This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The word NRM is new and existed long before the word cult. Andries 18:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we could go through the article line by line, inserting "anti-cult advocates say..." in front of every POV statement? -- Uncle Ed
de:Neue Religiöse Bewegung
fr:Nouveaux mouvements religieux
pl:Nowe ruchy religijne
ja:新宗教
Cut and paste from old version of cult which I renamed to destructive cult. -- Uncle Ed 18:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And moved some things around... don't kill me but the article looked horrible. I hope I've helped, if not revert the changes please. Trying to be proactive here - not cause trouble. </nowiki> JoeHenzi 09:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Using the word cult is part of the problem. Remember that the official definition is "a religion regarded as spurious". (emphasis added for talk page)
It's almost a grammatical error to discuss whether a group is really a cult. What we mean is whether a group is really spurious, i.e., either just pretending to be a religion (while it has some ulterior goal) or professing false doctrines (i.e., heresy).
I think we'd be better off describing what NRMs actually do. Hare Krishna devotees shave their hair off, dab green paste on their foreheads, and wear diapers and dorky orange robes while pursuing a celibate communal lifestyle. They not faking this, and they're never made their leader rich. Are their beliefs really true? (Ah, that's hard to say: are any Hindu beliefs really true?)
A group that commits mass suicide thinking that will get them onto a comet, now that's what I'd call a destructive cult.
Another thing: I think we should move the info about cult checklists to a separate article. They're cluttering up all the cult, destructive cult and NRM articles. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see the Ed and Andries took upon themselves to make some sense out of the cult, destructive cult, and related articles. Commendable effort!
As this article contains a lot of duplicated text with the cult article, may I suggest to remove all that duplicate material and have a See also link to the cult article instead? -- Zappaz 22:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will add Subud to the "examples of new religious movements" section of the article because Subud is a very good example of a New religious movement. It is a good example because if NRMs in general break the mold about religious or spiritual beliefs, then Subud breaks the mold in a more dramatic way because it is not a belief system per se. There are no specific beliefs required in order to do the Latihan. Because there are no specific beliefs, it follows that, e.g., practicing Muslims and practicing Christians (or anyone practicing any religion--or an open-minded atheist or agnostic) can be in Subud without any conflict of belief. E.g., it is doubtful that a person can be a practicing Christian and a practicing Muslim at the same time because the status of Jesus conflicts in these two religions. But since Subud doesn't address the status of Jesus (or the status of anything) then there is no conflict about practicing Christians and practicing Muslims being in Subud. Aliman 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a very popular rock band in Belarus called NRM - http://nrm.by.com/ - I would like to write an article about it. Can someone explain to me how it can be done and how can I make a disambiguation page? Thanks. -- rydel 23:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure. It's easy:
There you are. Let me know if you have any problems. -- Gary D 19:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Moved the text from Hate group article to here, after a prolonged debate as per its relevace on the context of Hate groups in general, as the text is indeed relevant to this article. -- Zappaz 12:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shall we merge this article with cult into Cults and new religious movements? Like Ed Poor, I am confused what should go where e.g. I think that some of Zappaz' edits with regards to hate groups should have gone into the cult article. Andries 14:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All religions begin as 'new religious movements ' all religions begin as 'cults, as a cult is defined as a growing interest that captures some public imagination - this is without bringing in accusations of brainwashing or other controversies. A religion becomes a more established sect if it survives the death or retirement of its founder members by a generation or more. Cultists understandably don't like being called cultists as this kind of dispute shows - and the tendency to immediately put (this means cults) in brackets next to new religious movement in definitions stops NRM's being a convenient replacement phrase. The damage is however done. Most people see New religions as cults. It will now be very difficult, if not impossible for a new religion's leader to avoid beiong accused of leading a cult. The definitions have become inseperable. Though an ex-cultist myself, I have no real problems with the word cult, and 'New' soon becomes meaningless when a cult has been round for decades or more. ( User:arthurchappell
I removed some of them because I think they are too detailed for such a broad subject. The AFF accusation can go in the anti-cult movement article. Andries 07:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just created a "Fiction-based NRMs" section in the article - although I believe it's good regarding accuracy and NPOV, it could probably use some work style-wise. Help? KickAir8P~ 03:51, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
"Anonymous" is correct that a publicized gathering of adherents is not a requisite for being a notable religious movement. I suggested it as a way of proving that there actually are adherents. Emails from folks who claim that they "practice" matrixism do not indicate that the group has real adherents who actually follow the creed. Please keep looking for usable, verifiable evidence of this groups existence. In the meantime, please stop adding them to articles talking about real religions that have real followers. Thanks, - Willmcw 19:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with user:Philwelch's edit that removed the entire list of examples of NRMs. There was no real need for even one example, much less twenty. There is a comprehensive list of religions which is better than anything we could add here. - Willmcw 10:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that a list of NRM's is a useful addition to this page. ~Anonymous
The list of NRM's has now been completely merged to List of religions. In fact, I see that one of the guys who was editing the list in this article has gone over there to clean it up a little. I think the reference is all we need, the information is still there. — Phil Welch 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Phil, this is ridiculous. The "List of Religions" is a list of all religions--new or old. The NRM entry ought to have at least some representative examples. I tried to give a few for each major geographical or religious category, covering both 19th and 20th centuries. You flushed the whole thing, in favor of another list which is largely irrelevent to the NRM issue. (May 4 2005)
No, because I specifically linked to the section on "new religious movements". There was a short list before, and I didn't mind that, but someone just decided to go and expand it, and it was ruining the article. Normally I would have created a list of new religious movements, but there was already a subsection of List of religions devoted to the subject, so I merged it. — Phil Welch 01:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Our anonymous linkspamming vandal alleges: "Dr. Chris Hartney and Dr. Edward F. Crangle of the University of Sydney and Dr. Adam Possami of the University of Western Australia all work in the field of religious study and take the religion of Matrixism seriously. Just because it may be more of a a regional phenomenon is no reason for its censure from wikipedia." As follows is an examination of his claims. He is, of course, welcome to provide additional evidence if he is able.
Dr. Chris Hartney is a religious scholar at the University of Sydney. A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrix" returns two results [2]. (A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrixism" returns no results. [3]) The only result that applies to the film The Matrix is a course listing. The two applicable course listings are as follows:
RLST 1004 New Religious Movements
6 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), B.SC.,B.COM. Dr Cusack, Prof Trompf.Session: 2. Classes: one 2 hour lecture & one 1 hour tutorial.Prerequisite: . Corequisite: RLST1002. Assessment: One 2,000w essay, take-home exam, tutorial participation. An introduction to the study of twentieth century new religious movements. The course will cover ISKCON, The Ananda Marga, Rastafarianism, and the New Age among others. It will examine the controversies that have surrounded new religious movements (including brainwashing, deprogamming, the role of the media in religious controversy, and religion and the law).
RLST 2028 Religion and Film
8 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), DIP.ARTS. Dr Cusack. Session: 1. Classes: one 2hr lecture, one 1hr tutorial. Prerequisite: . Assumed knowledge: 12 Junior credit points of Religion Studies, or their equivalent to be assessed by the Department. Assessment: 2000wd Take home exam (30%); 3000wd essay (50%); tutorial participation (20%). This unit analyses the position of religion in a range of films, such as the presentation of Buddhism in recent Western films (Kundun, Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet); the image of Christianity in 'sword and sandal' epics (Ben Hur, Quo Vadis); the role of film in familiarising Western audiences with unfamliar religious traditions (e.g. the PNG ethnographc documentaries of Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson, First Contact etc); and the depiction of post-modern religious concerns in science fiction (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc).
Neither of these specifically mentions the "Matrixism" religion.
Google Scholar search on "Chris Hartney matrix" returns nothing applicable: [4].
No results of "Edward Crangle" and "Matrixism" [5]. No results for "Edward Crangle" and "Matrix" [6]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrixism". [7]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrix". [8]. Dr. Edward F. Crangle is at the University of Sydney in the Department of Studies in Religion. [9]
Google Scholar search on "Edward Crangle Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [10].
No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrixism" [11]. No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrix". [12]. Google detects alternate spelling of "Possami", which I then attempted.
No results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrixism" [13]. Six results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrix" [14]. Only applicable result is summarized below.
"Adam Possamai is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Western Sydney." His book, "Religion and Popular Culture", published 2005, is synopsized as follows:
Popular culture can no longer be exclusively seen as a source of escapism. It can amuse, entertain, instruct, and relax people, but what if it provides inspiration for religion? The Church of All Worlds, the Church of Satan and Jediism from the Star Wars series are but three examples of new religious groups that have been greatly inspired by popular culture to (re)create a religious message. These are hyper-real religions, that is a simulacrum of a religion partly created out of popular culture which provides inspiration for believers/consumers. These postmodern expressions of religion are likely to be consumed and individualised, and thus have more relevance to the self than to a community and/or congregation. On the other hand, religious fundamentalist groups tend, at times, to resist this synergy between popular culture and religion, and at other times, re-appropriate popular culture to promote their own religion. Examples of this re-appropriation are Christian super-hero comics and role playing games, Bible-based PC games, and 'White Metal' music. To explore these new phenomena, this book views itself as the 'hyper-real testament' of these new religious phenomena by addressing the theories, among many others, of Baudrillard, Jameson and Lipovetsky, and by exploring the use of fictions such as those from Harry Potter, The Matrix, Star Trek, Buffy and The Lord of the Rings. [15]
No reference is made to Matrixism or any other Matrix-inspired new religious movement.
Google Scholar search on "Adam Possamai Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [16].
The problem you have here is solely relying on whether something written by a scholar is on the Internet. Adam Possamai does devote a short page to Matrixism as an example of hyper-real religion in his book Religion and Popular Culture. It was added in just before the book was scheduled to go to press. Matrixism is not an example of fan-fiction sites, but purports to be a hyper-real religion, with some 400 devotees associated with its website. Possamai has also discussed Jedi-ism as a religion in the Ausralian Religion Studies Review, the journal now distributed by Equinox Publishing. Essay abstracts are on the Equinox website for the journal.
I could find no evidence that any of the three academics listed above are even aware of Matrixism, much less that they consider it a serious religion and take it seriously. Unless our anonymous linkspamming vandal can provide specific evidence for his claim that the three academics listed above take the religion of "Matrixism" seriously, his claim is unfounded and there remains no concrete evidence, only constantly reiterated claims that may all come from the same individual.
Many editors, including myself, have acted in good faith, asking for evidence. Our vandal has failed to provide any. He has failed to do even the most cursory research while the brunt of the labor fell upon others of us. If he had evidence at hand, he should have presented it, and his failure to do so is damning evidence that his claims are false and that this entire thing is a hoax. We are of course willing to accept additional evidence if it is forthcoming, but I hasten to advise that unless there is independently verified evidence presented, I will not again expend the effort of doing the vandal's research for him. In the meantime, I recommend that this matter is treated as the hoax that it apparently is, and as the linkspamming vandalism that it has repeatedly proven to be.
