Established world religions usually follow the laws of their country. Cults want to be their own law and break the laws of society. In my opinion, most cults are nothing but psychopaths trying to create and enslave other psychopaths.
Cult or Religion and Is There Even a Genuine Difference?
- Thread starter southcitymom
- Start date
That's not necessarily true. Look at the people who have denied medical help or vaccines and claim it is their religious right.
Look at how different religious groups try to get their beliefs to become laws.
Vegas Bride
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 4,609
A cult to me is something that uses many forms of force to keep their members, both physical, emotional and spiritual. The breaking down of the persons spirit to keep them in line.
A religion, to me is something that helps build a persons spirit up.
I do not belong to any specific religion but have visited many different churches through the years to explore their faiths, with each one I was made to feel welcome and was always free to leave, never any type of pressure. With the flds, if there was anyone wishing to leave and could not do so in broad daylight with everyone watching, then to me that spells c u l t.
VB
A religion, to me is something that helps build a persons spirit up.
I do not belong to any specific religion but have visited many different churches through the years to explore their faiths, with each one I was made to feel welcome and was always free to leave, never any type of pressure. With the flds, if there was anyone wishing to leave and could not do so in broad daylight with everyone watching, then to me that spells c u l t.
VB
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there is no law requiring someone to seek medical help or vaccinations for themselves. It's a grey area when it comes to one's children. But even then I think you can refuse vaccinations for your kids unless required for entrance into public schools.
Look at the praying parents who had charges brought against them when their daughter died. As for vaccinations, they are required to go to school.
People can stand behind their religious beliefs to get around the law when it comes to vaccines.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,875
- Reaction score
- 148,154
Yes, even then you can get exemptions by putting it in writing(form). I have friends with children in public school who are anti-vaccine and have done this.
This is what I believe, also, Leila.
I guess I view cults as those groups who follow a man, as opposed to a "scriptural" teaching. By "scriptural" teaching, I include the Bible, Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc. . . . I grew up in a fundamentalist church where the leader was not God/Jesus or the Bible--it was the pastor. And it was a cult. (Of course, the congregants would all deny that while telling me I'm going to hell because I'm a woman wearing pants, make-up, jewelry, etc. I've actually seen them deny entry to the church based upon a man not wearing a tie or the woman's skirt not being 3 inches below her knee/sleeveless blouse.) I've also visited various other churches/synagogues/cathedrals/etc. (no mosques as yet because there are none in our community), and it seems that some follow their "word" and some follow a leader who just wants what he wants.
So I see FLDS as a cult because they follow Jeffs. Make sense?
My apologies if I've offended anyone. This is not my intent.
So I see FLDS as a cult because they follow Jeffs. Make sense?
My apologies if I've offended anyone. This is not my intent.
When we're talking about men with 60, 80, 180 plus wives, about teenagers given to men as 'wives' for birthday presents, about a human being who has the right to decide who marries who and, who can force even young girls to be married, who can command that parents abandon their children on the side of road-and be obeyed, and who can 're-assign' wives and children from one husband to another at will, I think we're definitely talking about a cult. It's certainly not a religious way of life which honors God in any sense related to any version of God, the bible or any other holy book I've ever encountered. If the FLDS isn't a cult, and one of the most inhumane and abusive I've ever heard and read about, then I don't know what a cult would be.
"If you don't believe as I do, then you'll spend all eternity being tortured in a fiery hell." doesn't exactly give people the warm fuzzies.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 23,811
- Reaction score
- 41,726
Ordinarily, I bristle when someone labels a religious group a "cult" -- a term that, in popular parlance, is often used to describe "a religion I don't like." Adherents of faiths considered mainstream today -- Catholics and Mormons, among others -- were derided as "cult members" in the 19th century.
FLDS, however, has all of the marks of a more academic definition of a cult: isolated from the world, secretive and beholden to a charismatic leader who exercises absolute power and authority.
