(no subject)
Feb. 25th, 2009 05:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingUS Supreme Court rules: Religious speech is allowed by the government, as long as it's CHRISTIAN religious speech.
The sad part: While the decision wasn't unanimous, there were no dissenting justices. Which is to say, even though all the judges didn't agree on WHY Christian speech is privileged, they all agreed that it was.
The sad part: While the decision wasn't unanimous, there were no dissenting justices. Which is to say, even though all the judges didn't agree on WHY Christian speech is privileged, they all agreed that it was.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-25 11:08 pm (UTC)Which is more or less tantamount to saying "We're not racist / violating the Civil Rights laws just because we have failed to prosecute the store owner with a "Whites Only" sign over his water fountain."
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 01:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 01:53 pm (UTC)Which makes the possibility of removing "under God" from the Pledge really remote.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 02:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 02:25 pm (UTC)The troubling part is what it says about government speech. This decision basically allows whomsoever is in office at the time to pick and choose what they wish the government to say, and then claim that no-one can change that because no-one but the government knows what the government was /really/ saying, no matter what degree of whatever clear meaning is incurred in that government speech. This allows the legitimate interest of preserving historical monuments that some people would prefer be removed because they personally find them to be distasteful or offensive, but it also improperly allows the government to escape any meaningful test of what is lawful or unlawful for the government to say once it has actually been said.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 02:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-25 11:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 12:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:39 am (UTC)Religion - a large, popular cult.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:52 am (UTC)Religion - one that the speaker likes.
Cult - one that the speaker doesn't like.
There really isn't any other difference.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 01:32 pm (UTC)Some types of Christianity count, for sure, but just because a religion is small and disliked doesn't make it a cult. You can call it one, i guess, but you can call a horse a rocket if you want. Doesn't make it so.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:58 pm (UTC)Cult:
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Maybe there is a legal term I'm not familiar with, but from a language standpoint the only real difference between religion and cult is that cult carries negative connotations.
I was alone.
Date: 2009-02-26 08:38 pm (UTC)Yes, any belief and organizing influence can be turned into a cult. But, not every organization of people brought together by common beliefs is a cult. It is the practices of that organization are what determines whether or not its a cult.
A lot of religions use some practices that would put it under the label of cult, but it is what the religion USES those practices for, what ends those practices are used to produce that truly defines cult or not-cult.
Example: Indoctrination. Every faith indoctrinates and preaches that its way is the only way, is the best way, is the correct way. Some go further to state that other ways are vile and sinful and damned. The threshold of Indoctrination into cult is how the faith treats people who leave the faith or dissenting opinion. Good faiths let them go, and wish them well, the more dangerous faiths give them grief, and may even harass them, and cults isolate them from the rest on their family, and may even have them killed.
Religions also brainwash a bit, the troublesome religions get a little creepy about it and start controlling certain aspects of a person's life. Cults use brainwashing to control virtually EVERY aspect of a person's life.
Religions take money from their congregation to keep their preachers fed and livelihood maintained, the money-giving is voluntary and good congregarions put the survival of their worshippers first. Less ethical religions use peer pressure and disapproval to make people who cannot afford to give feel bad, and may even claim giving is necessary. These congregations will have their preachers rolling around in Audis and living in million dollar homes with crystal chandeliers and such. Cults often demand money and giving IS mandatory, if you cannot give you are often punished harshly and the cult takes so much from its followers it damages them.
Cults often instill in their believers that their lives are meaningless, high probability of suicide and drug addiction. As cults will often use drugs, and drug their congregations, to maintain zealous loyalty.
Cults take it beyond the extreme.
Religion ISN'T a bad thing, certain congregations ARE. certain PEOPLE are. Any tool and structure can be manipulated and used for harm. And we are often shown the worst cases, like this.
mmm... I used to go to bad congregations and argue with the caddy-driving blinged up decadent preachers, but... no one every stood up with me. I was always alone... and eventually the way no one listened and no one realized how much their con artist man-of-faith was using them broke me down and I just couldn't do it anymore, gave up in religion all together. But... I tried.
So, I speak without hypocrisy, to any and all religious people who are tried of seeing their religion viewed as a cult and with scorn by the majority. Stand up and speak out against the asshats, because I can't do it alone... and if I can reach you, I'll join you. Staying quiet, is approval, ignoring it is approval. The infection spreads.
Re: I was alone.
Date: 2009-02-26 08:52 pm (UTC)That brings up a second point, I think that cult and religion are opposite ends of a very wide scale - with the vast majority sitting in the grey area between. There are very few pure cults, and also very few religions that do not have at least some cultish tendencies.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 07:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 07:40 pm (UTC)For example, if you are coming from a criminology background, you might well be using the FBI's definition of "cult."
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 08:50 pm (UTC)I made a point. It is an accurate one. Why you are attempting to sidetrack me into a discussion of which definition I had in mind, I don't know or care.
In fact the way you keep pushing me to provide an alternate definition (seriously! just choose one! it doesn't matter! go to fbi.gov and get theirs!) suggests that we are having two totally different conversations in the same space.
