Name: York !TnfC957mQY 2005-07-13 19:48
Doesn't it ever bug you how many cults have gotten away from us in recent centuries? The Mormons set up shop out west, in a flight mirroring the initial reasons for flight to the New World (after internal Mormon-type struggles and schism); The Christian Scientists, like a certain Empire, cannot properly be described by any of the words in their name, what with making their children to die and all; the Jehovah's Witnesses paradoxically lower their chances at getting into the 'little flock' (although in fairness, maybe the Good Works of spreading the News count for something, although inspiring Michael Jackson's arrested development is not one of them)-and let's not even touch upon the minutiae of Scientology. Even applied Communism might never have realized its deadly thrall if certain strategic moves had been made in Russia and China. Paraphrasing Churchill, an opportunity was missed to "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle."
But let's stay with America. It's a free country and that's a beautiful thing; you have the right to not know almost anything that it is not your pleasure to know, and you have the right to surrender your soul, thetans or trust fund to any bona fide religion. Since religions start out as cults, though, some of which are more offensive to the mores of a particular society than others, it might help the average American if he or she didn't have to be faced with so many darn choices. Or at least, that many fewer than were to be dreamt up in the near future, but were laughed out of relevance. Maybe if some specific (albeit contradictory) popular common sense had gripped a people at various times, then, even if an early cult attracted its inevitably unstable or regional followers, it wouldn't be a nuisance to future generations-the people of the day weren't gonna fall for That Shit. Thankfully, some folks save most people the internal struggle of Religion vs. Cult by checking out in their entirety (TYVM Heaven's Gate), but this is as likely to generate imitators as anything else. At least they're not recruiting.
The devil is in the details. One thing that's not an option is to stop people's free assembly, and historical examples of law enforcement fuckups would indicate that that's not usually a desirable route in handling cults, least of all when they're not actually doing anything illegal. It's a maddening problem. In the general case, we hope that the same distance which a Religion enjoys from its specific story also renders it relatively benign. We would further hope (often in vain) that the very reason why it has been able to endure is because it has conformed to a sufficient degree to the way in which humans actually want to live. While I'm usually loathe to deal in moral judgements, maybe something about the way that Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard took pains to claim authorship for their sects-pains which are really central to the whole worldview of each one-strikes me as just plain wrong. This, not exactly because it's an affront to human dignity, but maybe more because it's an affront to every poetic and aesthitic notion about nobility.
I should take a second to look at the obvious cultural asides: a cult need not concern itself with higher powers, the afterlife, or usual religious themes. Binding characteristics may include slightly weird people gathering, or strongly shared ideas, or being a decided minority. By this definition, things such as the Furry Fandom (in which the author has been involved, lawlz furfag), or Objectivism, are absolutely, formally cults. Out of most every cult comes an anti-cult, which, however noble its purpose, is typically, again, itself a cult, for this reason: it's a small group of like-minded people, very dedicated to an Idea (the deposition of the Cult from which certain of its members are presumed to have escaped), who are, just perhaps, so wrapped up in the idea, to the exclusion of normal discourse, that they're just a little bit fucked up. Of course, most anti-cults arise from the cult, when members identify what the general population knows was just so awful about it, and go rogue in a very vocal fashion. Thesis and antithesis-Hegel would have been proud.
None of what I'm mulling over should be especially new to anyone reading it. And I'm not too concerned with the cult itself, least of all when the whole Church decides to catch the next spaceship. To wilfully misapply Darwin, as teenagers and plutocrats are fond of doing, that's just nature doing its thing. The problem is when the group has been kicking around just long enough for it to become seemingly innocuous. Even if the relative number of people in the group doesn't increase, (or in some cases because of this), the group becomes extremely practiced in self-sustainment. It just seems annoying that this kind of thing can't be stopped before it starts, but that's the freedom toll, I suppose. With Religion, we actually have an excuse for looking at the Extremely Old and being willing to take a few things for faith. With the Old Cult/New Religion, however, we can see how being raised in a certain way completely dominates a person's life, the seamier side of the newer Prophet's life notwithstanding. We might still hope that in more recent days the naked truth of the Prophet's life would completely and formally discredit his or her claims, with the happy result that the cult would never be passed on. After all, this is the modern era, and we're supposed to have gotten a little better at historicism and journalism. All that gets showcased, however, is the astonishing, gapingly minute brevity of human memory. To actually come to some sort of point, and pose the question: is there any ethical or social basis for being able to prevent newly minted cults from obtaining any credibility, or new members, as the years pass and certain cults go on obstinately existing?
