Google Pushes It’s Tyranny And Oppression On The World

Google Pushes It’s Tyranny And Oppression On The World And

Tricks Naive Young Millennial Rainbow Hair Kids Into Helping

The Google Cult Rig Politics

 

 

 

Google is a “Cult”. Period!

 

 

The executives and investors at Google are as delusional as the stupid children that Google hires to SJW to entire planet!

 

 

The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. The term itself is controversial and it has divergent definitions in both popular culture and academia and it also has been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2] In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices,[3] although this is often unclear.[4][5][6] Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults on the basis that cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[7] The word “cult” has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.[8][9] Groups said to be cults range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions.[10]

 

Beginning in the 1930s, cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.[11] From the 1940s the Christian countercult movement has opposed some sects and new religious movements, and it labelled them as cults for their “un-Christian” unorthodox beliefs. The secular anti-cult movement began in the 1970s and it opposed certain groups, often charging them with mind control and partly motivated in reaction to acts of violence committed by some of their members. Some of the claims and actions of the anti-cult movements have been disputed by scholars and by the news media, leading to further public controversy.

 

The term “new religious movement” refers to religions which have appeared since the mid-1800s. Many, but not all of them, have been considered cults. Sub-categories of cults include: Doomsday cults, political cults, destructive cults, racist cults, polygamist cults, and terrorist cults. Governmental reactions to cult-related issues have also been a source of controversy.

 

Terminological history

 

Further information: Cult (religious practice), Sociological classifications of religious movements, Holiness movement, Faith healing, Anti-cult movement, and ritual abuse panic

 

 

Howard P. Becker‘s church-sect typology, based on Ernst Troeltsch‘s original theory and providing the basis for the modern concepts of cults, sects, and new religious movements

 

English-speakers originally used the word “cult” not to describe a group of religionists, but to refer to the act of worship or to a religious ceremony. The English term originated in the early 17th century, borrowed via the French culte, from Latin cultus (worship). The French word, in turn, derived from the Latin adjective cultus (inhabited, cultivated, worshiped), based on the verb colere (to care, to cultivate).[12] The word “culture” also derives from the Latin words cultura and cultus; “culture” in general terms refers to the customary beliefs, social forms and material traits of a religious or social group.[13]

 

While the literal original sense of the word in English remains in use, a derived sense of “excessive devotion” arose in the 19th century. The terms cult and cultist came into use in medical literature in the United States in the 1930s for what would now be termed “faith healing“, especially as practised in the US Holiness movement. This usage experienced a surge of popularity at the time, and extended to other forms of alternative medicine as well.[14] In the English-speaking world the word “cult” often carries derogatory connotations.[15]

 

Most sociologists and scholars of religion began to reject the word “cult” altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture.[16] Some began to advocate the use of new terms like “new religious movement”, “alternative religion” or “novel religion” to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as “cults”,[17] yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the word “cult” as one fit for neutral academic discourse.[18]

 

New religious movements

 

Main article: New religious movement

 

A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious community or spiritual group of modern origins (since the mid-1800s), which has a peripheral place within its society’s dominant religious culture. NRMs can be novel in origin or part of a wider religion, in which case they are distinct from pre-existing denominations.[19][20] Scholars have estimated that NRMs, of which some but not all have been labelled as cults, number in the tens of thousands worldwide, most of which originated in Asia or Africa. The great majority have only a few members, some have thousands and only very few have more than a million.[10] In 2007, religious scholar Elijah Siegler commented that, although no NRM had become the dominant faith in any country, many of the concepts which they had first introduced (often referred to as “New Age” ideas) have become part of worldwide mainstream culture.[21]

 

Scholarly studies

 

In the 1940s, the long held opposition by some established Christian denominations to non-Christian religions and/or supposedly heretical, or counterfeit, Christian sects crystallized into a more organized Christian countercult movement in the United States. For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy, were considered cults.[43] Christian cults are new religious movements which have a Christian background but are considered to be theologically deviant by members of other Christian churches.[44] In his influential book The Kingdom of the Cults (first published in the United States in 1965), Christian scholar Walter Martin defines Christian cults as groups that follow the personal interpretation of an individual, rather than the understanding of the Bible accepted by mainstream Christianity. He mentions The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarian Universalism, and Unity as examples.[45]

 

The Christian countercult movement asserts that Christian sects whose beliefs are partially or wholly not in accordance with the Bible are erroneous. It also states that a religious sect can be considered a cult if its beliefs involve a denial of what they view as any of the essential Christian teachings such as salvation, the Trinity, Jesus himself as a person, the ministry of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Rapture.[46][47][48]

 

