Cults, Religions, and Connotations

The Washington Post runs an “On Faith” editorial column. The entry for June 3rd is written by Alyce McKenzie titled “One nation Under God and a lot of stress.”

The article is about Ms. McKenzie’s son’s study abroad trip where he marveled at the apparent lack of stress Denmark, in particular, enjoyed. It’s a second-hand retelling of subjective experiences, so there’s the massive grain of salt to consider.

The essay ends with a mother’s prediction that, in short, this was an important experience that will inspire her son to seek a slower life focused more on relationships and rose-smelling than “individual-achievement-at-all-costs.” It’s really a pretty sweet essay from a proud mom.

The interesting part comes in the comments. When I first started writing this, all the comments I saw were empirical and explained several reasons Denmark may be the way it is. Size, homogeneity, and economics are not insignificant factors. After that, the trolls took over.

My favorite comment is posted by “Chandragupta” and follows:

"I am an immigrant to the USA, I believe in God ( but not the God defined by religions including my own, Hinduism)and yet I am quite content and full of hygge. I experimented with atheism and agnosticism. Christianity and Islam never had an appeal, in fact the two cults insult God more than any other cult. The OP writer's son will learn to love the USA if he lives in a foreign country long enough. Is not the grass always greener across the big pond?"

Hygge, by the way, is defined in the essay as “coziness” or “tranquility” and pronounced hoo-guh. The author didn’t provide emphasis.

I was shocked by the anger I felt when Chandragupta dismissed Christianity and Islam not only as cults, but also as the most insulting cults. I feel that’s not fair, but couldn’t say why. The first definition of a cult from Dictionary.com is “a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.” Damn. Maybe he’s right.

The sixth definition is also interesting: “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.”
The first definition is so inclusive that it’s essentially useless. By that definition, any system of beliefs that has both rites and ceremonies is a cult. Christianity is a cult. Buddhism is a cult. With only a little extrapolation, Supreme Court Justices would be cult leaders! And lawyers their thralls?

The sixth comes closer by hinting at the effects of beliefs and how the believers can be affected. There’s the small problem of who gets to decide legitimacy. I don’t think we can count on the papacy to parse that out.
A cult must be a group with some religious overtones. Usually, there’s a charismatic leader, core beliefs, and rituals. There’s probably other stuff that could be included in the mix, too. The more important part is the nature of those beliefs and how they’re presented.

Let’s imagine a continuum with “Cult” on one end and “Religion” on the other. The main operating variables, as I see them, are the openness of the beliefs, and the primary goal behind those beliefs. Scientology, for example, edges toward the Cult end because their beliefs are closely guarded even from adherents. To learn the really important stuff, a person must remain committed for a certain period of time and pay the church to get the next set of materials. Islamists (Islamistism? The Bad Guys?) are also on that end of the continuum because, while their beliefs are perfectly clear, their goal is to harm others.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (among many others) are toward the Religion end because the beliefs are clear to all, and the primary goal is to protect the in-group. There is also encouragement to exercise free will and curiosity that is often quashed in more cultish systems.

“Cult” is a potent word that defies clear description. We’ll know it when we see it, right? It’s easy to dismiss a group of people by placing them in a cultish out-group, but that doesn’t necessarily mean their views don’t have merit.

I’d love to know more about what Chandragupta does believe, even though he’s clearly in one of those silly cults.