— Phil Welch 22:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC), 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (for all unsigned, unindented comments in the section "Religious scholars who allegedly take Matrixism seriously" authored by myself)
I studied under both Chris and Eddie between 1999 and 2004, and never heard them discuss "Matrixism". I'm prepared to ask them both if they know anything about it. Mhacdebhandia 11:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to Shinshukyo in the 'See Also' section; I don't know much about NRMs in other countries, but I know that they are quite numerous and widespread in Japan. In fact, when I lived there, one of the first things they told me after arriving was "Beware of Cults." Long story short, I think Shinshūkyō deserve their own separate article. I'm going to get it started, see what I can do, but help would be most appreciated (preferably from someone who knows about the role/involvement of Shinshūkyō in Japanese culture & politics, not from someone who's an apologist for "NRMs are not cults"). Thanks. LordAmeth 12:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions David Barrett, but there are two David Barretts. One is David V. Barrett who works for INFORM and Eileen Barker and wrote the New Believers. The other one writes mainly about Christian churches. Please clarify which one is mentioned. Thanks. Andries 19:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the article's bibliography you'll find that the Barrett in question is editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxofrd Uni Press. The Encyc does not just look at Christian churches but surveys indigenous new religions. The reference in the article to some 6000 nrms in Africa is derived from Barrett's work which first appeared in the late 1960s and has been regularly revised.
I have restored the "NRMs and its critics" section, that was recently deleted by Irmgard without discussion. -- ZappaZ 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
ZappaZ, the critics section here is
Do you have a special reason why this material should be here and not in Opposition?
In view of the section being already too long, I don't want to add material here to make it NPOV. Please move this material to Opposition and to the specific groups and reduce it here to one paragraph - it's not that I want to delete the material, I just want it to be in the place where it belongs and where people are looking for it. -- Irmgard 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
We should write that the term is rarely used by the media if we can find a source, probably partially because it is a mouthful. Even Eileen Barker used the term cult instead for this reason in an article about cult watch groups. Andries 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The term "cult" was not "coined by Max Weber." He's not an English speaker, and the term antedates him by three centuries. [17] -- AuntieMormom 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I note this page does not mention one of the best known NRM's, Scientology - has this been discussed in the past? MarkThomas 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hein is not a relaible source to be quoted per WP:RS. His opinions appear only on his self published website and nowhere else in the press or scholarly literature on any subject. I will be removing material attributed to him or his personal website here and elsewhere unless anyone can make a good case that he fits the guidelines in WP:RS. BabyDweezil 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, you are deleting what is now very well-sourced material. I don't understand where you picked up the notion that any opinions that strongly criticize Scientology are ipso facto not admissible to Wikipedia articles. This is yet another innovative theory. I suggest that you won't get very far with this at all in DR. Will you next try to AfD all of the Scientology-related articles? Probably not, and what you are doing here is just as misguided and hopeless as that would be. Once again, please stop deleting well-sourced material. Tanaats 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The link to the xfamily wiki that had been deleted earlier was properly deleted. see WP:EL regarding not using wiki's in ELs. BabyDweezil 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tagged this section. Obviously POV, look at the treatment of Scientology. Not sure how to fix. Suggestions? -- Justanother 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, i have no intention of being condescending; my point is that the perception of Hein as being a major voice (or even a minor voice) is not backed up in any way by the public record. And his "movement" is far from a major topic for NRM researchers, who spend 99% of their time researching religious movements, not rebutting bigots like Hein. BabyDweezil 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is gained by adding the term "controversial" to the lede of the article? We already say in the into that:
What more does this term add? - Will Beback · † · 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) It adds that it is also not universally accepted among the scholars who study these groups... Sfacets 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
for any given NRM, a sociologist of religion may view it as a group with a dominant 'world-rejecting', 'world-accomodating', or 'world affirming' orientation (wallis 1984); the tabloid press are likely to portray it as a 'mind-bending cult'; the anti-cult movement will characterise it as a soul or psyche-destroying organisation practising 'mental cohersion' (...) an e-member may see it as a group which fails to live entirely up to it's precepts (...) each view is formulated on the basis of different considerations
I'm not sure why you are quoting me here? Sfacets 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This comment was written in response to
Talk:Sahaja Yoga#New Religious Movement. However, it's a passing issue there, so I'm duplicating my comment here with its useful references for both article source use and future debate use when this issue comes up again.
"According to some authors (eg Coney, Judith 1998) 'New Religious Movement' has negative connotations, being easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" " I'd have to see the original statement, but Coney is probably wrong and/or being misinterpreted, mentioning a decidedly minor view, or referring to an irreducible odium for which there is no language remedy.
• First, groups referred as NRMs or any other term are inherently disliked by the global public because of their competition with major religions, and this will never change. Therefore any term of description including scientific value-neutral terms, will always carry some degree of odius connotation that doesn't rise to the level of pejorative.
To quote CultFAQ.org (a Christian Apologetics website):
...if deservedly controversial groups and movements like Aum Shinrikyo, the Church of Scientology, and the Unification Church were identified as, say, 'pineapples,' the term 'pineapple' would take on a negative connotation the moment people realize that you are using the term as a euphemism for 'cult.' -- ' New Religious Movements' and other Euphemism
By analogy, to truthfully call someone a Jew can convey an odium, even though "Jew" is clearly not pejorative. The Jewish movie producer Mel Brooks once did an angry TV rant on this issue, and basically said 'I'm a Jew, so what, get over it.'
• Second, and most importantly, "New Religious Movement" is not "easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" ". That was the original intent, but according to the late Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, it didn't happen:
The use of the concept "new religious movements" in public discourse is problematic for the simple reason that it has not gained currency. Speaking bluntly from personal experience, when I use the concept "new religious movements," the large majority of people I encounter don't know what I'm talking about. I am invariably queried as to what I mean. And, at some point in the course of my explanation, the inquirer unfailing responds, "oh, you mean you study cults!" -- Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" at The Religious Movements Page."
Professor Hadden has a great deal more to say about the exacting scientific and communication uses for terms "cult", "sect", and "New Religious Movement (NRM)". Both Hadden and CultFAQ.org make a more general point about defending the use of defined language. Haddon in particular defends use of "cult" and "sect" in scientific publications, and objects to the proliferation of terms surrounding the introduction of NRM. The NRM term was intentionally designed to meet the objections to pejoritive populist use of "cult". Yet precisely because the public has not accepted "NRM" as a drop-in replacement for the populist usage of "cult", NRM remains suitable as a value-neutral term for use in Wikipedia articles. Milo 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a WP article on old (defined as "extinct") religions? An example would be the pre-islamic beliefs of the Middle East. Low Sea 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed the edit made by 82.39.59.152 at 22:45, January 16, 2008. Sentence is ungrammatical, and unreferenced. I can find no other reference to "Guru Klarkay". Text removed is
Rojomoke ( talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The section recently added by Jossi, is a straight-forward criticism of the media's portrayal of NRM's. As written it does not merit it's own section, especially under the title New religious movements in the media, since offers nothing but one critisism by one author and makes no attempt to give a balanced view of the media's protrayal of NRM's. In my opinion, it belongs in the Criticism section which begins with the lead: "Criticism of some new religious movements, a subset of which are often described by their critics as being "cults," has been a contentious issue" So that is where I have moved it. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's Critisim... By it;s verry nature it's bised... get over yourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.253 ( talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article with the extensive description of dispute is quite uninformative. I admit that I am partially guilty to that by my edits to the article years ago, but I am surprised that they persisted. Questions that should be answered is how many are there? What percentage of the population is involved? Etc. Andries ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
New religious Movememts are known as Cults in the general public - Scholars who use the term know this, and acknowledge that when they classify as a NRM others (especially the Anti Cult Movement) calls a cult. Basically this article is POV fork from Cult which has been created to keep the academic viewpoint out of the article on cults where it belongs. Therefore I suggest that this article is merged and redirected to Cult. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Aside from combining articles with "cults" debate, might I suggest an explanation or addition of the relation between cult and NRM in the FIRST paragraph or up front in the article? I saw the term elsewhere and had to read the entire Wikipedia section before I understood the vernacular as "cult." Additionally, I felt compelled to corroborate this discovery by looking elsewhere online. Surely, this could have been easily avoided. If the issue has to do with neutrality or being "politically correct," I'm sure appropriate phrasing could be created such as "popularly or sometimes known as "cult'". It seems to me, however, the interest of clarity and understanding outweighs the possibility of offense. Jeffrey Hadden makes the same argument as found in the following article: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html Your thoughts? Sirvice626 ( talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Solid enough? I'm using the quote Hadden contained on the page, not the page itself and I'm not suggesting the page be a source for the article only to consider modifying the "lede" as you call it. I'm sorry gentlemen. I'm sensing an agenda on both your parts. It should come as no surprise to you that the term NRM is not widely known especially by people outside the field. The common though less neutral term is indeed "cult." Considering encyclopedias are written for the masses I would suggest you reconsider. Additionally, if your only objection is added length, I can't imagine why you would continue to redact my change. Again, I suspect you may be protecting an opinion, however I could be mistaken. Sirvice626 ( talk) 08:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) To editor Measles... Your reversion comment is: "Wording not agreed, and does not read accurately as currently written." Please explain exactly how the wording is inaccurate, when about the same wording is embellished upon in the first section? Also, since the first section does go into the fact that NRM is a relatively new term that was developed as an alternative to "cult", then why are you averse to a short note about this up front in the lede? Why hide this fact? Editor Sirvice626 makes an excellent point about clarity above. I agree with this editor that more clarity is needed for general readers. Placing a brief note as I did in the lede sentence, or somewhere near it, will improve the clarity of the article and improve this encyclopedia, don't you agree?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Measles, I admire your open mindedness. It appears as though most of us are on the same page about including a reference in the lead (same as lede?). Having said that, how to phrase it, I'll leave to those more qualified, maybe "sometimes referred to as cult?" Sirvice626 ( talk) 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'm somewhat skeptical of the judgment in using the terms "pejorative" and "derogatory" (as opposed to "considered by some to be pejorative or derogatory"), I'm willing to compromise. Thank you. How do the others feel? Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | British sociologist Eileen Barker popularized the use of "new religious movements", a value-free term much more palatable to scholars than "cults" or "sects". | ” |
“ | New religious movement (NRM) is a term used to refer to a religious faith or an ethical, spiritual, or philosophical movement of recent origin that is not part of an established denomination, church, or religious body. This term was adopted by Western scholars to substitute for the popular term, cult, and is free from any uncomplimentary meanings of that term. | ” |
I think that's an improvement, Paine. TB, short of leaving this out of the lead entirely, will anything satisfy you? What about "This term was adopted by Western scholars as a neutral substitute for the popular term, cult?" Or is that still an issue of "by whom and by what standard?" There comes a point where dissection seems endless. I'm curious to know what others think. Sirvice626 ( talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Your addition was removed. I restored it until a consesus is reached. Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The following change was made: "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view use of the word cult in describing new religions as having negative connotations." because it does not clearly demonstrate the cult was the original term used and because it does not appear here in the discussion section, I changed it back. Had this page been consulted and had it said "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view the previous term, cult, as having a negative connotation" I would not have seen a reason to revert. But please, have editors left the page and why aren't these revisions bringing warning to the change makers as mine did? Sirvice626 ( talk) 10:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How many?