Countercult literature usually expresses doctrinal or theological concerns and a missionary or apologetic purpose.[49] It presents a rebuttal by emphasizing the teachings of the Bible against the beliefs of non-fundamental Christian sects. Christian countercult activist writers also emphasize the need for Christians to evangelize to followers of cults.[50][51][52]

 

Secular anti-cult movement

 

Main article: Anti-cult movement

 

In the early 1970s, a secular opposition movement to groups considered cults had taken shape. The organizations that formed the secular “anti-cult movement” (ACM) often acted on behalf of relatives of “cult” converts who did not believe their loved ones could have altered their lives so drastically by their own free will. A few psychologists and sociologists working in this field suggested that brainwashing techniques were used to maintain the loyalty of cult members.[53] The belief that cults brainwashed their members became a unifying theme among cult critics and in the more extreme corners of the anti-cult movement techniques like the sometimes forceful “deprogramming” of cult members was practiced.[54]

 

Secular cult opponents belonging to the anti-cult movement usually define a “cult” as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities.[55][56][57][58][59][60] In the mass media, and among average citizens, “cult” gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant, however peaceful or law abiding it may be.[61][62][2][63]

 

While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part sceptical of their ability to explain conversion to NRMs.[64] In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.[65][66]

 

Reactions to the anti-cult movements

 

Because of the increasingly pejorative use of the words “cult” and “cult leader” since the cult debate of the 1970s, some academics, in addition to groups referred to as cults, argue that these are words to be avoided.[67][68] Catherine Wessinger (Loyola University New Orleans) has stated that the word “cult” represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals.[69] She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group’s members and their children.[69] Labeling a group as subhuman, she says, becomes a justification for violence against it.[69] She also says that labeling a group a “cult” makes people feel safe, because the “violence associated with religion is split off from conventional religions, projected onto others, and imagined to involve only aberrant groups”.[69] This fails to take into account that child abuse, sexual abuse, financial extortion and warfare have also been committed by believers of mainstream religions, but the pejorative “cult” stereotype makes it easier to avoid confronting this uncomfortable fact.[69]

 

Sociologist Amy Ryan has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign.[70] Ryan notes the sharp differences between definition from cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and those of sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are value-free. The movements themselves may have different definitions of religion as well. [71] George Chryssides also cites a need to develop better definitions to allow for common ground in the debate. In Defining Religion in American Law, Bruce J. Casino presents the issue as crucial to international human rights laws. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups “a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations”.[72]

 

American Psychological Association report

 

Main article: APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control

 

In 1983, Margaret Singer, a leading anti-cultist who also had studied the political brainwashing of Korean prisoners of war,[73][74] was asked by the American Psychological Association (APA) to chair a taskforce called the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) to investigate whether brainwashing or “coercive persuasion” did indeed play a role in recruitment by cults. [75] It came to the following conclusion:[76]

 

Cults and large group awareness trainings have generated considerable controversy because of their widespread use of deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control. These techniques can compromise individual freedom, and their use has resulted in serious harm to thousands of individuals and families. This report reviews the literature on this subject, proposes a new way of conceptualizing influence techniques, explores the ethical ramifications of deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control, and makes recommendations addressing the problems described in the report.

 

On 11 May 1987, the APA’s Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the report “lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur”, and concluded that “after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.”[77]

 

Subcategories

 

Destructive cults

 

 

Jim Jones, the leader of the People’s Temple

 

“Destructive cult” generally refers to groups whose members have, through deliberate action, physically injured or killed other members of their own group or other people. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance specifically limits the use of the term to religious groups that “have caused or are liable to cause loss of life among their membership or the general public”.[78] Psychologist Michael Langone, executive director of the anti-cult group International Cultic Studies Association, defines a destructive cult as “a highly manipulative group which exploits and sometimes physically and/or psychologically damages members and recruits”.[79]

 

John Gordon Clark cited totalitarian systems of governance and an emphasis on money making as characteristics of a destructive cult.[80] In Cults and the Family the authors cite Shapiro, who defines a “destructive cultism” as a sociopathic syndrome, whose distinctive qualities include: “behavioral and personality changes, loss of personal identity, cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders”.[81]

 

In the opinion of Benjamin Zablocki, a Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, destructive cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members’ adulation of charismatic leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power.[82] According to Barrett, the most common accusation made against destructive cults is sexual abuse. According to Kranenborg, some groups are risky when they advise their members not to use regular medical care.[83] This may extend to physical and psychological harm.[84]

 

Some researchers have criticized the usage of the term “destructive cult”, writing that it is used to describe groups which are not necessarily harmful in nature to themselves or others. In his book Understanding New Religious Movements, John A. Saliba writes that the term is overgeneralized. Saliba sees the Peoples Temple as the “paradigm of a destructive cult”, where those that use the term are implying that other groups will also commit mass suicide.[85]

