Apology of cults

by Narkissos 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Charles(chasson)' thread about Alain Garay made me think, more generally, about what we often perceive (rightly or wrongly) as an apology of cults under the banner of "freedom of worship".

  It seems only natural that cult members, officials and their attorneys should take such a stance; it is also understandable that communities which have similar interests, like small churches who tend to see anti-cultic policy as a potential threat to their own existence, support them to an extent. So we have seen, in France, the Protestant Federation criticising the heavy taxation of JWs by the fiscal administration.

  I wonder about the motivations of some other voices joining in the chorus. I suspect they may do so for very different, even antagonistic reasons.

  One noteworthy example is the US Department of State, whose yearly Report on Freedom of Worship regularly criticises the governmental attempts to control cult activity in other countries (notably, in the EU, France, Germany or Belgium). Is it a purely idealistic commitment to freedom, or does somehow cult activity serve foreign American interests? Better have people join cults and sects, which are often US-based or US-friendly, than trade unions or political parties which would struggle against US supremacy (as in Latin America)?

  In a different direction, a number of secularist thinkers, especially sociologists (such as R. Dericquebourg, J.P. Willaime or J. Baubérot in France), tend to be critical of anti-cult activity while they have no obvious axe to grind. Their concern seems to be social diversity. Central to their view, I think, is the following paradox: intolerant, internally uniform groups such as JWs which are constantly threatening individual freedom (as we know too well) are a major contribution to social and cultural diversity on a larger scale. IOW, a secular society which theoretically advocates tolerance of diversity actually generates uniformity, while uniform and intolerant subcultures produce a real diversity which helpfully challenges the actual tolerance of society at large.

  What do you think?
• 

  jgnat

  I think it means that mature cultures are screwed.

  I disagree with Russia's and France's attempt to control or inhibit the spread of cults through taxation or other penalties. Governments are notoriously famous for "getting it wrong".

  On the other hand, I do think in a free and open society, we have an obligation to our young to teach them to assess and evaluate. A free society need not be sloppy.
• 

  bebu

  
  I think that the US policy has more to do with trying to be consistent in its attitudes regarding religion. It makes no sense that we allow cults to exist here under the banner of religious freedom, while we would encourage squelching them elsewhere. I do not support the suppression of the JWs around the world, even though I disagree so heartily with them. I must respect their freedom.

  The ideas of the sociologists you mentioned are interesting. I suppose that if these societies value tolerance of diversity the most, then certainly there is no other resort than to allow even intolerant cults to exist. It is merely practicing what one preaches. Even though things can be difficult for a while, in the long run people begin to ask more questions and become better informed. For example, Islam is allowed to exist in Western countries, but we are learning much more about its nature thru world events. It isn't necessary to suppress the religion in the west as we can weigh more realistically their claim to be a religion of peace. We will vote with their feet, and that could be enough.

  Churches usually offer charities to the community. I think that if (in the case of France) churches can show regular and meaningful contributions to their entire community, then they could qualify for a tax exemption. If they cannot point to anything beyond their own teaching (eg, JWs and scientology), then they could be fully or partially taxed.

  2 cents for ya.

  bebu
• 

  slimboyfat

  The way America stands up for freedom of worship in Europe is one of the things I really admire them for. But it is interesting that you ask whether they may be looking out for their own interests in this matter. I would be interested in an elaboration of this point. You are certainly right about the protestants in France being opportunistic in their "support" for the Witnesses. The same goes for the Witnesses and their uneasy alliance with the Church of Scientology.

  Remember that when the Nazis first turned on the Witnesses in 1933 it was the American embassy that Rutherford turned to, and under pressure from America persecution of the Witnesses was toned down for a while. The Nazis constantly made the charge that the Witnesses were nothing but an American commercial enterprise (among other contradictory claims of Jewishness and Bolschevism), and they may have had this confirmed by the fact that the American government stood up for the Witnesses in Germany. But if the Witnesses were/are some sort of expression of American "imperialism", I think it must be more in symbol and culture than in economy and political interest per se.

  Have you read Penton's take on "Watchtower apologists" in his new book? He castigates the likes of Grabe, Yonan and King in strong terms. He even takes on Bryan Wilson, who was a very eminent sociologist of religion, and essentially acuses him of being pro-cult - which is way over the top, if you ask me.

  A Canadian scholar called Cowan has written some interesting stuff on this topic. I would love to buy his book on the American counter-cult scene called "Bearing False Witness", but it is a bit expensive.
• 

  jgnat

  A local scholar has suggested the line cannot be drawn between "cult" and "established religion", as a "cult" may become mainstream over time. He also argues that if brainwashing were true, then mankind can wash themselves of all responsibility for their actions.
• 

  Woodsman

  It absolutely serves American interests. Cults demand loyalty and often it is loyalty that would otherwise go to the government. Freedom to join cults breaks a governments control over individuals. It is cults today, democratic parties tomorrow.
• 

  heathen

  I think all religion are cults and given the right circumstance would easily show their dark side . I don't think we need government to define orthodoxy . It's been done in the past and you wanna talk about tyranny , just look at the history of the catholic church or the church of england for that matter , cults would have limited power if they stay out of politics .

  Interesting topic....
• 

  greendawn

  The JWs are in fact a protestant religion (or cultic religion) so it's not surprising if the French Protestants offer them some support.
  
  They deserve to be roughly treated by governments because they and others like them destroyed and will continue to destroy many lives, the world is better off without them.
• 

  A Paduan

  On the other hand, I do think in a free and open society, we have an obligation to our young to teach them to assess and evaluate. A free society need not be sloppy.

  I would agree with Jgnat that a free society need not be sloppy - sloppy is allowing them to roam the streets and utilise lies and inuendo upon a people uneducated in these matters or in this field - no consumer protection.

  When one elicites consent in medicine it is required that the consentee is fully informed of all the facts as able before consent is valid, even if further education for informing is required.

  Jws do not often even qualify their outrageous and ridiculous claims with statements like "we believe", but rather say, "this is so", and simply leave out the 'old light'.
• 

  chasson

  For me, the fact that US defend some cult as scientology or JW is not because those movement help or promote US in an economic manner.
  
  In France, the religious question are private. The state has not recognize any religion and will not recognize any. So the public activity are not concerned with religion. In school, in all administration, religion is not a concern, furthermore, the law concerning the separation between state and religion, oblige everybody to be discret concerning his religion in this area. There is an area and a time to talk and profess his religion: This is not in the work, nor in school, it is in private or when you are not at work. You could evangelize people at their home, but all the activity under the state's direction must be with no reference to any religion.
  
  I have grossly summarise the use in France, but this is the big difference between US and France.
  
  I am very surprise when a US president talk about his faith, or even show himself being in a prayer. For me, as french, and to be caricatural, this is for me a attempt to convert me, an agression. I don't care about his faith, so do he about mine, he could think what he want, he must not oblige me to see him practicing his religion. He has the right to profess his religion privately, he has the right to talk about his religion in a TV show, but not when he is talking as THE president of United-States, but when he talk as Georges Bush. So there are time and area you must be neutral in the french society, and this is exactly what islamist, scientology or JW want to suppress in France and the US are agree with them. Why ? Because, as american, the US government think that the US' model of dealing with religion is the best of the world.
  
  In France, the french's Bethel has told the young JW since 1990 to not proselytise to other student. You have the right to answer question about your faith, but if you want to give some Watchtower or Awake to one of your non-JW friend you must give it OUTSIDE the school. Evidently, you will not distribute religious litterature in th school, like all other religion. This is the law, and personnally i don't want to change it.
  
  BYe
  
  Charles