}} template on it. The reference source doesn't really cover what the number of scholars is.Measles, thanks for the help. It wasn't my source. It was PE's. And I'm comfortable with the edit you made. Whether it was "previous" or presently is of no consequence to me. My only issue is that NRM is commonly used as another word for cult and the article should say so in the lead. Thanks again. Sirvice626 ( talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Measles, in what you're citing, the groups are still commonly called "cults" regardless of what criteria are used. How about we agree to disagree and adopt PE's compromise? It may not be what we all want, but it seems we can all abide by it. Else this continues ad nauseum. Don't you agree? Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Another edit was made (hopefully not done by you Measles) without discussion adding length but little value. I've changed it back to "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult." We've already agreed on a version from both PE and Measles. I don't think an additional change or a third party is necessary. Thanks. Sirvice626 ( talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Yaris, Maunus and PE. Measles: How you fail to see "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult" as a rephrasing of "British sociologist Eileen Barker popularized the use of 'new religious movements', a value-free term much more palatable to scholars than 'cults' or 'sects'", I don't understand. Moreover, if you'd like to use Hadden's quote from the previous source http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, you may do so. The source included in the article was PE's, not mine. However PE's rephrasing was obvious and in my opinion, accurate. If you recall, the original issue was NOT what constitutes a cult or NRM but whether the lead should make reference to the fact that NRM is a another word for cult. Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Third Opinion: the purpose of the lede WP:LEDE is to define the topic,summarize the article and entice the reader to continue on. It is not a place for details about history or controversial text. Therefore I recommend removing this sentence from the lede:
That sentence is already included early on in the article, in a prominent place in the History section which is the appropriate place for it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Paine, yes I did read the first part of this thread. So what I am saying is that its already in the article in an appropriate place (History section) and I don't feel it should have been added to the lede. Now that it has been added to the lede, my opinion is that it should be removed for the reasons I have stated. To have it in the lede also gives it undue weight, even if the dupe in the History section were to be removed. Regardless I think the lede needs some work, but adding this sentence on cults is moving in the wrong direction. Better to put your/our attention on defining the term more clearly and summarizing the article rather than adding a bit of history ie cult issue. Hope that helps. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Kbob, thanks for the input although I'm not sure as to why it was provided. Four of us have weighed in and a minority disagrees. Nevertheless, I would opt for that sentence to be removed from the lead IF it were the first sentence in the next paragraph. The point is, as I originally stated when I started this disucssion, the term NRM is relatively unknown and a source of confusion. For clarity's sake, I suggested it be identified with "cult" right up front. I had to read the entire article and do independant research elsewhere before understanding what an NRM was as I had never heard the term previously. Additionally, if the purpose of a lead, in part, is to define a topic, that is what "cult" is doing, defining a less commonly understood term, NRM. Aside to Measles: If there were no agreement why did you say "I'm good with how it currently reads"? Sirvice626 ( talk) 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Lead section |
(out) Thank you both for coming and offering your opinions and counsel! I think the part about explaining "why the subject is . . . notable" says it all. The usage and term "NRM" is notable precisely because it does replace words like "cult" and "sect" in academic circles.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has gotten muddy, the main point has been lost and I invite fresh input. To clarify where my dispute lies:
Measles, this is a situation I brought up for the SOLE purpose of explaining that NRM is commonly used in place of "cult." What constitutes a cult was NOT the issue raised nor was it discussed. It is another matter entirely. If you would like to add to the history section on NRM explaining that there are differences of opinion as to what makes something a cult, I would encourage you to do so. This discussion was not devoted to that. Additionally, you site the source PE provided as being the authority when I've provided another source, and there are many (see: www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm, www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, shii.org/knows/New_religious_movements, etc), that say the same thing; NRM is a new and nice way of saying "cult." On a more personal note, I posted a question for discussion. A majority opinion was reached. The minority asked for a third party opinion and two conflicting third party opinions were given. After that, a new sub discussion was started. Where does this end? Or does it only after your minority view is accepted? As I stated some time ago, the impression I'm getting is that there is an agenda here. Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'. They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries. | ” |
Measles, I'm quite clear that I did not distort the issue as it was my issue to begin with. If you felt a further explanation of NRM history was in order, that was another discussion for you to have. As for consensus building, that is not my objective. I'm simply interested in clarifying a confusing term and article so that the laymen, such as myself, understands what's being talked about. That being said, I've read the guideline and our interpretation of it seems to be different as well. How many different ways to make a majority opinion are there? Finally, and I hope this settles the matter, I am satisfied with PE's rewrite: "In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'. They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries." Is the case now closed? Sirvice626 ( talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Measles, I'll happily belabor the point. The evidence and the common sense in favor of recognizing NRM as cult was overwhelming. The argument stood on its own and needed very little help from me other than some tenactiy. I was not trying to curry favor. If I were trying to sell you a home, I would have sung your praises in song. The change has been made. Sirvice626 ( talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the first paragraph says an NRM is a movement that is not a part of an established denomination, church, or religious body. This is I believe inaccurate. I've seen both Opus Dei and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal listed as NRMs, and I believe both fall clearly within the bounds of the Roman Catholic Church, which definitely is an established denomination, church, or religious body. Maybe the phrasing could be adjusted to say that NRMs are movements which either do not fall within the mainstream of established denomations, ..., seek to restore ideas that are present within the denomination that the NRM's adherents consider neglected, or seek to add ideas which have achieved greater attention outside the denomination. I'm going to try to see what some of the sources use as definitions, but we should want to make sure we don't use a definition which seemingly rules out some of the groups described as NRMs. John Carter ( talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I concur with TB and for those interested I have found the following information useful in NRM and/or cult recognition: www.geocities.com/eckcult/cultexpose/crucible.html Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
On a mundane "technical" note, at first glance when a reader sees, "New religious movement (NRM) is a religion of recent origin . . .", it sounds as if we're saying that NRM itself is a religion (among other religions). Wouldn't it be better to say...
“ | New religious movement (NRM) is a term used to refer to religions of recent origin . . . | ” |
(? or somthing like that) — .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious organisation of recent origin" would be a better idea. Measles ( talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Who invented this "term"? Citation needed from term coiner(s). ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 09:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the rationale for including this deceptive phrase. In any context NRM refers to the same groups more or less. The fact that "religious movement" happens to redirect to religion does not change this fact, nor does it create any confusion about whether or not NRMs are also "religions". How exactly how does this confusion occur? Depending on the group being discussed an NRM could be considered a religion and at times NRMs aren't even "new", but it is not up to us to speculate about how the three words in the phrase are concieved by people who read them. It is up to us to use reliable sources and to stick to what they say. Unless you have sources that confine this phrase to religious studies in a meaningful way it is deceptive to make that statement. By the way why not "sociology" instead of religious studies? At least in the US religious studies refers to a, be it vaguely defined, discipline in it's own right, which encompasses several methodological perspectives but is not simply synonymous with the study of religion across the academy. This makes it's use even more confusing. PelleSmith ( talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The guideline suggests making the context clear as early as possible--explicitly doing so is only necessary if it isn't clear already. What is unclear about NRM or about the expert sources of knowledge about NRMs? Nothing. Those who study religion clearly use the term as a technical term, but outside of that context it means the same thing. Read the entry on technical terminology, which is what "term of art" is linked to. Its states: "Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field, the nomenclature. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use." If the second part applies then making the context clear explicitly would be necessary, but only then. That is why, once again, we don't write that "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ...". Yes it is the technical term in the culinary arts, but this technical meaning doesn't change outside the culinary arts. The context is implied. PelleSmith ( talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand if we did write "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ..." we might confuse readers into thinking that in another context the meaning changes. The same applies here. PelleSmith ( talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | When the term NRM is employed, then, the characteristics that the designated groups share in varying degrees are that they are part of a very large number of movements that appeared in Western societies or experienced rapid growth since the mid-1960s, are nontraditional and nonimmigrant religious groups, began with first-generation converts as their primary membership base, attracted among their converts higher status young adults, manifest social movement characteristics and may present an anomalous profile with respect to traditional, mainstream religious organization and belief, and proclaim themselves to be in search of spiritual enlightenment, personal development, or contact with immanent/transcendent forces, entities, or knowledge. | ” |
Context is unnecessary right off the bat. Let's remember, though, what brought us to this point. A reader was unclear on this term's relationship with the term "cult". So adios Barker if you must, however a clear concise relationship with the term "cult" is a necessary component of this article's lede.
Next, let me suggest that "faith community" be substituted with
faith-based community. And the lede-sentence wording still needs work. If I and a group of fellow students start getting together each week at the library to discuss philosophy, do we then constitute an NRM?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 05:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Pelle, I want the lead to read "In religious studies and the sociology of religion, A new religious movement (NRM)..."
What is the problem? Hyper3 ( talk) 09:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook was used as a source for the following statement:
The reference claimed that p. 4 of the Handbook was applicable here. I see nothing there to back this up. The Handbook attributes the creation of this field of study to the fact that scholars in a variety of fields started recognizing something new about these movements, suggesting a new category had to be created (though I can quote several sources that suggest even more clearly that it was meant to replace "cult"). The Handbook also goes on to say that the study of NRMs was established before the cult controversies started heating up. In any event the reference does not back up the statement in the least. PelleSmith ( talk) 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | This academic landscape changed over the course of the seventies. By the latter part of the decade, it had become clear that new religions were not indicative of a broader social transformation—or at least not the kind of transformation observers had anticipated. In addition, issues raised by the cult controversy gradually came to dominate the field. Because social conflict is a bread-and-butter issue for sociology, more and more sociologists were drawn to the study of new religions. By the time of the Jonestown tragedy in 1978, NRMs was a recognized specialization within the sociology of religion.