 

Writing in the book Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field, contributor Julius H. Rubin complains that the term has been used to discredit certain groups in the court of public opinion.[1] In his work Cults in Context author Lorne L. Dawson writes that although the Unification Church “has not been shown to be violent or volatile”, it has been described as a destructive cult by “anticult crusaders”.[86] In 2002, the German government was held by Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court to have defamed the Osho movement by referring to it, among other things, as a “destructive cult” with no factual basis.[87][88]

 

Doomsday cults

 

Main article: Doomsday cult

 

 

Anti-Aum Shinrikyo protest in Japan

 

“Doomsday cult” is an expression which is used to describe groups that believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism, and it can also be used to refer both to groups that predict disaster, and to groups that attempt to bring it about.[89] A 1997 psychological study by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter found that people turned to a cataclysmic world view after they had repeatedly failed to find meaning in mainstream movements.[90] Leon Festinger and his colleagues had observed members of a small UFO religion called the Seekers for several months, and recorded their conversations both prior to and after a failed prophecy from their charismatic leader.[91][92][93] Their work was later published in the book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World.[94] In the late 1980s doomsday cults were a major topic of news reports, with some reporters and commentators considering them to be a serious threat to society.[95]

 

Political cults

 

 

LaRouche Movement members in Stockholm protesting against the Treaty of Lisbon.

 

A political cult is a cult with a primary interest in political action and ideology.[96][97] Groups which some writers have termed “political cults”, mostly advocating far-left or far-right agendas, have received some attention from journalists and scholars. In their 2000 book On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth discuss about a dozen organizations in the United States and Great Britain that they characterize as cults.[98] In a separate article Tourish says that in his usage:

 

The word cult is not a term of abuse, as this paper tries to explain. It is nothing more than a shorthand expression for a particular set of practices that have been observed in a variety of dysfunctional organisations.[99]

 

The LaRouche Movement[100] and Gino Parente‘s National Labor Federation (NATLFED)[101] are examples of political groups that have been described as “cults”, based in the United States; another is Marlene Dixon’s now-defunct Democratic Workers Party (a critical history of the DWP is given in Bounded Choice by Janja A. Lalich, a sociologist and former DWP member).[102]

 

The followers of Ayn Rand were characterized as a “cult” by economist Murray N. Rothbard during her lifetime, and later by Michael Shermer.[103][104] The core group around Rand was called the “Collective” and is now defunct (the chief group disseminating Rand’s ideas today is the Ayn Rand Institute). Although the Collective advocated an individualist philosophy, Rothbard claimed they were organized in the manner of a “Leninist” organization.[103]

 

In Britain, the Workers Revolutionary Party, a Trotskyist group led by the late Gerry Healy and strongly supported by actress Vanessa Redgrave, has been described by others, who have been involved in the Trotskyist movement, as having been a cult or as displaying cult-like characteristics in the 1970s and 1980s.[105] It is also described as such by Tourish and Wohlforth in their writings.[106] In his review of Tourish and Wohlforth’s book, Bob Pitt, a former member of the WRP concedes that it had a “cult-like character” but argues that rather than being typical of the far left, this feature actually made the WRP atypical and “led to its being treated as a pariah within the revolutionary left itself”.[107] Workers’ Struggle (LO, Lutte ouvrière) in France, publicly headed by Arlette Laguiller but revealed in the 1990s to be directed by Robert Barcia, has often been criticized as a cult, for example by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and his older brother Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, as well as L’Humanité and Libération.[108]

 

In his book Les Sectes Politiques: 1965–1995 (translation: Political cults: 1965–1995), French writer Cyril Le Tallec considered some religious groups as cults involved in politics, including the League for Catholic Counter-Reformation, the Cultural Office of Cluny, New Acropolis, Sōka Gakkai, the Divine Light Mission, Tradition Family Property (TFP), Longo-Mai, the Supermen Club and the Association for Promotion of the Industrial Arts (Solazaref).[109]

 

In 1990 Lucy Patrick commented: “Although we live in a democracy, cult behavior manifests itself in our unwillingness to question the judgment of our leaders, our tendency to devalue outsiders and to avoid dissent. We can overcome cult behavior, he says, by recognizing that we have dependency needs that are inappropriate for mature people, by increasing anti-authoritarian education, and by encouraging personal autonomy and the free exchange of ideas.”[110]

 

Polygamist cults

 

Cults that teach and practice polygamy, marriage between more than two people, most often polygyny, one man having multiple wives, have long been noted, although they are a minority. It has been estimated that there are around 50,000 members of polygamist cults in North America.[111] Often, polygamist cults are viewed negatively by both legal authorities and society, and this view sometimes includes negative perceptions of related mainstream denominations, because of their perceived links to possible domestic violence and child abuse.[112]

