The world's beliefs are many and varied. There are plenty of religious groups that provide a foundation for a healthy life instead of insisting they are the only means to achieving it.

You'll be hardpressed to apply this list of grievances to the average Buddhist community, for instance. Sikhs, Jains, Baha'i, Quakers -- many more come to mind.

#2 and #3 are pretty extreme. If you have social contact with a Covenant-Breaker you are likely to lose your voting rights.

#4 is of course somewhat true because most Baha'is know someone who has been imprisoned or killed (in Iran) for being Baha'i, or at least know someone who knows someone. You'd have to be pretty irrational not to be somewhat paranoid under those circumstances.

I'm not sure what is meant by #5, but shame of course has a prominent place in the Baha'i faith, as in any religion.

Going through the list, though, I think that to a significant extent it's just a rough definition of "religion" or "culture", plus elements of leadership. Is Thomas Jefferson "above the law"? Is Muhammad? Of course they are, you can't prosecute them. Is the US Government? Yes, it has "sovereign immunity". You'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that didn't consider itself superior to the outgroup, yet vulnerable to attacks from it, or that didn't enforce some degree of ideological conformity, or that didn't shame deviations from its norms.

What I like about this article is that the author suffers from the very phenomenon they are describing, demonstrating how ubiquitous and hard to detect in oneself it is.

Now, let's take Catholicism, probably the major faith most often accused of cult-like behaviour. It certainly has some of the most political structure and (pardon the pun) orthodoxy of the major religions. But Catholicism is also extremely open. There are no fees to join. There are no mandatory payments. There are no doctrinal secrets. They're entirely open about everything they believe, up front. You don't get whacked with some dark secret ten years in. They also don't really attempt to control most, let alone all, domains of of members' lives. They go about careers, etc. as they see fit. They're also tolerant of internal criticism and dissent; you've got some Cardinals in favour of gay marriage, and some of the loudest voices about the systematic sex abuse problem (one of the biggest reasons one might call them a cult) are coming from adherent Catholics, who aren't automatically excommunicated or given other traditionally cult-like handling for their dissent.

Such difference seems very significant to me. And I'm an atheist and decidedly anti-religious, for what it's worth.

Really?

"The Catholic position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning may be used, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_birth_contr...

Thank you for your honesty. As a Catholic it's interesting to hear the perspective of an atheist on this topic.

Christianity rejects at a philosophical level any sort of dependence on 'secret information'. The teachings of the Catholic Church should stand up to scrutiny and there is nothing to hide.

Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification.

The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and you end up saying that something (like MLMs) are a "cult" even though they are not! I mean, you can make an analogy to a cult, or show cult-like properties, but absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult.

If your rule-based model defines something which is not a cult (subjectively) as a cult (objectively), then your definitions are bad, period, and you should stop using them. Instead, embrace fuzziness and subjectivity and look for the interesting properties of "cult", and learn what it teaches us about language and society.

"Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult.

In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.

The list of signs of a cult above is a useful rubric for determining if an organizational is harmful. And as others have noted the technical term “high-demand organization” has grown specifically to leave behind the religious implications of “cult”, though language moves slow and many will still use that term day to day.

Are there any organizations you’ve been involved in that have been called a cult?

I do not agree about the list. That list is there to win semantic arguments about whether something is a cult or not. Nothing to do with harm; you can argue that some of the criteria, like "shame cycles" are prima facie harmful, but most are harmless attributes. Apply it to a kid's soccer team to see this.

I have never been involved in a cult. But sure, calling things a cult is cheap. I'm Jewish, I have been a Ron Paul supporter, card-carrying ACLU member. All of those things have been called cults.

I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful.

Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors.

(Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)

The real question someone is asking when they ask "am I in a cult" is not about whether you can mark your religion as "cult" on your taxes. The question is "am I in danger of harm", and it is better to ask yourself that question directly -- is there sexual or physical abuse among the members; is there a financial obligation; does the group engage in abusive punishments or penalties. If it does those things who cares if it's a cult or not; get the hell out!

