't about size, so all religions as far as I'm concerned are cults. I was in one of those charismatic evangelical congregations.
3. I've played RuneScape since 2005, so yeah, that has reached cult status for me.

[RobbyPants]

Religion is just a cult with more followers.

In a cult, there's a guy at the top who knows the whole thing is a sham. In a religion, that guy is dead.

[Mystic]

Yes and vice versa. All cults are religions and all religions are cults, there is no difference between the two. Size being part of the definition is a new confusion whence the ancient word and use of it never had that in mind.

[Reltzik]

....

.... did I just read through 5 pages of flame wars veering dreadfully off topic from the OP question, only to see the thread get back ON TOPIC?

.... I DIDN'T KNOW THREADS COULD GET BACK ON TOPIC!

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you contextualize that many disparate cults can exist -inside- of a single religion, then, MK?  

Lets use some ancient example.  There was second dynasty egyptian polytheism, and the within that there was the cult of bastet.  One of these things is not like the other.

Similarly, there is islam......and then there is what you practice. Religion, sect, cult. The bastest cult was part of the lower egyptian sect..of the middle kingdom egyptian religion. There's a difference, no matter how hard cultists plead otherwise in a bid for equal credibility and deference with respect to the sect or religion.

[Reltzik]

Okay, done joking, serious-reply time.

Fundamentally what we're arguing about here is what the definition of the word cult is.  (As the OP explicitly pointed out.)  It's not really the properties of religions that are in dispute.  Is anyone questioning whether those religions rely on faith?  That they often, but not always, deride other religions or other groups within their own religions?  That many of them have singular iconic figures at their heads, and which ones those are?  No.  The point of debate is whether any of that a cult makes.  Off-topic derailments aside, this is a dispute about semantics rather than facts.

I'd say the best candidate qualities of whether to apply the word "cult" to religions (or subsections of religious) are the following: that they are defined and organized around fervent belief in a central doctrine, figure, organization, cause, or practice; sectarian isolationism (specifically calling on members either not to interact with outsiders, or do so in very specific ways only); vilification or devaluation of outsiders; some combination of ritual, mental exercises, and social reinforcement within the organization or group that stifles and punishes doubt or questioning; where the organization, central figure, beliefs, etc are held above reproach and any critical feelings are taken to be the fault of the critic; additional high-control tactics by the leaders or doctrines; and the potential harm to members or by members.  As I see the word, it's a difference of degrees rather than a simple binary.  The more of these qualities a group shows and the more strongly they display them, the more cult-like the group is.

Let's take, for example, the Church of Scientology.  (I'm speaking from what I've heard about it from other sources here, rather than firsthand experience, so treat this all as having a big asterisk attached to it.)  In practice, they follow a corporate/franchise model, with a corporate headquarters and everything... but the basis of organization is around a shared cause of trying to achieve maximum potential by going through various activities to rid oneself of old traumatic memories.  It does so through repeated "counseling" sessions in which emotions are "nullified" -- that is, where people are trained to suppress uncomfortable emotional reactions, including doubt and dissonance.  Outsiders who are seen as potentially driving a wedge between a particular member or the membership at large and the beliefs of the church are labeled suppressive individuals, and members are instructed to minimize contact with them.  On and on, Scientology checks all the boxes to some degree or another.... it's pretty cult-like, but could be more so.  For example, if rather than a weird corporate structure it was (still) organized around a single charismatic individual, it would be more cult-like than it is now.

Now, let's talk fandoms.  Are they organized around something pretty singular which they approach with fervency?  Kinda.  Some members are, while others are quite a bit more lukewarm.  Are they isolationist?  Not usually.  They can often do interact with outsiders and there aren't rules to the contrary.  Though occasionally you get a few extreme fans who want little to do with muggles, and try to encourage the same attitudes from the rest of the fandom, these are exceptions. Overall, fandoms are not very cult-like, even if they can have a whiff of cultishness to them among their more extreme members. Overall, they show few of the qualities that make cults dangerous.*

Religions?  Well it depends on the religion... and also how the religion is practiced.  Let's take Christianity for example.  Christianity is a very large group made up of a very large number of smaller groups, each of which may have subgroups of their own.  For example you have within Christianity a group known as Catholics, which can in turn be subdivided into Catholic orders or churches individuals attend.  Some of these subdivisions of Catholicism will be more cult-like than others, while some divisions within Christianity (say, Quakers) will be less cult-like than the Catholics while others (Jehovah's Witnesses) will be more so.  If we look at hard-line conservative evangelicals, we see a lot of cultish tendencies.  If we instead look at liberal, laid-back Lutheran groups, less-so.  (And yes, I know there are conservative Lutherans and even liberal evangelicals.  I was specifying subsets within those categories rather than describing the categories as a whole.) Some churches will vilify and dehumanize us non-Christians, while others want to live with us in peace and comradery and understanding. Yet even as a whole, Christianity is cult-like in the way it checks at least a few of its boxes, fervent focus on a central founding figure being a very notable one.

Is atheism a cult?  Definitely not in this sense -- there's no high-control tactics, no imperative not to deal with outsiders and so forth.  And yet we can, in certain atheists who I don't care to explicitly name, see a few elements of cultishness showing.  Vilification of non-atheists, as one example.  This isn't anywhere near widespread enough to be a basis for criticizing atheism or atheists as a whole, but it provides us a bit of warning that something is going on in this corner of the atheist "community" *coughherdofcatscough* that might be a bit troublesome.

I think this is the right approach to this word for three reasons.  First, it actually keeps track of why we care about whether something is a cult or not.  There is a definite derogatory element to the term, and so by tying the application of the word to undesirable and dangerous elements of groups we give basis and need for that derogation, and also focus our concern on dangerous organizations rather than on benign (if irritating) groups. Second, it makes it a lot clearer WHY we disapprove of cults.  And third, it gives us guidelines to avoid become cult-like, or to become less-cultlike, in our own groups.



*Though obviously those fans who think Kirk was a better captain than Picard are raving lunatics who cannot belong in decent society

[robvalue]

Right, atheism can't be a cult because it has no core beliefs. Atheists can make things that turn into cults, or produce cult-like thinking, such as that Atheism+ garbage.

Theism can't be a cult either on its own, because it's just people who share one belief, without even specifying what "God" is supposed to be. Once you reach the level of a religion, then you have a series of much more specific beliefs about particular characters, that directly affect actions.

(In my definition, deism is a subset of theism.)