 

In 1890, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Wilford Woodruff, issued a public declaration (the Manifesto) announcing that the LDS Church had ceased performing new plural marriages. Anti-Mormon sentiment waned, as did opposition to statehood for Utah. The Smoot Hearings in 1904, which documented that the LDS Church was still practicing polygamy spurred the church to issue a Second Manifesto again claiming that it had ceased performing new plural marriages. By 1910 the LDS Church excommunicated those who entered into or performed new plural marriages.[113] Enforcement of the 1890 Manifesto caused various splinter groups to leave the LDS Church in order to continue the practice of plural marriage.[114] The Church of Jesus Christ Restored is a small sect within the Latter Day Saint movement based in Chatsworth, Ontario, Canada. It has been labeled a polygamous cult by the news media and has been the subject of criminal investigation by local authorities.[115][116][117]

 

Racist cults

 

 

Cross burning by Ku Klux Klan members in 1915.

 

Sociologist and historian Orlando Patterson has described the Ku Klux Klan, which arose in the American South after the Civil War, as a heretical Christian cult, and he has described its persecution of African Americans and others as a form of human sacrifice.[118] Secret Aryan cults in Germany and Austria in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a strong influence on the rise of Nazism.[119] Modern Skinhead groups in the United States tend to use the same recruitment techniques as destructive cults.[120]

 

Terrorist cults

 

In the book Jihad and Sacred Vengeance: Psychological Undercurrents of History, psychiatrist Peter A. Olsson compares Osama bin Laden to certain cult leaders including Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, Marshall Applewhite, Luc Jouret and Joseph Di Mambro, and he says that each of these individuals fit at least eight of the nine criteria for people with narcissistic personality disorders.[121] In the book Seeking the Compassionate Life: The Moral Crisis for Psychotherapy and Society authors Goldberg and Crespo also refer to Osama bin Laden as a “destructive cult leader”.[122]

 

At a 2002 meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), anti-cultist Steven Hassan said that Al-Qaida fulfills the characteristics of a destructive cult. He added: “We need to apply what we know about destructive mind-control cults, and this should be a priority with the war on terrorism. We need to understand the psychological aspects of how people are recruited and indoctrinated so we can slow down recruitment. We need to help counsel former cult members and possibly use some of them in the war against terrorism.”[123]

 

In an article on Al-Qaida published in The Times, journalist Mary Ann Sieghart wrote that al-Qaida resembles a “classic cult”, commenting: “Al-Qaida fits all the official definitions of a cult. It indoctrinates its members; it forms a closed, totalitarian society; it has a self-appointed, messianic and charismatic leader; and it believes that the ends justify the means.”[124]

 

The Shining Path guerrilla movement active in Peru in the 1980s and 1990s has variously been described as a “cult”[125] and as an intense “cult of personality”.[126] The Tamil Tigers have also been qualified as such by French magazine L’Express[127]

 

 

Members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran in France, June 2003

 

The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a leftist guerrilla movement based in Iraq, has controversially been described as a political cult and as a movement that is abusive towards its own members.[128][129][130][131] Former Mujaheddin member and now author and academic Dr. Masoud Banisadr stated in a May 2005 speech in Spain: “If you ask me: are all cults a terrorist organisation? My answer is no, as there are many peaceful cults at present around the world and in the history of mankind. But if you ask me are all terrorist organisations some sort of cult, my answer is yes. Even if they start as [an] ordinary modern political party or organisation, to prepare and force their members to act without asking any moral questions and act selflessly for the cause of the group and ignore all the ethical, cultural, moral or religious codes of the society and humanity, those organisations have to change into a cult. Therefore to understand an extremist or a terrorist organisation one has to learn about a cult.”[132] In 2003, the group ordered some of its members to set themselves on fire, two of whom died.[133]

 

Regional developments

 

 

Falun Gong books symbolically destroyed by Chinese government

 

The application of the labels “cult” or “sect” to religious movements in government documents signifies the popular and negative use of the term “cult” in English and a functionally similar use of words translated as “sect” in several European languages.[134] Sociologists critical to this negative politicized use of the word “cult” argue that it may adversely impact the religious freedoms of group members.[135] At the height of the counter-cult movement and ritual abuse scare of the 1990s, some governments published lists of cults.[136] While these documents utilize similar terminology they do not necessarily include the same groups nor is their assessment of these groups based on agreed criteria.[134] Other governments and world bodies also report on new religious movements but do not use these terms to describe the groups.[134] Since the 2000s, some governments have again distanced themselves from such classifications of religious movements.[137] While the official response to new religious groups has been mixed across the globe, some governments aligned more with the critics of these groups to the extent of distinguishing between “legitimate” religion and “dangerous”, “unwanted” cults in public policy.[53][138]

