Apology of cults (page 2)

drew sagan

Just a thought..
The word "cult" here is a little bit bland. I'd rather go for the safe "high controll groups" or something of the like. While the JWs are certainly a high controll group they are by no means out there with some of the other things labeled "cult" in our society. Don't get me wrong, JWs can be pretty damn desctructive with their policies, but I just don't see the cult label.
As to the benifits to a free society? I think these groups will exisit in free or closed societies. Its their nature. Do they benifit the Society where they are located? Some do and some don't. Jws for instance are scared into following a strict code of conduct. By following their own laws they benifit society by being law abiding citizens. On the other hand, other crazy stuff comes from these groups as well which can't be overlooked. A win loose situation in my opinion.

heathen

By following their own laws they benifit society by being law abiding citizens.

I think I'm going to gag on that one .....

I agree with chasson tho . Nobody needs to hear the presidents opinions on religion . This whole crap of God elected me president is just too assuming . In fact I'm tired of seeing the peace loving jesus God made out to be some sort of monster that empowers the US government to act like barbarians . Personally I don't see alot of difference between the moslem God and this God most people in government pretend to believe in . There is no moral justification for warfare in the new testament .

kid-A

I believe an adult has the right to adhere to whatever belief or cult they so desire. If an adult JW chooses to die over the blood issue thats one thing. However, when cultic religions blatantly endanger the welfare of children, the state has the right and ethical obligation to intervene. Indeed, I would argue that forcing children to adhere to cult teachings is a blatant violation of the constitutional or charter rights of the child, regardless of the specific child welfare laws within the particular jurisdiction.

As I have said many times, IMHO, children are the real victims of the watchtower. Adult converts have no excuses because ultimately, nobody is forced to join the JWs, regardless of the underlying reasons a person may have for being vulnerable to cult influences.

funkyderek

Narkissos:

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.

Too much is made of diversity. It seems life is supposed to be one big Benetton advert. Well, it doesn't have to be. I would rather live in a bland monoculture where human rights are respected than a multi-coloured cornucopia where letting children bleed to death is considered acceptable in the name of "tolerance". Tolerance or even acceptance of diversity does not have to, and should not, include acceptance of harmful practices, even if these are the outcome of sincerely held beliefs.

Fortunately it's possible for society to be diverse without having to tolerate abusive behaviour. Whole ranges of beliefs, behaviours and appearances are acceptable to those who aren't bound by the rigidity of a primitive religion. In fact, diversity is even more abundant among such people because it's on an individual and not a group level.

jwfacts

Who defines a cult? That is where this argument can never have a solution that satisfies everyone.

Diversity of belief is one thing, encroaching on human rights is another.

I personally believe a cult can be defined by the destructive qualities of shunning a person over minor wrongs, and preventing a person from seeing both sides of an argument. JWs are free to believe not to have blood, free to not believe in a trinity, but they are destructive by saying to shun the member that chooses to have blood, or shun the one that choses to believe in the Trinity. They are also destructive my constantly presenting only one side of an argument in their journals.

There have to be some rules, some prohibitions enforced by a government. Murder is prohibited and most people agree with that stance. Likewise the UN has said that it is wrong to break up the family unit. Disfellowshipping destroys the family unit and so goverments should have to power to get cults that practice such to either change or be penalised.

Midget-Sasquatch

Alot of groups define themselves by using others as a contrast or foil. The greater the antagonism, the greater the tendency to keep separate and apart. So relatively low levels of cultic activity could help societies to set more tolerant "boundaries"(Since they're usually on the fringes). Higher levels of cultic activity may contribute to the division of a society, but I doubt America or anyone else is actually working that angle or could control that genie.

I agree with most of you here. Just because we're becoming less xenophobic, doesn't mean we should accept any kind of norms. We know first hand how some cults can be detrimental so some form of monitoring is prudent. I like Jgnat's proposal in this regard.

Narkissos

Interesting input.

funkyderek,

I think you're getting at the heart of the problem.

I would rather live in a bland monoculture where human rights are respected than a multi-coloured cornucopia where letting children bleed to death is considered acceptable in the name of "tolerance". Tolerance or even acceptance of diversity does not have to, and should not, include acceptance of harmful practices, even if these are the outcome of sincerely held beliefs.

Isn't that what "civilisation" is about? It's an old trend (at least from Hellenism -> Roman empire -> Christianity -> Missions -> Colonisation -> Globalisation) to "civilise the barbarians". As a result ethno- and etho-diversity is dwindling. What remains is a curiosity for tourists and websurfers in "real-life" or virtual folk museums, while the actual diversity available to both players and watchers is rather on the "Pepsi or Coke" pattern.

Cannot Western "high-control groups" be construed as a resurgence of repressed "barbary" as hard, scandalous difference within "civilisation"?

(I'm not thinking "good or bad," just trying to understand what happens.)

Pole

It's interesting how many cults build their PR on the appeal to freedom of speech, while suppressing any 'unauthorized' forms of it among their own members, whose rights they claims to stand up for.

I wish some governments could actually see how freedom of speech is exercised within some cults and cultic organizations.

I mean the question of whether freedom of speech should be granted to all religious entities equally is similar to that of whether we should tolerate those who don't give a hoot about tolerance by definition, because they base their agendas on religious or racial hatred.

Pole

jgnat

Are you thinking, Pole, of the Neo-Nazis, for instance?

There are movements afoot also, to grant full freedoms to children. Why draw the line at 21, 18, 16? Isn't ageism arbitrary? YET, it is obvious we must protect our young. I had long, drawn-out arguments about this with my son. I would ask him, "Does a toddler have the right to wander on to the street if she wants to?" He did not have an answer for that.

Pole

:Are you thinking, Pole, of the Neo-Nazis, for instance?

Sure, that's one example. Of course it's only an analogy to illustrate the point that tolerating those who don't really recognize the notion of tolerance is similar to granting full freedom of speech to the WTS as a priviledged religious organization who manipulate people into joining an organization where there is no room for freedom of speech.

Can you imagine a Jehovah's Witness standing up at a meeting and saying "Dear brothers, I don't quite agree with the Faithful and Discreet Slave's view on this issue"? Unless you make it clear to the elders that you truly regret your intervention and promise never to do it again, you will be treated as an apostate with all the social consequences. Should we really bother about the special priviledges of such organizations?

Pole

Apology of cults

Share this