So, yes, let's end this.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:02 pm (UTC)1) I stated that the difference between a cult and religion is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. I used Jack Chick as an example.
2) You stated that Chick's use was "using a denigrative term inaccurately."
3) I offered a definition in which he's using it correctly.
4) You stated that Chick is using a popular definition, not a technical one.
I don't see the relevance of #4, and am seeking clarification. There is no insult or attack intended in anythig I've said since.
My apologies if you feel that I'm pushing you.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 10:27 pm (UTC)The reason I haven't given a definition is because it doesn't matter. Anthropologists, sociologists, law enforcement agencies, and various governments and governmental entities have various criteria for what they will call a cult, and very few of them agree completely with each other. The definitions they use are all useful to their particular fields, and one of the few things they have in common is they exclude mainstream religions from the definition.*
A sociologist considers a cult to be a subset of "religion" (note that that's not saying that they're the same thing) and defines a cult or sect as a religious group that has high conflict with its surrounding culture; eventually, they generally either die out or go mainstream and become established religions. A psychologist would use a checklist that includes such issues as "are group members subject to entrapment?" The FBI has a famous checklist; France and Canada have had well-known governmental commissions to study the subject. They all use criteria that are meaningful to their fields of study and responsibility.
I do disagree with your assertion that you've provided a definition in which Chick is using the term "cult" correctly--or, more accurately, I suppose you've done it a way that is as meaningless and as non-useful to as many people as possible. The dictionary definition doesn't even come close to spelling out the popular one. Ask people in the street; of those that don't look at you oddly and hurry away, the majority will not classify the RCC as a cult.
* This is complicated by the fact that they do so deliberately. Conflating Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, snake-handling evangelicalism, and Unitarian Universalism is just generally Not Useful to these groups, so they go out of their way to separate them, usually based on behavioral traits.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 12:37 am (UTC)The problem with popular use is that it's based on personal experience. What you see people saying may differ wildly from what I see people saying. Which is why I used the term personal definition instead, I was trying to get away from the concept of popular use and towards personal opinion.
To be clear I'm not supporting or defending Chick, but using him as an example of bias. In my experience, the word cult is only used with a significant amount of bias behind it. The reasons given for using the term vary widely, but bias is consistent.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 08:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 01:31 am (UTC)Okay here I go again in brief:
- This court case was only using the Freedom of Speech aspect of the First Amendment, so the ruling had nothing to do with the separation of church and state. So it's like pretending the monument was a non-profit wanting to donate a monument with their mission statement instead of a religious group putting their tenets.
I do hope this goes back to court under the establishment clause which, in my opinion, should have been part of the issue from the beginning.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:13 am (UTC)I have kept up on this case in the news. The town is likely racist etc, but they have established precident for how to get something added to the park, and the cult did not work with it, and show how their group was established in the community.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:53 am (UTC)Not really news, just further reinforcement of what was already apparent.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 03:49 pm (UTC)I'd prefer to not have Ten Commandments monuments all over the place, truth be told. I doubt it makes recruitment any easier, and I am suspicious of any civil community that wants to commemorate the days in which it did not have to endure religious pluralism. But leave the coins and the Pledge of Allegiance out of it, because that dog won't hunt.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 08:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 10:19 pm (UTC)Of course, we use the same word in English to refer to the Judeo-Christian creator, and I don't doubt that there are more than a few people who believe that they are the same being. But the similarities disappear once we take a more than superficial analysis of the two. Our currency proclaims a trust in "God", but our taxes are not a tithe. We pledge that our nation is "under God", but our politicians are not our priests. Our presidents might say "God bless America" at the end of a speech, but they don't do it with heads bowed and hands folded. In a nutshell, the "God" of American politics is the kindly but doddering grandfather who adores and spoils us and asks nothing in return. My gosh, Santa is more imposing than this yutz. Even though the ideal has a certain relevance and a historical charm, nobody with any sense worships this "God" and therefore it is not a state-sponsored religion.
The funny thing is that I suspect that the Supremes don't want to clarify the matter even though it would be a 9-0 decision validating the status quo. Breyer and Ginsberg wouldn't want to force athiests to revere a communal ideal, and Alito and Thomas wouldn't want to codify that our national slogan honors a namby-pamby non-being. They've been punting this football away for forty-five years now, and it's not getting more palatable as time goes on.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 12:17 am (UTC)I had thought this came from a fundamental bias, since at the time the Union was formed the only prominent religions in the region were Christian faiths.
Very, very interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:09 pm (UTC)Can't force government to place your shitty religious monuments in their park. The case is clearly limited to "it would be fucking retarded to force them to remove the monument here, or accept all monuments. so we are just going to leave things as they are. ps. go fuck yourself."
it's definitely "we're not going to fucking have them either accept or deny all monuments that could have some religious symbolism"
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 07:15 pm (UTC)In no wise would it be "fucking retarded" to have them remove the one that's there; the Supremes merely don't give a shit that the government is picking and choosing between religions.