 

China

 

For centuries, governments in China have categorized certain religions as xiejiao (Chinese: 邪教; pinyin: xiéjiào) – sometimes translated as “evil cult” or as “heterodox teaching”.[139] In imperial China, the classification of a religion as xiejiao did not necessarily mean that a religion’s teachings were believed to be false or inauthentic, but rather, the label was applied to religious groups that were not authorized by the state, or that were seen as challenging the legitimacy of the state.[139] In modern China, the term xiejiao continues to be used to denote teachings that the government disapproves of, and these groups face suppression and punishment by authorities. Fourteen different groups in China have been listed by the ministry of public security as xiejiao.[140] In addition, in 1999, Chinese authorities denounced the Falun Gong spiritual practice as a heretical teaching, and they launched a campaign to eliminate it. According to Amnesty International, the persecution of Falun Gong includes a multifaceted propaganda campaign,[141] a program of enforced ideological conversion and re-education, as well as a variety of extralegal coercive measures, such as arbitrary arrests, forced labour, and physical torture, sometimes resulting in death.[142]

 

Russia

 

In 2008 the Russian Interior Ministry prepared a list of “extremist groups.” At the top of the list were Islamic groups outside of “traditional Islam,” which is supervised by the Russian government. Next listed were “Pagan cults”.[143] In 2009 the Russian Ministry of Justice created a council which it named “Council of Experts Conducting State Religious Studies Expert Analysis.” The new council listed 80 large sects which it considered potentially dangerous to Russian society, and mentioned that there were thousands of smaller ones. Large sects listed included: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and what were called “neo-Pentecostals.”[144]

 

United States

 

In the 1970s, the scientific status of the “brainwashing theory” became a central topic in U.S. court cases where the theory was used to try to justify the use of the forceful deprogramming of cult members.[145][135] Meanwhile, sociologists critical of these theories assisted advocates of religious freedom in defending the legitimacy of new religious movements in court.[53][138] In the United States religious activities of cults are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits governmental establishment of religion and protects freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. However, no religious or cult members are granted any special immunity from criminal charges.[146]

 

Western Europe

 

France and Belgium have taken policy positions which accept “brainwashing” theories uncritically, while other European nations, like Sweden and Italy, are cautious about brainwashing and have adopted more neutral responses to new religions.[147] Scholars have suggested that outrage following the mass murder/suicides perpetuated by the Solar Temple[53][148] as well as the more latent xenophobic and anti-American attitudes have contributed significantly to European anti-cult positions.[149] In the 1980s clergymen and officials of the French government expressed concern that some orders and other groups within the Roman Catholic Church would be adversely affected by anti-cult laws then being considered.[150]

 

See also

 

 

Footnotes

 

 

 

  • Richardson, James T. (1993). “Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative”. Review of Religious Research. Religious Research Association, Inc. 34 (4): 348–56. JSTOR 3511972. doi:10.2307/3511972.

 

 

  • OED, citing American Journal of Sociology 85 (1980), p. 1377: “Cults […], like other deviant social movements, tend to recruit people with a grievance, people who suffer from a some variety of deprivation.”

 

  • Chuck Shaw – Sects and Cults – Greenville Technical College – Retrieved 21 March 2013.

 

  • Olson, Paul J. 2006. “The Public Perception of ‘Cults’ and ‘New Religious Movements’.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45 (1): 97–106

 

  • Stark, Rodney; Bainbridge, William Sims (1987). The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-05731-9

 

  • Chuck Shaw – Sects and Cults – Greenville Technical College. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

 

  • Bromley, David Melton, J. Gordon 2002. Cults, Religion, and Violence. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

 

  • Eileen Barker, 1999, “New Religious Movements: their incidence and significance”, New Religious Movements: challenge and response, Bryan Wilson and Jamie Cresswell editors, Routledge ISBN 0-415-20050-4

 

 

 

  • culture – Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 25 May 2014.

 

  • In W. S. Taylor, ‘Science and cult’, Psychological Review, Vol 37(2), March 1930, “cultist” is still used in the sense that would now be expressed by “religionist”, i.e. anyone adopting a religious worldview as opposed to a scientific one. In the New York State Journal of Medicine of 1932, p. 84 (and other medical publications of the 1930s; e.g. Morris Fishbein, Fads and Quackery in Healing: An Analysis of the Foibles of the Healing Cults, 1932), “cultist” is used of those adhering to what was then called “healing cults”, and would now be referred to as faith healing, but also of other forms of alternative medicine (“cultist” (in quotes) of a chiropractor in United States naval medical bulletin, Volume 28, 1930, p. 366).