It took much longer for new religions to achieve recognition as a legitimate specialization within religious studies. This was partially the result of the expansion of religious studies and its own quest for legitimacy within a mostly secular university system. During the early 1970s—when new religions were becoming a public issue—religious studies was busy establishing itself as an academic discipline. Most religion scholars were reluctant to further marginalize themselves by giving serious attention to what at the time seemed a transitory social phenomenon, and as a consequence they left the study of new religions to sociologists. Consequently, it was not until a series of major tragedies took place in the 1990s— specifically, the Branch Davidian debacle, the Solar Temple murder-suicides, the Aum Shinrikyō gas attack, and the Heaven's Gate suicides—that the field of NRMs was truly embraced by the religious studies establishment. |
” |
There are places where its the use of the term that is highlighted, for example Paul J. Olson, The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Mar2006, Vol. 45 Issue 1, 97-106:
“ | In order to still be able to discuss the groups that are commonly referred to as cults, while avoiding that term, scholars have offered several alternatives. Miller (1996) prefers “alternative religious movements” to describe groups the popular media refer to as cults. Ellwood (1983, 1986) suggests “emergent religions.” Harper and Le Beau (1993) find “marginal religious movements” the best option. Beckford (1985), Barker (1989), and numerous others use the term “new religious movements” (NRMs), which has gained a strong foothold in the sociology of religion. The assumption behind all of these suggestions is that by changing the term used to describe a cult, readers will not be affected by the negative connotations the term carries and will be less judgmental of a religious movement. | ” |
Why object to the idea of the term itself being the focus? Obviously the entry is about an idea, and I know that wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the use of alternative terms to "cult" to achieve a different reception is partly the subject matter in hand. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Measles: I have read the discussion you pointed to, and you seem to have reverted some things that I understand, and others that I don't. Wouldn't it have been better to restore the one sentence that I think you are most passionate about? I think this is "there is still debate..." Hyper3 ( talk) 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe a relevant issue here with our user base on wikipedia is the feeling that we, free-source contributors, are limited by other dictionaries and other encyclopedias when defining terms. Let us create a new definition for the word "cult." Such a new definition does need not be so far different from the common definition but could be more specific, logical, and so true to its etymology.
cult: 1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
Perhaps the word 'cult' should be defined as 'the care or cultivation of.' As a past particable of Latin "colere," which means "to cultivate," "cultus" meant "did cultivate." Being that cult is from cultus, such a definition should be that cult means 'the care or cultivation of' in a past tense; how ever, as there is no present such tense other than the word 'care,' whose past particable is currently "cared," cult can be a unique word--both of past and present tense.
The agricultural meaning, between cult and cultus, may have been long ago lost, forgotten through ignorance and inhibition, but may be still used (though considered archaic). As many ancient forms of worship involved animal worship and other nature worships, exempli gratia sun worship and moon worship, (and may be studied with wikipedia's "animal worship" article), I do presume that such is the reason for the current connection between cult and religion.
Distinguishing between the words 'cult' and 'religion,' I would propose religion to be the same as cult, where one cult would be less established than a religion. Where a religious sect(ion) is a theo-/philosophically unique sub-religion, a religious cult is a less established theologically unique sub-religion or less established theologically unique religion. By my definition, Christianity was a cult of Judaism until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Mormonism was a cult of Christianity (of which section, or denomination, I am not so much aware or concerned), and is considered to still be by a majority, until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Anglicanism, also known as English Catholicism, is not so theologically removed, unique, from Christianity to be considered a cult, as much as it is theo-/philosophically unique and so may be considered a sect of Roman Catholicism--a sect of Christianity, the most simplified and old cult of Jesus Christ. Anglicanism, how ever, is so established that it is now considered equal to Roman Catholicism as a sect of Christianity and so much be considered, while catholic, the Church of England, not English Catholic.
Ancient cults such as Indian and Greek cults idolized an animal or God separate and perhaps above or removed from other animals or Gods that were also the subjects of such religions. Current cults of religions may also revere an other above others or even an out side influence, being a development of that master religion. Cults of cults do not usually exist due to the relative unestablished nature of that potential master cult; two separate cults of one master religion, though, are much more usual. As a religion is merely an established religious cult, a religious cult an unestablished religion, an unestablished and unique religion with no master religion, (not a sub-religion), would be considered merely a cult. The barrier between establishment and obscurity, whether kept by the need or desire for secrecy, by the hate or misunderstanding of extraneous persons, may keep a cult one. An example of such aforementioned religious cult, in modern context, is the Church of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiZeNgAmOtX ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase in the lead that makes it sound like there is an ongoing and active "debate" over the definitional boundaries of NRM. It is more accuracte to point out that definitional boundaries may differ between scholars, which is more common than one might think in the social scniences and humanities. The point is that this isn't exactly actively debated. Maybe we also shouldn't say "still" when using a reference that is nearly ten years old. It would also be nice to see some other sources on this so we can asses the notability of this debate, particularly as something "current". My understanding is that there isn't really a debate over definitions at this point even though there is no one strict definition that everyone adheres to. We have to remember that this is a new subject matter and things are bound to keep changing in the study of it for the next few decades. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The following helps to clarify the position. Taken from the introduction to a 2006 publication: Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: History and controversies, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0275987124.
Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative,or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. (p. xi)
As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.
No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. (p. xiv)
Measles ( talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
here are more examples, grabbed from the introduction and conclusion of a book that deals directly with the so called debate:
Interestingly, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category has also found its way into the academic/social scientific study of ‘new religious movements’, with some papers and articles drawing parallels between ‘cults’ and Al-Qaeda (see e.g. Melton, 2003;2004:238–239; Introvigne, 2004; Lucas and Robbins, 2004). However, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category entails a muddying of this very category, thus adding further confusion and lack of clarity to a concept which is already contested and controverted a point which this volume argues. (p.3)
Third, this book does not accord unique privilege to the voice of the academics/social scientists in this field of study or the academic discourse and does not consider the body of academic knowledge as automatically standing above the body of knowledge which the other contenders in the debate have accumulated. For this reason, academics working in this field may find this book unsatisfactory or in disagreement with their own positions, because it seeks to show that academics/social scientists/sociologists of religion are similar to the other interest groups involved in the debate of NRMs in that they, too, have brought different sets of agendas into play. These are partly related to pressures to which the academic community itself has been subjected, such as obtaining funding, raising institutional profiles, and the need to produce publications, arising partly from the desire to build personal reputations, and partly from the particular stances which academics have adopted with regard to new religious movements, some of which are driven by personal motives. (p. 5)
The previous chapters examined and reviewed institutional responses to NRMs and the way in which they have interacted with one another. Although I have dealt with a selection of institutional responses, my objective has been to place these in the contexts in which they unfolded and to show how academic, ‘anti-cult’, and theological responses have evolved as the NRM debate progressed over time. (p.326)
from Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions, Elisabeth Arweck, Routledge, 2006. Measles ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Another example, from the preface of Understanding new religious movements, John A. Saliba, Rowman Altamira, 2003:
It would be a mistake to assume that this book will offer, once and for all, a final, all-encompassing picture of the phenomenon of new religious movements and/or a solution to all the problems their presence has raised. The discussions conducted in diverse academic settings testify to the variety of irreconcilable opinions among those who have been studying the new religions for the past few decades. They also show that the quest for simple, unequivocal answers is unrealistic. (ix)
Measles ( talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative, or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. They may claim, for example, to retrieve and correctly interpret or represent past beliefs and practices, which have been neglected or forgotten. But their opponents might view the same claims as dangerous and deviant inventions. New religions themselves often manifest a pronounced ambivalence about their own novelty. A fundamental dynamic in new and alternative religions is that they strive to present themselves as both new and old, as unprecedented and familiar. The novelty of new religions cuts both ways; it can just as easily excite the interest of potential adherents as it can strain their credulity. As they spread their messages to those whose interest, approval, and even acceptance they hope to secure, NRMs proclaim both their challenging novelty and their comforting familiarity. (p. xi-xii)
As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.
No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. Those who enter the terrain need trustworthy and experienced guides. The essays in these five volumes provide just such guidance. Experienced, authoritative, and plainspoken, the authores of these essays provide both perspectives on some of the most prominent general features of the landscape and full descriptions of many, but by no means all, of the specific areas within it. (p. xiv)
Pelle, again, this is your opinion, nothing more, and you are attempting to advise us on how we should interpret the sources, I find this problematic. I have a brain, and I can read, I have the titles in front of me, therefore I'm aware of the issues you are raising.Stating that scholars are still engaged in a process (standard academic inquiry) of deciding what definitions and boundaries might apply, really is not a contentious suggestion, so I don't know why you are making such a fuss about a very short mention of this in the article. Multiple sources note that contention exists, and they are all good on the WP:VER front so what's the problem? Measles ( talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The term NRM, which is much debated and somewhat ambiguous, typically refers to religious
groups that have developed, or at least come to the attention of the general public and
political authorities in recent decades in the United States. However, when one examines
the situation outside the bounds of the United States, the term should include some not-so
-new groups in other societies, mainly because groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Latterday Saints (Mormons), and many evangelical Protestant groups often get lumped with NRMs in other countries. Some scholars use terms like “minority religion” to encompass this broader grouping, but herein I use “NRM,” but with the broader attribution. (p. 82)
As part of the anticult campaign, a countermeasure was developed to reverse the effects of cultic programming-deprogramming. A debate ensued between anticult activists (including some scholars of NRMs) and most NRM scholars that has created continuing controversy over the meaning and significance of NRMs. (p.73)
From intro toNew Religious Movements: Challenge and response
For students of religion or sociology, New Religious Movements is an invaluable source of information, an example of penetrating analysis, and a series of thought-provoking contributions to a debate which affects many areas of contemporary life in many parts of the world.
Barker in New Religious Movements: Challenge and response:
How many NRMs are there now?: The short answer is that we do not know with much accuracy what the incidence of new religions is. A somewhat longer answer starts with the simple truth that, of course, it all depends on what is meant by an NRM. Do we include each and every New Age group or do we lump them together as a single ‘movement’? Do we include movements within mainstream traditions (Opus Dei, Folkalore, the House Church movement – each House Church)? What about the African Independent Churches? What about the United Reform Church? Are the ‘self-religions’ or Human Potential groups really new religious movements? How new is new? What about Subud, Vedanta or possibly Jehovah’s Witnesses which is the first ‘sect’ that comes to mind in a country such as Italy when the phrase New Religious Movement is mentioned? Might we include even the anti-cult movement – sections of it certainly exhibit several of the characteristics that ‘anti-cultists’ themselves attribute to ‘cults’?
Barker again:
Definitions of movements: There is, of course, no ‘right’ answer. Definitions are more or less useful, not more or less true. The definition from which I personally start – for purely pragmatic reasons – is that an NRM is new in so far as it has become visible in its present form since the Second World War, and that it is religious in so far as it offers not merely narrow theological statements about the existence and nature of supernatural beings, but that it proposes answers to at least some of the other kinds of ultimate questions that have traditionally been addressed by mainstream religions, questions such as: Is there a God? Who am I? How might I find direction, meaning and purpose in life? Is there life after death? Is there more to human beings than their physical bodies and immediate interactions with others?
