YES, apparently. In fact, in the context of what I am addressing here, it seems to be ALL that matters.
The subject in the news on morning network television was Tom Cruise and an article written about him in Vanity Fair magazine. The subject of the article was the supposed "auditioning" having been done by the Church of Scientology looking for a wife for their prize adherent, Mr. Cruise.
As the news reporter and guest discussed some of the points of the matter and revealed how restrictive and controlling the sect is over its members, my wife said in mild surprise, "That sounds like a cult!" And the harsh emphasis her voice gave to the word cult made it clear that my sweet former Catholic innocent did not consider something called a cult to be worthy of anyone's devotion.
My wife either has not read some of my earlier posts here and there concerning cults, or she has forgotten them. Interesting that in modern times the very word cult has undergone an adaptation in definition and now, when used in the common vernacular, means only small sectarian groups that are not acceptable to the larger sects. They are Johnny-come-lately shams of true(!) belief systems and they should be avoided in favor of the long-established mainstream religious sects.
The original meaning of cult is merely stated as a set of beliefs and its pertinent tenets and rituals. So tradition and a solemn deference that apparently must be paid to long-time established sects that have grown large, means that they - the large groups - get to judge and find guilty of worthlessness, any new or slightly different sectarian group. So the cult of Catholicism (a huge and controlling cult of the larger cult of Christianity), the cult of Judaism, the cult of Islam - all these are given respect and are now free of that slur which gets hurled at Scientology or at splinters of The Worldwide Church of God, or at the Branch Davidians.
Oh yes, size definitely matters! When that rag-tag little sect called Christians finally, after almost three hundred years of sneaking around and gaining converts, got the attention of an emperor, things changed for them. Over the succeeding centuries, with the ruler of a large segment of Europe ordering the masses to convert and then with the Pope and his enforcers seeing to it that all within their domain either converted or died, the little sect became a large one.
Where is the line that must be crossed? Is there written somewhere a number of adherents that small sects must struggle to attain? When did The Sikhs become accepted as mainstream and no longer have to be mentioned always with the pejorative label of cult? When did the Mormons - or have they? Is Zoroastrianism considered mainstream? And what of those splinter groups that develop as off-shoots of tenets within traditional Christianity? Are they covered by the large umbrella and considered acceptable? Are the snake-handlers left alone and not concerned about being thought of derisively as a cult because they are still Christian? How about the tongues-talkers or the leapers & jumpers? As long as they are calling themselves part of Christianity, are they acceptable? Or should the typical judgmental cult label be casually applied to them? The lines drawn among religious sects as to their acceptability to the general citizenry of the world are anything but straight and clear lines. They resemble a Texas redistricting map!
I have my own simple line drawn: Any way of life that requires the human mind to accept unprovable doctrine over logic and makes a person subservient to ideology, choosing belief over reason, is a sad and wasteful way of living. Cult still means just that, and the larger ones are merely more detrimental to humanity because they have infected more minds. Snake-handlers are not nearly as dangerous to humanity as are Catholics or Muslims. Historically, this is very easily proved on massive scales.
So if you are smart enough to say "No, thanks" to accepting an adder in your hands, why say "Sure thing" to accepting a wafer on the tongue or the requirement of incessant washing of your hands and falling on your face to pray many times a day? Gotta be a simple case of bigger is better!"
I, then, remain a member in the cult of Physics.
ReplyDeleteIt has a lot of detractors.
Particularly vociferous are those who devote themselves entirely to feelings and emotions, rather than science, logic, facts, mathematics, the physical world, biology, history, data, observations of the physical world or even (choke, gasp!) the pseudo science black arts of psychology and sociology.
Word is, they are even suspicious of lawyers.
I cannot abide such people, so strong is my belief in what can more or less be proven as opposed to just making up delusional stuff and insisting it is true.
And I don't see any particularly good reason for abandoning the cult of Physics at this time in my life, seeing as how my Credit Union Accounts balance and it appears that they will continue to do so.
I may not be much fun at parties, but my technology works and that's pretty much what matters to me.
Yes. Give me science, physics and technology. They're demonstrably true and useful. All the wooo wooo stuff has no practicality in it.
ReplyDeleteI exist. I'm here on planet earth. My GPS works when I want to find an address. My cell phone works when I want to call someone. My auto and my computer get me around physically and etherealy. What a wonderful world and age we live in. Why does the majority of my nation want to hold onto retarded nonsense from the ignorant past?