 

  • Compare: T.L. Brink (2008) Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach. “Unit 13: Social Psychology”. pp 320 [1] – “Cult is a somewhat derogatory term for a new religious movement, especially one with unusual theological doctrine or one that is abusive of its membership.”

 

  • Dawson, Lorne L. (2006). Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-542009-8.

 

  • Goldman, Marion (2006). “Review Essay: Cults, New Religions, and the Spiritual Landscape: A Review of Four Collections”. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion. 45 (1): 87–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00007.x.

 

  • Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The Sociology of Religious Movements. New York: Routledge. p. 24. ISBN 0-415-91202-4.

 

  • Clarke, Peter B. 2006. New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. New York: Routledge.

 

 

 

  • Weber, Maximillan. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Chapter: “The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization” translated by A. R. Anderson and Talcott Parsons, 1947. Originally published in 1922 in German under the title Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft chapter III, § 10 (available online)

 

  • Swatos, William H. Jr. (1998). “Church-Sect Theory”. In William H. Swatos Jr. Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. pp. 90–93. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1.

 

  • Campbell, Colin (1998). “Cult”. In William H. Swatos Jr. Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. pp. 122–23. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations, Volume 5 of Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, W. Michael Ashcraft, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 ISBN 978-0-275-98717-6, p. 180

 

  • Exploring New Religions, Issues in contemporary religion, George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001 ISBN 978-0-8264-5959-6 p. 1

 

  • Wallis, Roy Scientology: Therapeutic Cult to Religious Sect abstract only (1975)

 

  • Bruce Campbell (1978). “A Typology of Cults.” Sociology Analysis, Santa Barbara

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Bader, Chris & A. Demaris, A test of the Stark-Bainbridge theory of affiliation with religious cults and sects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 285–303. (1996)

 

  • Ed Brubaker, Fatale #21, 2014, Image, pp. 20–21

 

 

  • J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, 1992). p. 5

 

  • Walter Ralston Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Bethany House, 2003, ISBN 0-7642-2821-8 p. 18

 

  • Walter R. Martin, The Rise of the Cults, rev.ed. Santa Ana: Vision House, 1978, pp. 11–12.

 

  • Richard Abanes, Defending the Faith: A Beginner’s Guide to Cults and New Religions, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997, p. 33.

 

  • H. Wayne House & Gordon Carle, Doctrine Twisting: How Core Biblical Truths are Distorted, Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.

 

  • Garry W. Trompf, “Missiology, Methodology and the Study of New Religious Movements”, Religious Traditions Volume 10, 1987, pp. 95–106.

 

  • Walter R. Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, rev.ed. Ravi Zacharias ed. Bloomington: Bethany House, 2003, pp. 479–93.

 

  • Ronald Enroth ed. Evangelising the Cults, Milton Keynes: Word, 1990.

 

  • Norman L Geisler & Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

 

 

  • Shupe, Anson (1998). “Anti-Cult Movement”. In William H. Swatos Jr. Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1.

 

  • T. Robbins and D. Anthony (1982:283, quoted in Richardson 1993:351) (“…certain manipulative and authoritarian groups which allegedly employ mind control and pose a threat to mental health are universally labeled cults. These groups are usually 1) authoritarian in their leadership; 2)communal and totalistic in their organization; 3) aggressive in their proselytizing; 4) systematic in their programs of indoctrination; 5)relatively new and unfamiliar in the United States; 6)middle class in their clientele”)

 

  • Melton, J. Gordon (10 December 1999). “Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory”. CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 15 June 2009. In the United States at the end of the 1970s, brainwashing emerged as a popular theoretical construct around which to understand what appeared to be a sudden rise of new and unfamiliar religious movements during the previous decade, especially those associated with the hippie street-people phenomenon.

 

  • Bromley, David G. (1998). “Brainwashing”. In William H. Swatos Jr. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-7619-8956-1.

 

  • Barker, Eileen: New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery office, 1989.

 

 

 

  • Hill, Harvey, John Hickman and Joel McLendon (2001). “Cults and Sects and Doomsday Groups, Oh My: Media Treatment of Religion on the Eve of the Millennium”. Review of Religious Research. 43 (1): 24–38. JSTOR 3512241. doi:10.2307/3512241.

 

  • van Driel, Barend; J. Richardson (1988). “Cult versus sect: Categorization of new religions in American print media”. Sociological Analysis. 49 (2): 171–83. JSTOR 3711011. doi:10.2307/3711011.

 

  • Wright, Stewart A. (1997). “Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any ‘Good News’ for Minority Faiths?”. Review of Religious Research. Review of Religious Research, Vol. 39, No. 2. 39 (2): 101–15. JSTOR 3512176. doi:10.2307/3512176.