For the soccer team analogy a simple colloquial reading is fine -- "delegitimizes former members" : "quitters" -- "paranoid about the outside world" : "refs are crooked" -- "shame cycles" : well, that one is pretty bad, but it is not unusual for people to get significant personal gratification and the respect of your teammates for excellent performance, and to feel shame for failures.

Sure, subjectivity is part of it too. But if you're looking for diagnostic criteria in that list, you have to implicitly add "in a cult-like manner" to all of the criteria, and rely on the common subjective understanding of what a "cult" is to determine if they apply.

Definitions when applied prescriptively have to be looked at from an operational perspective -- _why_ does it matter that this instance belongs to that category?

NXIVM was absolutely a cult, despite a focus on self-improvement/ philosophy rather than religion. They had a supreme leader, they cut off the members from the outside, there was a clean ingroup/outgroup and they freaking branded their members. Sure, in most ways it was "just" an MLM but it was also absolutely a cult and it absolutely ruined people's lives in an identical way.

Scientology was a cult even before the point it took on the trappings of religion for tax purposes. It was originally NOT a religion - it was just more pseudo-scientific MLM nonsense. It was still a cult.

Sex cults are also definitely cults, even though the focus is on sex and the leader in general rather than religion.

Sure, it did bad things. If a member were a Christian, did it force them to denounce God or renounce their hope of salvation, or to otherwise accept heretical beliefs? I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense.

Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Even the wikipedia article on NXIVM, for example, calls it a "personality cult", a term specifically invented to refer to a cult-like organization organized around a persona rather than a religious precept.

Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.

Could you possibly link to this singular, authoritative (and non-contested) "operational definition of a classical cult"?

> Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute.

Only your absolute definition is allowed? Is there a governing body for such things?

> Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine.

This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?

> I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost.

Is it possible that this could be happening right here in this thread?

> EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.

Now we're back to "the (singular) meaning"?

Sir: do you recall where you acquired your facts? Did those who provided them to you include any supporting proofs?

I do not have an absolute definition! That's my whole point! Nor do I deny yours, but only point out that the label, by itself, adds no value to the discussion, unless there's a common framework. Surely you can acknowledge that a significant number of people would require a religious belief; that's what makes the accusation against NIXVM particularly outre, because they are cult-like without a religious element, and saying they are a cult is a way to associate them with something generally found distateful.

> This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?

YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! On the border of the taxonomy, things get very wishy-washy -- but finding someone who says that Heaven's Gate or Jonestown are not cults would be enormously difficult. The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.

I don't get to "decide" the meaning of "cult" and neither do you! It's a word in a living language in the milieu of a society with a shared cultural heritage that carries history and connotation stretching back to before we were born. It is ultimately uninteresting to debate whether NIVMX is a cult or not because it does not make more acceptable or condemnatory their practices.

If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology. But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.

Unless you're being deliberately ironic for effect and it's going over my head, are you not saying religion is an absolute requirement for a cult?

> The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.

Another shared cultural experience is delusions of omniscience.

> If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology.

Until our culture can take the distinction between reality and perception of it seriously, such observational sociology will operate on a platform of delusion.

That said, starting with this and dealing with the psychological issues later seems like a very reasonable strategy.

> But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.

A problem: this did not actually occur (this is an extremely common behavior that ideally would be persuaded out of people somehow....but I suspect you are averse to even discussing it).

Its was probably written by an adult.

Feel free to disagree and engage in the discussion rather than using reductive cheap shots.

- sharp distinction between in-group and out-group (covers 3, 4, 8)

- high degree of social control (covers 5, 6, 7, 10)

- truth is a social construct (covers 1, 2, 7, probably 9 as well)

I think that if you try to compress the information too much, it becomes too abstract and meaningless. Your local library also distinguishes between members and non-members, but it doesn't imply that they slander the former members, or are paranoid about people who buy their own books. Social control can be achieved by different ways; for some reason it seems important that cults use shame as a specific psychological tool. Many cults would strongly object against the words that "truth is a social construct", despite the fact that they use it exactly that way.