Under the First Amendment, of course, cults, sects and a wide range of religious movements, new and old, are protected in the practice of their faith, no matter how unpopular or isolated from society. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some limits on religious practice (starting with polygamy in 1878), such cases are rare.
But religious freedom ends when child abuse begins. Adults, for example, may have a right to refuse life-saving health care, including blood transfusions, for themselves -- but not for their children.
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...=/20080503/OPINION0101/805020348/1006/OPINION
FLDS, however, has all of the marks of a more academic definition of a cult: isolated from the world, secretive and beholden to a charismatic leader who exercises absolute power and authority.
Under the First Amendment, of course, cults, sects and a wide range of religious movements, new and old, are protected in the practice of their faith, no matter how unpopular or isolated from society. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some limits on religious practice (starting with polygamy in 1878), such cases are rare.
But religious freedom ends when child abuse begins. Adults, for example, may have a right to refuse life-saving health care, including blood transfusions, for themselves -- but not for their children.
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...=/20080503/OPINION0101/805020348/1006/OPINION
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...=/20080503/OPINION0101/805020348/1006/OPINION
Today, Texas officials are employing a sweeping definition of "child abuse" by removing 437 children from their FLDS families. Now the state must justify its actions by arguing that all of the children were harmed or potentially harmed by life in the church culture. As Tom Vick of the Texas Bar Association (who is rounding up lawyers for the children) puts it: "If it's a dangerous situation for one child, it's a dangerous situation for all."
This is a high bar, far more difficult than a limited investigation into specific allegations of under-age marriage. A victory for the state could mean that none of the children can be safely returned to the church. That could well spell the end of the FLDS community, at least above ground.
That's why Texas should proceed with caution from here on. The outcome of this case could create new grounds for intervention when the government decides an unpopular religious group is inherently detrimental to child welfare.
Temporarily removing the children may have been justified in this case -- that's what the courts will need to determine. But the ultimate decision about the children's fate should be based on whether there is clear evidence of systematic sexual abuse rather than on general condemnation of the beliefs of FLDS followers or prejudice against their way of life.
Barring such abuse, these children belong with their parents. Being raised in an unconventional religious system may appall or offend outsiders, but it is not by definition abusive. As much as Texas officials may not want to deal with it, this case is not only about child welfare. It's also about religious freedom.
~~~~~~~
I just hope the state realizes there is more here than 'just' sexual abuse. I believe we are talking:
* systematic culling out imperfect (handicapped children) by smothering them as infants.
* a disproportionate of "accidents" resulting in the death of children due to negligence or disregard of child labor laws.
* a disproportionate amount of broken bones in young children, possibly resulting from child abuse, or at the very least, absence of supervision.
* infant abuse by slapping and holding babies under water to teach them not to cry.
* systematic removal and abandonment of teen boys due to "disobedience," the result of which is often drug abuse and suicide, but this practice serves to reduce the competition for plural wives.
* murder has been alleged as the ultimate punishment for young girls looking to escape (Flora Jessop tape concerning 3 runaways).
Then there are the financial issues:
* possible welfare fraud by collecting welfare on dead or missing children.
* extortion of unreasonable tithes to fund the church and profit its leaders.
* probable violation of child labor laws.
* probable violation of minimum wage laws.
* trading of children across state and international boundries for the purpose of becoming underage plural wives.
There's probably more, but if here isn't enough information to think RICO, then I don't know what it would take.
Today, Texas officials are employing a sweeping definition of "child abuse" by removing 437 children from their FLDS families. Now the state must justify its actions by arguing that all of the children were harmed or potentially harmed by life in the church culture. As Tom Vick of the Texas Bar Association (who is rounding up lawyers for the children) puts it: "If it's a dangerous situation for one child, it's a dangerous situation for all."
This is a high bar, far more difficult than a limited investigation into specific allegations of under-age marriage. A victory for the state could mean that none of the children can be safely returned to the church. That could well spell the end of the FLDS community, at least above ground.
That's why Texas should proceed with caution from here on. The outcome of this case could create new grounds for intervention when the government decides an unpopular religious group is inherently detrimental to child welfare.