From intro to Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions:
Perhaps the most important ‘first’ that this book achieves is its bold questioning of the whole intellectual apparatus of the Sociology of Religion as it has been applied to the understanding of the New Religious Movements. For the first time this has not been used as the source of an ‘objective’, or, at least, disinterested framework for the research but has itself been held up for interrogation as the product of a complex set of interactions with the other interested parties in what, as the story unfolds, looks more and more like a developing dance, not so much choreographed as improvised, in which all the interested parties move among shifting alliances and hostilities, until it settles into an increasingly predictable pattern.
Arweck on the many questions raised:
My questions included the following: how close can/should academics be to their subjects? How much hospitality should academics accept from NRMs? Should academics
attend NRM-sponsored conferences? If yes, should expenses be accepted? If yes, how much? Should academics attend conferences organized jointly by academics and NRMs? Should participant observation be overt or covert—which or what combination of the two will ensure ‘authentic’ data? If covert participant observation is ruled out as unethical, how do we avoid only seeing the group’s ‘shop window displays’? How much time is needed to investigate a group? How much and what kind of participation should there be in participant observation?
Further questions preoccupied me: should academics stand up for NRMs, for example, by defending their activities at press conferences? Should academics sign petitions on behalf of NRMs? Should academics appear as expert witnesses for NRMs? Should they write affidavits for NRMs? What about the quality of research based on ‘flying’ field visits? Should NRMs impose their agenda on academic conferences, as happened at the 1993 conference in London? What about academics with sympathies or even allegiances to a particular Weltanschauung? What about the increasing number of NRM members enrolled in university programmes? What about NRM graduates in academic posts? Are they any different from theologians or other committed religionists? Should research projects be funded by NRMs? How do academics preserve a ‘healthy’ distance between themselves and their ‘subjects’ to avoid ‘going native’ or adopting a particular group as their tribe or their area of expertise or being adopted in turn by a group as their expert? What about academics ‘with a mission’, who use their academic standing to support and defend a particular position? Commenting on ‘subjects’ and the researcher’s attitude,Pepinsky uses advice quoted from L.T.Wilkin: ‘Kings and queens have subjects, researchers should not!’ (Pepinsky, 1980:232). Sometimes, academics create the impression that they represent the group they study, simply by using the group-specific vocabulary. (p.18)
Early social scientific study of this ‘new’ phenomenon showed that, despite similarities, NRMs significantly differed from one another. This made it difficult to generalize about them, for example by developing general typologies, as each movement presents distinctive doctrines and tenets. Sweeping generalizations have been a point of friction between academics and the ‘anti-cult movement’ (ACM). Where the ACM might talk about ‘cults’ engaging in a set of activities—itemized in checklists as the ‘marks of a cult’ (see e.g. Pavlos, 1982:4; Hounan and Hogg, 1985: Chapter 6), academics might speak of a particular movement engaging in a particular activity comparable to, although not the same as, another movement’s activity. Conflict of context and purpose regarding their construction explain the ‘gap’ between such statements. Academics construct ‘ideal types’—grounded in both theory and empirical findings—whose purpose and language differ from those required for political or legal contexts. Such typologies accommodate general tendencies in NRMs rather than identical movements: NRMs in a particular category share some, but not all, features. If, for example, asked in court whether all NRMs engage in ‘brainwashing’ or ‘breaking up families’, academics would find it difficult to answer, because academic motives and purpose for NRM categorization differ greatly from those of the ACM, which subsumes them under one heading: ‘movements which take away our children’. Academics also find it difficult to answer, because—as Fenn (1982) suggests—some institutions ‘impose’ their language on those dealing with them and some settings, especially court and classroom, specialize in raising doubts about the trustworthiness, credibility, and authority of ‘serious speech’. (p.31)
An important aspect of all these considerations is that the study of NRMs is a highly sensitive area because of the potential for controversy and contest. The clash of interests between the various participants in the debate are connected to the different agendas which each party pursues. Reconciling research interests with one set of participants may alienate another set and thus preclude research in that area. What paralysed me in my own research at some points were areas where methodological and ethical considerations were closely intertwined and where relative lack of experience and status affected the situation. (p.333)
From New Religious Movements in the Twenty-First Century
It is impossible to estimate accurately the number of NRMs to be found in Britain today (one problem is the definition of a new religion—whether, for example, one includes self-development groups and/or all the small congregations within mainstream religions), but the number could be anywhere from 900 to 2000. (p.26)
Melton introduction to Saliba's Understanding new religious movements:
In the pages that follow, Saliba will offer a variety of standing places from which to view the new religions. Psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, religious studies, the law-each offer insight into the life of the new religions. In the process of moving from one perspective to the other, the reader will gather the most important building blocks from which he or she can then construct a meaningful picture of the world of the new religions. (p.xvi)
Saliba points out that there are multiple perspectives, across different academic disciplines:
This book is based on the assumption that examining the new religions from different academic perspectives is a necessary preliminary step for understanding their presence in our age and for drafting an effective response to their influence. Rather than limiting the observations to the boundaries of one discipline, this study has taken the admittedly more perilous path of considering various approaches, even though these differ in their assumptions, methods, theories, and goals. Thus, historical and sociological approaches are more likely to adopt a position that is religiously neutral. Psychology and psychiatry, however, make a definite evaluation of the mental and emotional health of cult members and the effects membership in new religions might have on their lives. In like manner the legal issues brought about by their presence require that some assessment be made of their activities. Theological reflections are always made from a particular faith perspective and aimed at evaluating religions from welldefined doctrinal and/or moral standpoints.
more on issues raised and another definition:
With this brief overview of the new religious movements of the late twentieth century and the long-term trend in religious pluralism in which they participate, we can begin to answer our starting question-What makes a new religion and what makes it new? What are the new religions whose life is to be examined in the text below? New religions are those innovative and dissenting groups on the fringe of the larger religious community. They are the groups that challenge the beliefs and practices of the majority party while attempting at the same time to challenge the secularity of modern life. We group the different “new” religions together not for attributes they share-they believe and practice a bewildering array of ideas and rituals-so much as for the attributes they lack. They dissent in a serious way from commonly accepted beliefs and practice. (p.xv)
Four major ideal concepts of religious institutions or groups are discussed in sociological literature-church, denomination, sect, and cult. The way these disparate organizations are related both to one another and to society at large, their evolution over the course of time, and the factors that influence their development have been the subject of debate among sociologists well before the debate over the new religions. (p.10)
Because of the ambiguous and derogatory meaning that the word “cult” connotes, attempts have been made, largely by sociologists and religionists, to find a better phrase to designate those religious phenomena popularly known as cults. Phrases like “new religions,’’ “unconventional,” “fringe,” “alternative,” or “nontraditional” religions, “intense religious groups,” and “new religious movements” are common. The last phrase (NRMs for short) is often used in professional literature, even though it has serious deficiencies. (p.11)
Besides the debate on the definition of a new religion, one encounters an even more acrimonious controversy about those characteristics that distinguish the new groups from traditional ones. Both scholarly and popular literature is replete with descriptions of the main qualities that enable one to discriminate between cults and the mainline religious organizations. Many of these characteristics are related to the definition of a cult. Two diverse schools of thought can be found in contemporary literature. Both need to be considered, since their respective views have been debated in society at large and in the law courts. One tends to take a rather negative approach and lists the pejorative qualities of cult ideology and lifestyle. Another adopts a somewhat neutral or cautionary optimistic perspective that concedes that there are good features in the new religious movements, features that may outweigh, in the long run, the defective elements in their beliefs and practices and offer an explanation of why people get involved in them. The major problem with these attempts to depict a cult is that new religions do not form one amorphous or homogenous group with exactly the same characteristics. They do, however, share some traits and can thus be grouped together under one name. (p.14)
At least six issues can be identified in the current debate about the new religious movements. The first deals with the definition of a cult. The second questions the reasons for studying the new religious movements and the methods that should be used to examine them. The third concerns their variety and hinges on whether any generalizations can be made about them. The fourth centers on their distinguishing characteristics. The fifth focuses on the models that are devised to understand why they come into being and to explain their significance for, and impact on, modern Western culture. The sixth discusses the societal response that is appropriate to their persistent presence, a response that is determined by the answers that are given to the first five issues. (p.129)
From Lewis's (ed.) Controversial New Religions (2005)
At the time of this writing, the NRM field continues to expand. Some indicators of this growth are the increasing popularity of the sessions of the New Religious Movements Group at the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the growing number of prominent academic presses publishing NRM titles, and the emergence of NRMs as a recognized field of study in graduate programs in a number of European countries, particularly in the United Kingdom. Additionally, an increasing number of NRM academicians are beginning to subspecialize—hence one now encounters self-identified scholars of the New Age, Pagan specialists, historians of Western esotericism, and the like. One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole. (p.3)
Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview. Until the development of NRM subspecialities, the core of the field consisted of studies of controversial new religions plus analyses of the “cult” controversy.
In many ways, NRM studies is a residual category. Though the designation “new religions” implies that all kinds of emergent religions are part of this field, in practice NRM scholars have tended to avoid studying movements already claimed by other scholarly specialties. Thus, to cite a few examples, Pentecostalism has been left to church historians and cargo cults to anthropologists (Lewis 2004). This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.
Although NRM studies has been accepted as a legitimate part of the academy, in many ways the field remains segregated from the larger discipline of religious studies, despite the fact that it is easy to make a case for the importance of researching new religions. (p.4)
The controversy over new religions is a complex social issue that has engendered an emotional and sometimes mean-spirited debate. Decades of social conflict have left their impress on the term “cult,” which, to the general public, indicates a religious group that is false, dangerous, or otherwise bad. The sharpness of this controversy has tended to polarize observers of such groups into extreme positions, making it difficult to find a middle ground from which to approach the issue. (p. 5)
We can keep digging, but it's clear this is a controversial subject, and not simply because of the cult versus NRM debacle, it is simply a complex area because it includes such a wide range of perspectives, it seems natural that debate would continue, so I'm not clear why you want to avoid mention of it, but as I said, I have no problem with the wording discussed above. Measles ( talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The rise of new religious movements (NRMs) has been one of the hallmarks of Western culture over the last fifty years. Scholars from different disciplines have been involved in studying and trying to explain the origin and success of NRMs in an age when religion seemed to be on the decline. The new movements have also been a source of conflict and debate, sorting scholars into four major camps: (1) those who look on them as social and/or psychological aberrations, (2) those who examine them as social or cultural organizations, (3) those who study them as genuine religious expressions, and (4) those who denounce them as false religions and/or diabolical intrusions in the search for truth. (p.41)
Amid the controversies and social conflicts that came to be associated with the study of new religions, feminist critiques of the movements contributed additional insights that further problematized the study of new religions in contemporary society. (p. 232)
That critical approach shown in the feminist literature was the foundation for the study of abuse in new religious movements, an area of research that covers a wide range of behaviors including physical and sexual violence. (p. 233)
Findings such as these have caused a controversy within the sociology of religion, particularly among those scholars who emphasize the virtues rather than the problems of new religious movements. For the most part, the sociological literature on NRMs has avoided the difficult questions of gendered violence and sexual exploitation, emphasizing instead the constructive and functional aspects of religious commitment. In an effort to protect religious freedom and to counter the stigma typically associated with alternative religious groups, scholars in the sociology of religion have often been reluctant to recognize and discuss the abusive practices of these movements, despite the violence identified in the research. At academic conferences and in reviews of the literature, feminist scholars who have brought these abuses to the attention of their colleagues have been heavily critiqued and the accounts of their informants have come under attack and are viewed with suspicion. (p. 233)
Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview.