And if you couldn't tell by the entire structure and sentiment of this piece, I recently discovered Rotten, and it really struck a chord with me. I mean, I was floundering in self-loathing, and then I had a weekend retreat to read Rotten's library, and it just totally opened my eyes to the way things should be! I want to follow the Rotten staff everywhere (they) go, see as they see, drink what they drink............................
Anyway, discuss.
But let's stay with America. It's a free country and that's a beautiful thing; you have the right to not know almost anything that it is not your pleasure to know, and you have the right to surrender your soul, thetans or trust fund to any bona fide religion. Since religions start out as cults, though, some of which are more offensive to the mores of a particular society than others, it might help the average American if he or she didn't have to be faced with so many darn choices. Or at least, that many fewer than were to be dreamt up in the near future, but were laughed out of relevance. Maybe if some specific (albeit contradictory) popular common sense had gripped a people at various times, then, even if an early cult attracted its inevitably unstable or regional followers, it wouldn't be a nuisance to future generations-the people of the day weren't gonna fall for That Shit. Thankfully, some folks save most people the internal struggle of Religion vs. Cult by checking out in their entirety (TYVM Heaven's Gate), but this is as likely to generate imitators as anything else. At least they're not recruiting.
The devil is in the details. One thing that's not an option is to stop people's free assembly, and historical examples of law enforcement fuckups would indicate that that's not usually a desirable route in handling cults, least of all when they're not actually doing anything illegal. It's a maddening problem. In the general case, we hope that the same distance which a Religion enjoys from its specific story also renders it relatively benign. We would further hope (often in vain) that the very reason why it has been able to endure is because it has conformed to a sufficient degree to the way in which humans actually want to live. While I'm usually loathe to deal in moral judgements, maybe something about the way that Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard took pains to claim authorship for their sects-pains which are really central to the whole worldview of each one-strikes me as just plain wrong. This, not exactly because it's an affront to human dignity, but maybe more because it's an affront to every poetic and aesthitic notion about nobility.
I should take a second to look at the obvious cultural asides: a cult need not concern itself with higher powers, the afterlife, or usual religious themes. Binding characteristics may include slightly weird people gathering, or strongly shared ideas, or being a decided minority. By this definition, things such as the Furry Fandom (in which the author has been involved, lawlz furfag), or Objectivism, are absolutely, formally cults. Out of most every cult comes an anti-cult, which, however noble its purpose, is typically, again, itself a cult, for this reason: it's a small group of like-minded people, very dedicated to an Idea (the deposition of the Cult from which certain of its members are presumed to have escaped), who are, just perhaps, so wrapped up in the idea, to the exclusion of normal discourse, that they're just a little bit fucked up. Of course, most anti-cults arise from the cult, when members identify what the general population knows was just so awful about it, and go rogue in a very vocal fashion. Thesis and antithesis-Hegel would have been proud.
None of what I'm mulling over should be especially new to anyone reading it. And I'm not too concerned with the cult itself, least of all when the whole Church decides to catch the next spaceship. To wilfully misapply Darwin, as teenagers and plutocrats are fond of doing, that's just nature doing its thing. The problem is when the group has been kicking around just long enough for it to become seemingly innocuous. Even if the relative number of people in the group doesn't increase, (or in some cases because of this), the group becomes extremely practiced in self-sustainment. It just seems annoying that this kind of thing can't be stopped before it starts, but that's the freedom toll, I suppose. With Religion, we actually have an excuse for looking at the Extremely Old and being willing to take a few things for faith. With the Old Cult/New Religion, however, we can see how being raised in a certain way completely dominates a person's life, the seamier side of the newer Prophet's life notwithstanding. We might still hope that in more recent days the naked truth of the Prophet's life would completely and formally discredit his or her claims, with the happy result that the cult would never be passed on. After all, this is the modern era, and we're supposed to have gotten a little better at historicism and journalism. All that gets showcased, however, is the astonishing, gapingly minute brevity of human memory. To actually come to some sort of point, and pose the question: is there any ethical or social basis for being able to prevent newly minted cults from obtaining any credibility, or new members, as the years pass and certain cults go on obstinately existing?
And if you couldn't tell by the entire structure and sentiment of this piece, I recently discovered Rotten, and it really struck a chord with me. I mean, I was floundering in self-loathing, and then I had a weekend retreat to read Rotten's library, and it just totally opened my eyes to the way things should be! I want to follow the Rotten staff everywhere (they) go, see as they see, drink what they drink............................
Anyway, discuss.