There is a social mechanism that seems unusually successful at hacking human brains. It has probably been reinvented many times independently by various abusive people, but some people also copy some behaviors from their previous groups. Lists like this are attempts to describe the mechanism. The individual points are not independent things, but parts of a complex whole, reinforcing each other. For example, it is easier for the group to shame you, after they have convinced you that all your achievements outside the group are worthless. And it is easier to convince you that everything outside the group is worthless, if they falsely exaggerate the value of the group, and then apply black-and-white thinking (our group is miraculous, the world outside is not, therefore the world outside is worthless). Black-and-white thinking comes easier if they convince you that the teachings are super important, so it is important to get them absolutely right. Etc.

LDS is accused of being a cult. But they’re generally nice neighbors. Is it still a cult if it gets big enough? Islam would’ve once been a cult as well as Christianity.

At the very least it seems any religion is a cult. We can argue then about whether something is religious or not.

To draw an analogy, if a street gang gets big enough and controls enough territory, is it a government?

The obvious follow up question is that if these phenomena only differ in size of membership, what makes one "legitimate" and the other not? Is there such a thing as a legitimate government and a legitimate religion, or are they all just another level of street gangs and cults?

For governments anyway we have an answer. Sure at some level the organization of hard force in the form of police is subject to the same practical considerations and constraints as the organization of hard force in the form of a gang, and will thus take a superficially similar form, but a gang does not give you a day in court nor does it set up a system of fair and impartial trials nor does it let you vote on its rules. A gang is fundamentally self serving. It exists for the enrichment of itself at the expense of those outside of it. A democracy, in contrast, directly contradicts the premise "the leader is above the law." So there is such a thing as a "legitimate government".

Existence and uniqueness of "legitimate religion" is left as an exercise for the reader.

(btw Trumpism is absolutely a cult. Just look at it, they had to invent the word "Trumpism" to describe the phenomena because it did not fit any other defined political philosophy and the only constant non-contradictory belief it has is loyalty to Trump himself. Seriously, try defining Trumpism in some way other than "agreeing with what Trump says no matter what." Its impossible. That's a cult.)

For example, you could have a case like China which up until recently had rulers that stepped down every 5 years. I'd call that a textbook example of the rulers themselves being subject to the rules, and indeed regular peaceful transfers of power is something rarely ever seen outside of Democracies. In spite of having some amount of rule of law, China doesn't quite match the way I've defined legitimacy, because the laws of China themselves are ultimately derived from "because the party said so". So the legitimacy of the laws rest on the legitimacy of the communist party. Where does that legitimacy come from? The short answer is "Chinese standard of living better keep trending upwards forever."

> 1. The leader is the ultimate authority

No leader because it's decentralized.

> 2. The group suppresses skepticism

Check. People are afraid to say what they think for fear of the group. Dissent is not tolerated.

> 3. The group delegitimizes former members

Check. They attack heretics relentlessly. Members are encouraged to disconnect from their parents, family, friends if they don't get on board.

> 4. The group is paranoid about the outside world

Check. They embed themselves in echo chambers and regulate speech. They use the language of safetyism to justify it. "This isn't safe". Words are violence. Disagreement is anti-*

> 5. The group relies on shame cycles

Check. They wield shame at scale on social media. Dissenters are ostracized and sometimes their employer is targeted. When that happens employers usually submit and quickly fire the dissenter to remove the heat.

> 6. The leader is above the law

Doesn't apply.

> 7. The group uses “thought reform” methods

Check. "Educate yourself", "Read the room", "If you're not with us, you're against us". They gaslight. They deny reality. They accuse others of what they are doing.

> 8. The group is elitist

Check. They are convinced they are on the right side of history. If you don't agree, you are evil and immoral. They are good and moral.

> 9. There is no financial transparency

Doesn't apply since it's a decentralized ideology.

> 10. The group performs secret rites

They have rituals but are performed in the open. One of them includes everyone stating their identification and characteristics like skin color(!). It's a ritual and loyalty test with the purpose to communicate everyone's position in the intersectional hierarchy.

If we're talking about extremely insular, high-commitment groups that tend to punish people who leave, we might as well leave behind a word that is just as often used by monotheists to refer to heretics. "Cult" and "occult" are from "hidden" anyway, as in you'd better hide if you're a heretic.