One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole
This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.
Can I suggest that if you still have an issue with mention of this you pursue WP:RFC because without demonstrating your position using appropriate sources you really are doing nothing here except pushing a point of view. Measles ( talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem I have with mentioning the strong notion of "debate" being discussed above is that it implies a level of disagreement in the field that questions not just the use of the term, but the meaningfulness of studies that focus on NRMs. There are ways, however, to discuss the major disagreements in the larger field of study in ways that are, in my view, more informative. In the Oxford Handbook James R. Lewis writes:
The "cult controversy" was very influential in shaping the direction of NRM research in the 70s and 80s and this has implications to the more general attributes of and theories about NRMs which have been published over the years. Hotly debated topics within the cult controversy like "brainwashing" and "mind control" also pushed researchers to look into specific areas of interested like how these groups recruited and maintained members (while, as Lewis suggests, focusing on a very select number of groups). Of course the cult controversy is pretty much over since it's major focus, "brainwashing", legitimately become a fringe position in the late 80s. Anyway how about following Lewis' lead in thinking of ways to discuss disagreement and controversy without over emphasizing it. PelleSmith ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
race, politics, sex and religion
. It's hard for some to imagine how you feel while you're cringing in your small room listening to the Muslims and Christians battling it out somewhere near your house. There were times when we actually expected to hear helicopters coming in to lift us out of all that. So please, friends, let's please continue to make with the AGF. Do that and you will have my sincerest gratitude!Two cites using the CESNUR website have problems:
The intro of the article claims that NRM is
now, in my opinion, a new religion is not necessarily a cult. While the idea of using a neutral term as an alternative to a loaded and ill-defined word, is a good thing, the idea that "New religious movement" should be a neutral alternative to "cult" is actually loading the term NRM with a negative connotation. Cults are not per se religious. They are not per se new. Those new religious movement that aren't cults, get the "cult" connotation by claiming that "NRM" is a terminological alternative to "cult". Instead the intro should claim that sociologists erected a term to try to cover a kind of new religious movements, that derrogatorily have formerly sometimes been described as "cults" by detractors... or some such. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You will want to add to your references "Comprehending Cults: the Sociology of New Religous Movements" by Lorne L Dawson (Oxford University Press) and now in its second edition. And a link to this review of Dawson: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/cults.html Thanks for a fine article. Rumjal rumjal 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
There is a deficiency in the article - controversial NRMs are not mentioned, seemingly because they are mentioned separately in another article, cults. There is currently a debate over the word. I suggest including references to NRMs that are called cults as well.
I think there needs to be some more joining of the dots between pop culture and the new religions it is helping to spawn, eg.
Matt
I don't know how to cleanup this article, because maybe the term is unclean. The content seems to be accurate but the article makes no sense. It is reasonable to believe that the term cult increasingly got bad connotations, and therefore that the term "new religious movement" was coined as a replacement, but the sections Definitions and Joining seems to indicate that the term became fluff instead of a clear well defined term despite 100 years of experience. Measuring between my index finger and my thumb I get the following impression: there are movements that are pretty "new" and that attain a "religious" surface. These can probably be subdivided into:
and also that:
and also that totalitarian groupings are pretty ineffective and utilizes lots of effort to keep individuals under controle, so that it either
By confusing all this, one ascertains a dysfunctional term. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Only general families are listed here (tens of thousands of individual denominations exist); some of these groups do not consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by scholars and the public at large:
To him that typed the above "denominations:" to denominate is to become a religious sect(ion), that I do state to become a religious section, of an established religious cult, also known as "religion." Debate only exists surrounding such topics as denominations, protestants, religious cults, religious occults, and religions, due to the common man's lack of knowledge concerning symmantics, etymology, and histories. Protestant is one that protests. The word protestant is capitalized when referring to one of the Protestant Movement--those protesting the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England and the Church of Germany, being those Anglicans (followers of the King of the English, representative of England) and Lutherans (followers of Luther), were Protestant of the Roman Catholic Church, and so Anglicans and Lutherans are Protestant (Protestants is really vulgar). Lutherans could be considered not in Protest, how ever, as Luther only wanted to reform the Roman Catholic religion. Lutheranism would then be considered a theo-/philosophical sect of Roman Catholicism; instead, though, Lutheranism is so established that it is a sect of Christianity (the cult of Jesus Christ as from Judaism) like Roman Catholicism. So called Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, etc. are for the most part, depending upon what one believes to be et cetera, all reformed Anglicans or protestant Anglicans. Puritans are reformed Anglicans, as were Lutherans reformed Roman Catholics. Congregationalists are protestant Anglicans, being that they did not wish to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury (Pope of the Church of England, English Catholic Church). Presbyterians are reformed Anglicans, as are under the Church of Scotland; how ever, as they did schism with the Roman Catholic Church in the same period as the Church of England, the Church of Scotland may be considered not at all a Scottish development from the British influence of the Church of England but rather a Protestant denomination from Roman Catholicism--and so a sect of Christianity. WiZeNgAmOtX ( talk) 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry but this page is all about cults, isn't it supposed to be about "religious movements"?
I've removed the following:
This needs to stop being added in. Unless time passes that we know this is not a fad and is a real movement it should be excluded - there are plenty of websites devoted to fictional religions that seem real: Klingon Ecumenical Alliance for one, The Order of the Sisters of Zathras for another. Trödel| talk 7:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Now, consider the text layout:
which is a non-definition, because it doesn't add anything to the concept New religious movement that cannot be inferred from the combination of the words "new", "religious" and "movement", the definition is not valid,
Now the business becomes serious (acc2 WP:OR, WP:SYNTH possibly also WP:POV): it appears that even the article try to define a concept NRM is dubious, because it concocts a concept from disparate concepts with no clear connection. I do not doubt that there is a malformed concept New religious movement out there, I've heard about it as a label confusing the businesses of para-religions, minor religions with destructive and evil cults, but Wikipedia cannot write like this: the article must – in this very case – instead find external sources concocting this original-research-kind of confused concept and then compare them. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The word NRM is new and existed long before the word cult. Andries 18:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we could go through the article line by line, inserting "anti-cult advocates say..." in front of every POV statement? -- Uncle Ed
de:Neue Religiöse Bewegung
fr:Nouveaux mouvements religieux
pl:Nowe ruchy religijne
ja:新宗教
Cut and paste from old version of cult which I renamed to destructive cult. -- Uncle Ed 18:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And moved some things around... don't kill me but the article looked horrible. I hope I've helped, if not revert the changes please. Trying to be proactive here - not cause trouble. </nowiki> JoeHenzi 09:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Using the word cult is part of the problem. Remember that the official definition is "a religion regarded as spurious". (emphasis added for talk page)
It's almost a grammatical error to discuss whether a group is really a cult. What we mean is whether a group is really spurious, i.e., either just pretending to be a religion (while it has some ulterior goal) or professing false doctrines (i.e., heresy).
I think we'd be better off describing what NRMs actually do. Hare Krishna devotees shave their hair off, dab green paste on their foreheads, and wear diapers and dorky orange robes while pursuing a celibate communal lifestyle. They not faking this, and they're never made their leader rich. Are their beliefs really true? (Ah, that's hard to say: are any Hindu beliefs really true?)
A group that commits mass suicide thinking that will get them onto a comet, now that's what I'd call a destructive cult.
Another thing: I think we should move the info about cult checklists to a separate article. They're cluttering up all the cult, destructive cult and NRM articles. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see the Ed and Andries took upon themselves to make some sense out of the cult, destructive cult, and related articles. Commendable effort!