 

 

  • Ayella, Marybeth (1990). “They Must Be Crazy: Some of the Difficulties in Researching ‘Cults'”. American Behavioral Scientist. 33 (5): 562–77. doi:10.1177/0002764290033005005.

 

 

  • Pilgrims of Love: The Anthropology of a Global Sufi Cult. By Pnina Werbner. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003. xvi, 348 pp “…the excessive use of “cult” is also potentially misleading. With its pejorative connotations”

 

  • “Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative”, James T. Richardson, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Jun. 1993), pp. 348–56 “the word cult is useless, and should be avoided because of the confusion between the historic meaning of the word and current pejorative use”

 

 

  • Amy Ryan: New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences (2000) [2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). “Memorandum”. CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2008-11-18. BSERP requests that Task Force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board.

 

  • American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). “Memorandum”. CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religion. Retrieved 2008-11-18. BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.

 

 

  • Turner, Francis J.; Arnold Shanon Bloch, Ron Shor (1 September 1995). “105: From Consultation to Therapy in Group Work With Parents of Cultists”. Differential Diagnosis & Treatment in Social Work (4th ed.). Free Press. p. 1146. ISBN 0-02-874007-6.

 

 

  • Kaslow, Florence Whiteman; Marvin B. Sussman (1982). Cults and the Family. Haworth Press. p. 34. ISBN 0-917724-55-0.

 

  • Dr. Zablocki, Benjamin “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 29 March 2005. Paper presented to a conference, Cults: Theory and Treatment Issues, 31 May 1997 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 

  • Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (Dutch language) Sekten… gevaarlijk of niet?/Cults… dangerous or not? published in the magazine Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr. 31 Sekten II by the Free university Amsterdam (1996) ISSN 0169-7374 ISBN 90-5383-426-5

 

 

 

  • Dawson, Lorne L. (1998). Cults in Context: Readings in the Study of New Religious Movements. Transaction Publishers. p. 349: “Sects and Violence”. ISBN 0-7658-0478-6.

 

  • Hubert Seiwert: Freedom and Control in the Unified Germany: Governmental Approaches to Alternative Religions Since 1989. In: Sociology of Religion (2003) 64 (3): 367–75, S. 370. Online edition

 

 

 

  • Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. Guilford Press. pp. 150–153, 340, section: “Compelling Coping in a Doomsday Cult”. ISBN 1-57230-664-5.

 

  • Stangor, Charles (2004). Social Groups in Action and Interaction. Psychology Press. pp. 42–43: “When Prophecy Fails”. ISBN 1-84169-407-X.

 

  • Newman, Dr. David M. (2006). Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. Pine Forge Press. p. 86. ISBN 1-4129-2814-1.

 

  • Petty, Richard E.; John T. Cacioppo (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Westview Press. p. 139: “Effect of Disconfirming an Important Belief”. ISBN 0-8133-3005-X.

 

 

  • Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History, Philip Jenkins, Oxford University Press, 6 April 2000, pp. 215–16

 

 

  • Janja Lalich “On the Edge” (review), Cultic Studies Review (online journal), 2:2, 2003 “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2013.

 

  • Tourish and Wohlforth, 2000

 

 

  • John Mintz, “Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right”, The Washington Post, 14 January 1985 [3]

 

  • Alisa Solomon, “Commie Fiends of Brooklyn”, The Village Voice, 26 November 1996.

 

  • Janja A. Lalich, Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004 “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 27 August 2008. Retrieved 10 February 2013.

 

 

 

  • David North, Gerry Healy and His Place in the History of the Fourth International, Mehring Books, 1991. ISBN 0-929087-58-5.

 

  • Tourish and Wohlforth, “Gerry Healy: Guru to a Star” (Chapter 10), pp. 156–72, in On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000

 

  • “Cults, Sects and the Far Left” reviewed by Bob Pitt, What Next? ISSN 1479-4322 No. 17, 2000 online

 

 

 

 

  • The Youngest Bishop in England: Beneath the Surface of Mormonism, Robert Bridgstock, See Sharp Press, 1 January 2014, p. 102

 

  • Laws Relating to Sex, Pregnancy, and Infancy: Issues in Criminal Justice, C. Cusack, Springer, 5 May 2015

 

 

  • “The Primer” Archived 11 January 2005 at the Wayback Machine. – Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities. A joint report from the offices of the Attorneys General of Arizona and Utah. (2006)

 

 

 

 

  • ’’Rituals of Blood: Consequences of Slavery in Two American Centuries’’, Orlando Patterson, Basic Civitas Books, 1998

 

 

  • ’’Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader’’, Barbara Perry, Routledge, 12 November 2012, pp. 330–31

 

  • Piven, Jerry S. (2002). Jihad and Sacred Vengeance: Psychological Undercurrents of History. iUniverse. pp. 104–14. ISBN 0-595-25104-8.