Temporarily removing the children may have been justified in this case -- that's what the courts will need to determine. But the ultimate decision about the children's fate should be based on whether there is clear evidence of systematic sexual abuse rather than on general condemnation of the beliefs of FLDS followers or prejudice against their way of life.
Barring such abuse, these children belong with their parents. Being raised in an unconventional religious system may appall or offend outsiders, but it is not by definition abusive. As much as Texas officials may not want to deal with it, this case is not only about child welfare. It's also about religious freedom.
~~~~~~~
I just hope the state realizes there is more here than 'just' sexual abuse. I believe we are talking:
* systematic culling out imperfect (handicapped children) by smothering them as infants.
* a disproportionate of "accidents" resulting in the death of children due to negligence or disregard of child labor laws.
* a disproportionate amount of broken bones in young children, possibly resulting from child abuse, or at the very least, absence of supervision.
* infant abuse by slapping and holding babies under water to teach them not to cry.
* systematic removal and abandonment of teen boys due to "disobedience," the result of which is often drug abuse and suicide, but this practice serves to reduce the competition for plural wives.
* murder has been alleged as the ultimate punishment for young girls looking to escape (Flora Jessop tape concerning 3 runaways).
Then there are the financial issues:
* possible welfare fraud by collecting welfare on dead or missing children.
* extortion of unreasonable tithes to fund the church and profit its leaders.
* probable violation of child labor laws.
* probable violation of minimum wage laws.
* trading of children across state and international boundries for the purpose of becoming underage plural wives.
There's probably more, but if here isn't enough information to think RICO, then I don't know what it would take.
A cult typically by definition is an organization that takes away ones free will.
Often they separate families or members from family that are not part of the "church".
They usually require that you sign all of your "worldly" goods over to the church.
Basically a cult is the systematic break down of ones self. They are not an individual but just a part of a greater whole... Like ants in a colony.
There is also the "secretive" element ... Those in the inner circle "know" the truth and you can too if you just sign your life, will and brain over..
By definition this sect of Mormons are a cult so are Scientologists and Jehovah Witness's just to name a few.
The most predominant trait of a cult is to divide its members from society and instill an "Us Versus Them" mentality.
Often they separate families or members from family that are not part of the "church".
They usually require that you sign all of your "worldly" goods over to the church.
Basically a cult is the systematic break down of ones self. They are not an individual but just a part of a greater whole... Like ants in a colony.
There is also the "secretive" element ... Those in the inner circle "know" the truth and you can too if you just sign your life, will and brain over..
By definition this sect of Mormons are a cult so are Scientologists and Jehovah Witness's just to name a few.
The most predominant trait of a cult is to divide its members from society and instill an "Us Versus Them" mentality.
The bible talks of the end times in Revelations, within that subject some of the signs are FALSE PROPHETS. I dont want to turn this thread into a biblical rant, but that is just what come to mind. That being said, I feel that this paticullar sect or group whatever they chose to be called is a CULT. I have been around LDS people somewhat and I really do not think that they are all this way, nor believe in the things that have gone on at the compound. If they agreed with everything I would think this compnd would have been smack dab in the middle of UTAH!
I would call this a cult becuase of the rules imposed. A religion does have practives and ways they wish their patrons to follow but as an example if I were in a Pentacostal church ( the ones who only wear dresses ) and I chose to wear pants I do not think that I would be banished from the church or displined in any way.
By throwing these boys into the world, killing off the pets in front of the people, and the many other things we have heard I myself would call this a cult.
I would call this a cult becuase of the rules imposed. A religion does have practives and ways they wish their patrons to follow but as an example if I were in a Pentacostal church ( the ones who only wear dresses ) and I chose to wear pants I do not think that I would be banished from the church or displined in any way.
By throwing these boys into the world, killing off the pets in front of the people, and the many other things we have heard I myself would call this a cult.
Similar threads
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 95
- Guests online
- 1,209
- Total visitors
- 1,304