As this article contains a lot of duplicated text with the cult article, may I suggest to remove all that duplicate material and have a See also link to the cult article instead? -- Zappaz 22:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will add Subud to the "examples of new religious movements" section of the article because Subud is a very good example of a New religious movement. It is a good example because if NRMs in general break the mold about religious or spiritual beliefs, then Subud breaks the mold in a more dramatic way because it is not a belief system per se. There are no specific beliefs required in order to do the Latihan. Because there are no specific beliefs, it follows that, e.g., practicing Muslims and practicing Christians (or anyone practicing any religion--or an open-minded atheist or agnostic) can be in Subud without any conflict of belief. E.g., it is doubtful that a person can be a practicing Christian and a practicing Muslim at the same time because the status of Jesus conflicts in these two religions. But since Subud doesn't address the status of Jesus (or the status of anything) then there is no conflict about practicing Christians and practicing Muslims being in Subud. Aliman 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a very popular rock band in Belarus called NRM - http://nrm.by.com/ - I would like to write an article about it. Can someone explain to me how it can be done and how can I make a disambiguation page? Thanks. -- rydel 23:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure. It's easy:
There you are. Let me know if you have any problems. -- Gary D 19:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Moved the text from Hate group article to here, after a prolonged debate as per its relevace on the context of Hate groups in general, as the text is indeed relevant to this article. -- Zappaz 12:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shall we merge this article with cult into Cults and new religious movements? Like Ed Poor, I am confused what should go where e.g. I think that some of Zappaz' edits with regards to hate groups should have gone into the cult article. Andries 14:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All religions begin as 'new religious movements ' all religions begin as 'cults, as a cult is defined as a growing interest that captures some public imagination - this is without bringing in accusations of brainwashing or other controversies. A religion becomes a more established sect if it survives the death or retirement of its founder members by a generation or more. Cultists understandably don't like being called cultists as this kind of dispute shows - and the tendency to immediately put (this means cults) in brackets next to new religious movement in definitions stops NRM's being a convenient replacement phrase. The damage is however done. Most people see New religions as cults. It will now be very difficult, if not impossible for a new religion's leader to avoid beiong accused of leading a cult. The definitions have become inseperable. Though an ex-cultist myself, I have no real problems with the word cult, and 'New' soon becomes meaningless when a cult has been round for decades or more. ( User:arthurchappell
I removed some of them because I think they are too detailed for such a broad subject. The AFF accusation can go in the anti-cult movement article. Andries 07:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just created a "Fiction-based NRMs" section in the article - although I believe it's good regarding accuracy and NPOV, it could probably use some work style-wise. Help? KickAir8P~ 03:51, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
"Anonymous" is correct that a publicized gathering of adherents is not a requisite for being a notable religious movement. I suggested it as a way of proving that there actually are adherents. Emails from folks who claim that they "practice" matrixism do not indicate that the group has real adherents who actually follow the creed. Please keep looking for usable, verifiable evidence of this groups existence. In the meantime, please stop adding them to articles talking about real religions that have real followers. Thanks, - Willmcw 19:58, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with user:Philwelch's edit that removed the entire list of examples of NRMs. There was no real need for even one example, much less twenty. There is a comprehensive list of religions which is better than anything we could add here. - Willmcw 10:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that a list of NRM's is a useful addition to this page. ~Anonymous
The list of NRM's has now been completely merged to List of religions. In fact, I see that one of the guys who was editing the list in this article has gone over there to clean it up a little. I think the reference is all we need, the information is still there. — Phil Welch 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Phil, this is ridiculous. The "List of Religions" is a list of all religions--new or old. The NRM entry ought to have at least some representative examples. I tried to give a few for each major geographical or religious category, covering both 19th and 20th centuries. You flushed the whole thing, in favor of another list which is largely irrelevent to the NRM issue. (May 4 2005)
No, because I specifically linked to the section on "new religious movements". There was a short list before, and I didn't mind that, but someone just decided to go and expand it, and it was ruining the article. Normally I would have created a list of new religious movements, but there was already a subsection of List of religions devoted to the subject, so I merged it. — Phil Welch 01:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Our anonymous linkspamming vandal alleges: "Dr. Chris Hartney and Dr. Edward F. Crangle of the University of Sydney and Dr. Adam Possami of the University of Western Australia all work in the field of religious study and take the religion of Matrixism seriously. Just because it may be more of a a regional phenomenon is no reason for its censure from wikipedia." As follows is an examination of his claims. He is, of course, welcome to provide additional evidence if he is able.
Dr. Chris Hartney is a religious scholar at the University of Sydney. A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrix" returns two results [2]. (A Google search on "Chris Hartney" and "Matrixism" returns no results. [3]) The only result that applies to the film The Matrix is a course listing. The two applicable course listings are as follows:
RLST 1004 New Religious Movements
6 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), B.SC.,B.COM. Dr Cusack, Prof Trompf.Session: 2. Classes: one 2 hour lecture & one 1 hour tutorial.Prerequisite: . Corequisite: RLST1002. Assessment: One 2,000w essay, take-home exam, tutorial participation. An introduction to the study of twentieth century new religious movements. The course will cover ISKCON, The Ananda Marga, Rastafarianism, and the New Age among others. It will examine the controversies that have surrounded new religious movements (including brainwashing, deprogamming, the role of the media in religious controversy, and religion and the law).
RLST 2028 Religion and Film
8 Credit Points. B.A., B.EC.(SOC.SC.), DIP.ARTS. Dr Cusack. Session: 1. Classes: one 2hr lecture, one 1hr tutorial. Prerequisite: . Assumed knowledge: 12 Junior credit points of Religion Studies, or their equivalent to be assessed by the Department. Assessment: 2000wd Take home exam (30%); 3000wd essay (50%); tutorial participation (20%). This unit analyses the position of religion in a range of films, such as the presentation of Buddhism in recent Western films (Kundun, Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet); the image of Christianity in 'sword and sandal' epics (Ben Hur, Quo Vadis); the role of film in familiarising Western audiences with unfamliar religious traditions (e.g. the PNG ethnographc documentaries of Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson, First Contact etc); and the depiction of post-modern religious concerns in science fiction (Blade Runner, The Matrix etc).
Neither of these specifically mentions the "Matrixism" religion.
Google Scholar search on "Chris Hartney matrix" returns nothing applicable: [4].
No results of "Edward Crangle" and "Matrixism" [5]. No results for "Edward Crangle" and "Matrix" [6]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrixism". [7]. No results for "Edward F. Crangle" and "Matrix". [8]. Dr. Edward F. Crangle is at the University of Sydney in the Department of Studies in Religion. [9]
Google Scholar search on "Edward Crangle Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [10].
No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrixism" [11]. No results for "Adam Possami" and "Matrix". [12]. Google detects alternate spelling of "Possami", which I then attempted.
No results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrixism" [13]. Six results for "Adam Possomai" and "Matrix" [14]. Only applicable result is summarized below.
"Adam Possamai is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Western Sydney." His book, "Religion and Popular Culture", published 2005, is synopsized as follows:
Popular culture can no longer be exclusively seen as a source of escapism. It can amuse, entertain, instruct, and relax people, but what if it provides inspiration for religion? The Church of All Worlds, the Church of Satan and Jediism from the Star Wars series are but three examples of new religious groups that have been greatly inspired by popular culture to (re)create a religious message. These are hyper-real religions, that is a simulacrum of a religion partly created out of popular culture which provides inspiration for believers/consumers. These postmodern expressions of religion are likely to be consumed and individualised, and thus have more relevance to the self than to a community and/or congregation. On the other hand, religious fundamentalist groups tend, at times, to resist this synergy between popular culture and religion, and at other times, re-appropriate popular culture to promote their own religion. Examples of this re-appropriation are Christian super-hero comics and role playing games, Bible-based PC games, and 'White Metal' music. To explore these new phenomena, this book views itself as the 'hyper-real testament' of these new religious phenomena by addressing the theories, among many others, of Baudrillard, Jameson and Lipovetsky, and by exploring the use of fictions such as those from Harry Potter, The Matrix, Star Trek, Buffy and The Lord of the Rings. [15]
No reference is made to Matrixism or any other Matrix-inspired new religious movement.
Google Scholar search on "Adam Possamai Matrix" returns nothing applicable: [16].
The problem you have here is solely relying on whether something written by a scholar is on the Internet. Adam Possamai does devote a short page to Matrixism as an example of hyper-real religion in his book Religion and Popular Culture. It was added in just before the book was scheduled to go to press. Matrixism is not an example of fan-fiction sites, but purports to be a hyper-real religion, with some 400 devotees associated with its website. Possamai has also discussed Jedi-ism as a religion in the Ausralian Religion Studies Review, the journal now distributed by Equinox Publishing. Essay abstracts are on the Equinox website for the journal.
I could find no evidence that any of the three academics listed above are even aware of Matrixism, much less that they consider it a serious religion and take it seriously. Unless our anonymous linkspamming vandal can provide specific evidence for his claim that the three academics listed above take the religion of "Matrixism" seriously, his claim is unfounded and there remains no concrete evidence, only constantly reiterated claims that may all come from the same individual.
Many editors, including myself, have acted in good faith, asking for evidence. Our vandal has failed to provide any. He has failed to do even the most cursory research while the brunt of the labor fell upon others of us. If he had evidence at hand, he should have presented it, and his failure to do so is damning evidence that his claims are false and that this entire thing is a hoax. We are of course willing to accept additional evidence if it is forthcoming, but I hasten to advise that unless there is independently verified evidence presented, I will not again expend the effort of doing the vandal's research for him. In the meantime, I recommend that this matter is treated as the hoax that it apparently is, and as the linkspamming vandalism that it has repeatedly proven to be.
— Phil Welch 22:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC), 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (for all unsigned, unindented comments in the section "Religious scholars who allegedly take Matrixism seriously" authored by myself)
I studied under both Chris and Eddie between 1999 and 2004, and never heard them discuss "Matrixism". I'm prepared to ask them both if they know anything about it. Mhacdebhandia 11:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to Shinshukyo in the 'See Also' section; I don't know much about NRMs in other countries, but I know that they are quite numerous and widespread in Japan. In fact, when I lived there, one of the first things they told me after arriving was "Beware of Cults." Long story short, I think Shinshūkyō deserve their own separate article. I'm going to get it started, see what I can do, but help would be most appreciated (preferably from someone who knows about the role/involvement of Shinshūkyō in Japanese culture & politics, not from someone who's an apologist for "NRMs are not cults"). Thanks. LordAmeth 12:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The article mentions David Barrett, but there are two David Barretts. One is David V. Barrett who works for INFORM and Eileen Barker and wrote the New Believers. The other one writes mainly about Christian churches. Please clarify which one is mentioned. Thanks. Andries 19:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the article's bibliography you'll find that the Barrett in question is editor of the World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxofrd Uni Press. The Encyc does not just look at Christian churches but surveys indigenous new religions. The reference in the article to some 6000 nrms in Africa is derived from Barrett's work which first appeared in the late 1960s and has been regularly revised.
I have restored the "NRMs and its critics" section, that was recently deleted by Irmgard without discussion. -- ZappaZ 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
ZappaZ, the critics section here is
Do you have a special reason why this material should be here and not in Opposition?
In view of the section being already too long, I don't want to add material here to make it NPOV. Please move this material to Opposition and to the specific groups and reduce it here to one paragraph - it's not that I want to delete the material, I just want it to be in the place where it belongs and where people are looking for it. -- Irmgard 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
We should write that the term is rarely used by the media if we can find a source, probably partially because it is a mouthful. Even Eileen Barker used the term cult instead for this reason in an article about cult watch groups. Andries 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The term "cult" was not "coined by Max Weber." He's not an English speaker, and the term antedates him by three centuries. [17] -- AuntieMormom 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I note this page does not mention one of the best known NRM's, Scientology - has this been discussed in the past? MarkThomas 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 00:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hein is not a relaible source to be quoted per WP:RS. His opinions appear only on his self published website and nowhere else in the press or scholarly literature on any subject. I will be removing material attributed to him or his personal website here and elsewhere unless anyone can make a good case that he fits the guidelines in WP:RS. BabyDweezil 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, you are deleting what is now very well-sourced material. I don't understand where you picked up the notion that any opinions that strongly criticize Scientology are ipso facto not admissible to Wikipedia articles. This is yet another innovative theory. I suggest that you won't get very far with this at all in DR. Will you next try to AfD all of the Scientology-related articles? Probably not, and what you are doing here is just as misguided and hopeless as that would be. Once again, please stop deleting well-sourced material. Tanaats 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The link to the xfamily wiki that had been deleted earlier was properly deleted. see WP:EL regarding not using wiki's in ELs. BabyDweezil 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tagged this section. Obviously POV, look at the treatment of Scientology. Not sure how to fix. Suggestions? -- Justanother 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, i have no intention of being condescending; my point is that the perception of Hein as being a major voice (or even a minor voice) is not backed up in any way by the public record. And his "movement" is far from a major topic for NRM researchers, who spend 99% of their time researching religious movements, not rebutting bigots like Hein. BabyDweezil 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What is gained by adding the term "controversial" to the lede of the article? We already say in the into that:
What more does this term add? - Will Beback · † · 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) It adds that it is also not universally accepted among the scholars who study these groups... Sfacets 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
for any given NRM, a sociologist of religion may view it as a group with a dominant 'world-rejecting', 'world-accomodating', or 'world affirming' orientation (wallis 1984); the tabloid press are likely to portray it as a 'mind-bending cult'; the anti-cult movement will characterise it as a soul or psyche-destroying organisation practising 'mental cohersion' (...) an e-member may see it as a group which fails to live entirely up to it's precepts (...) each view is formulated on the basis of different considerations
I'm not sure why you are quoting me here? Sfacets 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This comment was written in response to
Talk:Sahaja Yoga#New Religious Movement. However, it's a passing issue there, so I'm duplicating my comment here with its useful references for both article source use and future debate use when this issue comes up again.