 

  • Goldberg, Carl; Virginia Crespo (2004). Seeking the Compassionate Life: The Moral Crisis for Psychotherapy and Society. Praeger/Greenwood. p. 161. ISBN 0-275-98196-7.

 

 

 

  • Steven J. Stern (ed.), Shining and Other Paths: War and Society in Peru, 1980–1995, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1998

 

  • David Scott Palmer, Shining Path of Peru, New York: St. Martin’s Press, second ed., 1994

 

 

  • Elizabeth Rubin, “The Cult of Rajavi”, The New York Times Magazine, 13 July 2003

 

  • Karl Vick, “Iran Dissident Group Labeled a Terrorist Cult”, The Washington Post, 21 June 2003

 

  • Max Boot, “How to Handle Iran”, Los Angeles Times, 25 October 2006

 

  • “No Exit: Human Rights Abuses Inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps”, Human Rights Watch [4]

 

  • Banisadr, Masoud (19–20 May 2005). “Cult and extremism / Terrorism”. Combating Terrorism and Protecting Democracy: The Role of Civil Society. Centro de Investigación para la Paz. Retrieved 21 November 2007.

 

 

 

  • Davis, Dena S. 1996 “Joining a Cult: Religious Choice or Psychological Aberration” Journal of Law and Health.

 

  • or “sects” in German-speaking countries, the German term Sekten (lit. “sects”) having assumed the same derogatory meaning as English “cult”.

 

 

  • Belgium: The Justice Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives published a report on cults in 1997. A Brussels Appeals Court in 2005 condemned the Belgian House of Representatives on the grounds that it had damaged the image of an organization listed.

  • France: a parliamentary commission of the National Assembly compiled a list of purported cults in 1995. In 2005, the Prime Minister stated that the concerns addressed in the list “had become less pertinent” and that the government needed to balance its concern with cults with respect for public freedoms and laïcité.

  • Germany: The legitimacy of a 1997 Berlin Senate report listing cults (Sekten) was defended in a court decision of 2003 (Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin (OVG 5 B 26.00) 25 September 2003), and the list is still maintained by Berlin city authorities (Sekten und Psychogruppen – Leitstelle Berlin).

 

  • Edelman, Bryan; Richardson, James T. (2003). “Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China”. Nova Religio. 6 (2): 312–31. doi:10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312.

 

 

 

 

 

  • The new nobility : the restoration of Russia’s security state and the enduring legacy of the KGB, Author: Andreĭ Soldatov; I Borogan, Publisher: New York, NY : PublicAffairs, ©2010. pp. 65–66

 

  • Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians (Google eBook), Paul Marshall, 2013, Thomas Nelson Inc

 

 

  • Ogloff, J. R.; Pfeifer, J. E. (1992). “Cults and the law: A discussion of the legality of alleged cult activities.”. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 10 (1): 117–40. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370100111.

 

 

  • Robbins, Thomas (2002). “Combating ‘Cults’ and ‘Brainwashing’ in the United States and Europe: A Comment on Richardson and Introvigne’s Report”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 40 (2): 169–76. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00047.

 

  • Beckford, James A. (1998). “‘Cult’ Controversies in Three European Countries”. Journal of Oriental Studies. 8: 174–84.

 

  1. Richardson, James T. (2004). Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe. New York: Kluwer Acad. / Plenum Publ. ISBN 0306478862.

 

References

 

 

Bibliography

 

Books

 

 

Articles

 

  • Langone, Michael: Cults: Questions and Answers [5]

  • Lifton, Robert Jay: Cult Formation, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, February 1991 [6]

  • Robbins, T. and D. Anthony, 1982. “Deprogramming, brainwashing and the medicalization of deviant religious groups” Social Problems 29 pp 283–97.

  • James T. Richardson: “Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative” Review of Religious Research 34.4 (June 1993), pp. 348–56.

  • Rosedale, Herbert et al.: On Using the Term “Cult” [7]

  • Van Hoey, Sara: Cults in Court The Los Angeles Lawyer, February 1991 [8]

  • Zimbardo, Philip: What messages are behind today’s cults?, American Psychological Association Monitor, May 1997 [9]

  • Aronoff, Jodi; Lynn, Steven Jay; Malinosky, Peter. Are cultic environments psychologically harmful?, Clinical Psychology Review, 2000, Vol. 20 #1 pp. 91–111

 

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

 

 

Advertisements

Submit A News Story Or Link:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s