[Home]Cult/Talk

HomePage | Cult | Recent Changes | Preferences

The article at present says:
The term which plays this role in Europe is "sect." In Europe, "cult" is a neutral or common appellation to refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, whereas "sect" and "denomination" are the terms which fill that purpose in North America.
I am not sure that "cult" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "sect," and I am also not sure that "sect" is ever used in Britain to mean what Americans mean by "cult." I looked these terms up in http://www.xrefer.com and paid attention to the British references. I found no support for the view that "sect" in Britain means "extreme religious group" in Britain, and I found no support for the view that "cult" in Britain means something very close to what Americans mean by "sect."

See:

http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=592426&secid=.-
http://www1.oup.co.uk/elt/oald/ (look up "cult" and "sect")

Are you sure that by "Europe" you do mean English-speaking Europe (which is the part of Europe whose usage we care about...)?

In any case, we do want to have more info than just about the usage of the word. I mean, jeez...cargo cults, the practices of cults to get new members, brainwashing, etc. There's lots to write about there!

--LMS


The various germanic and romance-speaking countries in Europe, not English-speaking, have cognates for the English words. For instance, kulten and sekten in German (sekten also refers to sparkling wines, but in this context, to "sects.") and cultes and sectes in French. And the implications are reversed from the English usage.

Who cares? This article is in English, and the English words are "cult" and "sect."

Interestingly, English-speaking Europe, to me, is the British Isles which I don't actually count as part of Europe at all. Religious associations of all approved churches in France are referred to as "associations cultuelles." So, if you wanted to talk about fringe or questionable groups in Europe, you would use the word in each language which corresponds to "sect," and in North America, you would say "cult."

No, you wouldn't. You would use the corresponding word in the non-English language. :-)

So my point was to make it clear that when a European newspaper is translated into English for our benefit and the word "sect" appears, it is pejorative. Not so, the word "cult."

As far as a treatment of the subject in-toto, that is a maze I do not care to enter at the moment. Factually, the modern North-American usage of "cult" is itself a politico-cultural phenomenon fraught with hate, ignorance and intolerance. Those who claim the authority to write on "cults" are outside the mainstream of religion, sociology and psychology, (except fundmentalist Christians, many of whom have jumped onto the "cult" bandwagon with both feet) and are coining and redefining their terms all the time. They speak of phenomena of mental persuasion which appear only in their own books ("snapping," "milleu control," etc.), and everything from the American Socialist Party to the Old Catholic Church qualifies as a "cult." One man's cult is another's religion, and vice-versa. There are a couple of very well-researched and accurately written sites on the web which touch on this phenomenon, and it takes them page after page just to cover the basics of the arguments on both sides (religioustolerance.org and beliefnet) I could never hope to condense that quality of work into a readily digestible article.


I think the new version is a little more complete and arguably more accurate. If time permits (hmmmm - no huge chance of that) I will attempt to get together an actual article which exposits the current scene vis a vis "cults."
I think the reference to Trascendental Meditation as a cult in which all members have a relationship to Maharishi is incorrect. I have been doing TM for thirty years and have never had a "relationship" to Maharishi. I know many others like me. I will do a little more research on this topic and be back. --[John Knight]?
Please do, but bear in mind the neutral point of view, please. --LMS
With regards to the TM comment, what I meant to say (I don't know if I said it wrong originally, or if someone else editted what I said) was that most individual participants only had a relationship with their meditation teacher and participated in little communal activity. Of course, someone who got deeply into TM would have a lot more communal activity, but in its heyday most people who were involved (several 100,000) had their involvement limited to a short meditation course.

Also, on the reversal of the meaning of the words in contintental Europe (the UK uses the normal English meanings) -- a lot of continental Europeans will use the reversed meanings even when writing in English. e.g. recently I was reading an information sheet put out by the French Embassy to Australia -- it talks about the danger "sects" (i.e. what in English is normally called "cults") to French society. Similarly, a lot of newspaper reports discussing continental Europe will use the English word "sect" with its continental meaning, although not without explaining its different meaning. So it is not just in non-English languages, but English as well. -- SJK


This looks like a comment. May I move delete it from the article? -- Ed Poor

(And how many academic scholars of religion participate in anti-cult movements? Let's keep this neutral.)

You may move it to here, but it would be even better if you could also address the sentiment it expresses, as it is a good question. --Robert Merkel

I'd say few. The anti-cult movement gets a lot of psychiatrists, but it gets very few people who come from religious studies or sociology departments. -- SJK


HomePage | Cult | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited December 4, 2001 10:14 am by 203.109.250.xxx (diff)
Search: