NationStates

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:If you are not allowed to leave, it's a cult.

^This.

It really is this simple.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
^This.

It really is this simple.

In fairness, it may not be as upfront as "not allowed" to leave. People may be told they can leave whenever they want, but that (if they do) they'll be a "quitter", a "backslider", they'll have "failed God/the movement/themselves". That's even before you get to organisations that practise shunning or disfellowshipping of people who leave.

So, it may not be as clear as "not allowed to leave" as the person being made to feel guilty or deficient for leaving, which is harder to measure.

Tombradyonia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:They encourage it without forcing it. That's a difference.

That is not entirely true.

https://humanists.international/get-inv ... the-world/

However, in 12 countries around the world “apostasy”, which is the act of leaving religion, is punishable by death.These countries are: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
In at least a further 7 countries, apostasy is punishable with a prison sentence: Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Gambia, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:In fairness, it may not be as upfront as "not allowed" to leave. People may be told they can leave whenever they want, but that (if they do) they'll be a "quitter", a "backslider", they'll have "failed God/the movement/themselves". That's even before you get to organisations that practise shunning or disfellowshipping of people who leave.

So, it may not be as clear as "not allowed to leave" as the person being made to feel guilty or deficient for leaving, which is harder to measure.

That makes it a cult, too.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
That makes it a cult, too.

Never said it didn't.

My point was that "can't leave" isn't the best or only measure by which to decide whether an organisation is or isn't a cult.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Never said it didn't.

My point was that "can't leave" isn't the best or only measure by which to decide whether an organisation is or isn't a cult.

Being pressured into not leaving on threat of becoming a pariah is just as bad as being forbidden from leaving on threat of punishment.

The difference between the two is far too small to be considered. It's a cult either way.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Being pressured into not leaving on threat of becoming a pariah is just as bad as being forbidden from leaving on threat of punishment.

The difference between the two is far too small to be considered. It's a cult either way.

You're arguing with the shadows of what you think I said, rather than what I said.

I already agreed that it is a cult either way -- whether a person is locked up or kept in place by fear of the loss of all their family and friends and the fear of being spat out of God's mouth. I merely stated that "can't leave" is not the best or only method of determining whether an organisation is a cult -- there are many other metrics.

Arkhane wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:all religions begin as cults. Nowadays the reason we don't view Christianity as a cult (not your average person) is because of how widespread it is. It's socially accepted unlike the church of Satan

The church of Satan isn't actually a religion either. Just a bunch of lazy pseudo-philosophical roleplayers who are in it for the identity and shock value.

Gormwood wrote:

Arkhane wrote:
The church of Satan isn't actually a religion either. Just a bunch of lazy pseudo-philosophical roleplayers who are in it for the identity and shock value.

It's cooler and less shameful to claim you follow Satan than it is to admit you follow Ayn Rand.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Anyone here heard of the BITE model?

I think it's a useful in-depth model when assessing religions, denominations, sects, new religious movements and cults. I think it's a reasonable model of what constitutes a cultic movement, but I think there's a difficulty in people trying to practically use the model to assess groups before getting fully involved. Cults generally drip-feed information to new recruits, until they're more "in the fold".

Rick Ross also has a useful, distilled list of ten warning signs of a group or leader that may be unsafe (it's not as in-depth as the BITE model; it's more of an overview for people who are/whose loved ones are getting involved in a group -- it covers similar axes to the BITE model, but is easier to see from the outside or without studying a group).

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.