"According to some authors (eg Coney, Judith 1998) 'New Religious Movement' has negative connotations, being easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" " I'd have to see the original statement, but Coney is probably wrong and/or being misinterpreted, mentioning a decidedly minor view, or referring to an irreducible odium for which there is no language remedy.
• First, groups referred as NRMs or any other term are inherently disliked by the global public because of their competition with major religions, and this will never change. Therefore any term of description including scientific value-neutral terms, will always carry some degree of odius connotation that doesn't rise to the level of pejorative.
To quote CultFAQ.org (a Christian Apologetics website):
...if deservedly controversial groups and movements like Aum Shinrikyo, the Church of Scientology, and the Unification Church were identified as, say, 'pineapples,' the term 'pineapple' would take on a negative connotation the moment people realize that you are using the term as a euphemism for 'cult.' -- ' New Religious Movements' and other Euphemism
By analogy, to truthfully call someone a Jew can convey an odium, even though "Jew" is clearly not pejorative. The Jewish movie producer Mel Brooks once did an angry TV rant on this issue, and basically said 'I'm a Jew, so what, get over it.'
• Second, and most importantly, "New Religious Movement" is not "easily interchangeable with "sect" or "cult" ". That was the original intent, but according to the late Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden, it didn't happen:
The use of the concept "new religious movements" in public discourse is problematic for the simple reason that it has not gained currency. Speaking bluntly from personal experience, when I use the concept "new religious movements," the large majority of people I encounter don't know what I'm talking about. I am invariably queried as to what I mean. And, at some point in the course of my explanation, the inquirer unfailing responds, "oh, you mean you study cults!" -- Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" at The Religious Movements Page."
Professor Hadden has a great deal more to say about the exacting scientific and communication uses for terms "cult", "sect", and "New Religious Movement (NRM)". Both Hadden and CultFAQ.org make a more general point about defending the use of defined language. Haddon in particular defends use of "cult" and "sect" in scientific publications, and objects to the proliferation of terms surrounding the introduction of NRM. The NRM term was intentionally designed to meet the objections to pejoritive populist use of "cult". Yet precisely because the public has not accepted "NRM" as a drop-in replacement for the populist usage of "cult", NRM remains suitable as a value-neutral term for use in Wikipedia articles. Milo 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a WP article on old (defined as "extinct") religions? An example would be the pre-islamic beliefs of the Middle East. Low Sea 12:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed the edit made by 82.39.59.152 at 22:45, January 16, 2008. Sentence is ungrammatical, and unreferenced. I can find no other reference to "Guru Klarkay". Text removed is
Rojomoke ( talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The section recently added by Jossi, is a straight-forward criticism of the media's portrayal of NRM's. As written it does not merit it's own section, especially under the title New religious movements in the media, since offers nothing but one critisism by one author and makes no attempt to give a balanced view of the media's protrayal of NRM's. In my opinion, it belongs in the Criticism section which begins with the lead: "Criticism of some new religious movements, a subset of which are often described by their critics as being "cults," has been a contentious issue" So that is where I have moved it. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's Critisim... By it;s verry nature it's bised... get over yourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.253 ( talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article with the extensive description of dispute is quite uninformative. I admit that I am partially guilty to that by my edits to the article years ago, but I am surprised that they persisted. Questions that should be answered is how many are there? What percentage of the population is involved? Etc. Andries ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
New religious Movememts are known as Cults in the general public - Scholars who use the term know this, and acknowledge that when they classify as a NRM others (especially the Anti Cult Movement) calls a cult. Basically this article is POV fork from Cult which has been created to keep the academic viewpoint out of the article on cults where it belongs. Therefore I suggest that this article is merged and redirected to Cult. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Aside from combining articles with "cults" debate, might I suggest an explanation or addition of the relation between cult and NRM in the FIRST paragraph or up front in the article? I saw the term elsewhere and had to read the entire Wikipedia section before I understood the vernacular as "cult." Additionally, I felt compelled to corroborate this discovery by looking elsewhere online. Surely, this could have been easily avoided. If the issue has to do with neutrality or being "politically correct," I'm sure appropriate phrasing could be created such as "popularly or sometimes known as "cult'". It seems to me, however, the interest of clarity and understanding outweighs the possibility of offense. Jeffrey Hadden makes the same argument as found in the following article: http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html Your thoughts? Sirvice626 ( talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Solid enough? I'm using the quote Hadden contained on the page, not the page itself and I'm not suggesting the page be a source for the article only to consider modifying the "lede" as you call it. I'm sorry gentlemen. I'm sensing an agenda on both your parts. It should come as no surprise to you that the term NRM is not widely known especially by people outside the field. The common though less neutral term is indeed "cult." Considering encyclopedias are written for the masses I would suggest you reconsider. Additionally, if your only objection is added length, I can't imagine why you would continue to redact my change. Again, I suspect you may be protecting an opinion, however I could be mistaken. Sirvice626 ( talk) 08:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) To editor Measles... Your reversion comment is: "Wording not agreed, and does not read accurately as currently written." Please explain exactly how the wording is inaccurate, when about the same wording is embellished upon in the first section? Also, since the first section does go into the fact that NRM is a relatively new term that was developed as an alternative to "cult", then why are you averse to a short note about this up front in the lede? Why hide this fact? Editor Sirvice626 makes an excellent point about clarity above. I agree with this editor that more clarity is needed for general readers. Placing a brief note as I did in the lede sentence, or somewhere near it, will improve the clarity of the article and improve this encyclopedia, don't you agree?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Measles, I admire your open mindedness. It appears as though most of us are on the same page about including a reference in the lead (same as lede?). Having said that, how to phrase it, I'll leave to those more qualified, maybe "sometimes referred to as cult?" Sirvice626 ( talk) 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'm somewhat skeptical of the judgment in using the terms "pejorative" and "derogatory" (as opposed to "considered by some to be pejorative or derogatory"), I'm willing to compromise. Thank you. How do the others feel? Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | British sociologist Eileen Barker popularized the use of "new religious movements", a value-free term much more palatable to scholars than "cults" or "sects". | ” |
“ | New religious movement (NRM) is a term used to refer to a religious faith or an ethical, spiritual, or philosophical movement of recent origin that is not part of an established denomination, church, or religious body. This term was adopted by Western scholars to substitute for the popular term, cult, and is free from any uncomplimentary meanings of that term. | ” |
I think that's an improvement, Paine. TB, short of leaving this out of the lead entirely, will anything satisfy you? What about "This term was adopted by Western scholars as a neutral substitute for the popular term, cult?" Or is that still an issue of "by whom and by what standard?" There comes a point where dissection seems endless. I'm curious to know what others think. Sirvice626 ( talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Your addition was removed. I restored it until a consesus is reached. Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The following change was made: "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view use of the word cult in describing new religions as having negative connotations." because it does not clearly demonstrate the cult was the original term used and because it does not appear here in the discussion section, I changed it back. Had this page been consulted and had it said "In recent years the term has seen increased usage amongst scholars that view the previous term, cult, as having a negative connotation" I would not have seen a reason to revert. But please, have editors left the page and why aren't these revisions bringing warning to the change makers as mine did? Sirvice626 ( talk) 10:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How many?
}} template on it. The reference source doesn't really cover what the number of scholars is.Measles, thanks for the help. It wasn't my source. It was PE's. And I'm comfortable with the edit you made. Whether it was "previous" or presently is of no consequence to me. My only issue is that NRM is commonly used as another word for cult and the article should say so in the lead. Thanks again. Sirvice626 ( talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Measles, in what you're citing, the groups are still commonly called "cults" regardless of what criteria are used. How about we agree to disagree and adopt PE's compromise? It may not be what we all want, but it seems we can all abide by it. Else this continues ad nauseum. Don't you agree? Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Another edit was made (hopefully not done by you Measles) without discussion adding length but little value. I've changed it back to "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult." We've already agreed on a version from both PE and Measles. I don't think an additional change or a third party is necessary. Thanks. Sirvice626 ( talk) 05:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Yaris, Maunus and PE. Measles: How you fail to see "In recent years scholars studying new religions have adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word cult" as a rephrasing of "British sociologist Eileen Barker popularized the use of 'new religious movements', a value-free term much more palatable to scholars than 'cults' or 'sects'", I don't understand. Moreover, if you'd like to use Hadden's quote from the previous source http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, you may do so. The source included in the article was PE's, not mine. However PE's rephrasing was obvious and in my opinion, accurate. If you recall, the original issue was NOT what constitutes a cult or NRM but whether the lead should make reference to the fact that NRM is a another word for cult. Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Third Opinion: the purpose of the lede WP:LEDE is to define the topic,summarize the article and entice the reader to continue on. It is not a place for details about history or controversial text. Therefore I recommend removing this sentence from the lede:
That sentence is already included early on in the article, in a prominent place in the History section which is the appropriate place for it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Paine, yes I did read the first part of this thread. So what I am saying is that its already in the article in an appropriate place (History section) and I don't feel it should have been added to the lede. Now that it has been added to the lede, my opinion is that it should be removed for the reasons I have stated. To have it in the lede also gives it undue weight, even if the dupe in the History section were to be removed. Regardless I think the lede needs some work, but adding this sentence on cults is moving in the wrong direction. Better to put your/our attention on defining the term more clearly and summarizing the article rather than adding a bit of history ie cult issue. Hope that helps. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Kbob, thanks for the input although I'm not sure as to why it was provided. Four of us have weighed in and a minority disagrees. Nevertheless, I would opt for that sentence to be removed from the lead IF it were the first sentence in the next paragraph. The point is, as I originally stated when I started this disucssion, the term NRM is relatively unknown and a source of confusion. For clarity's sake, I suggested it be identified with "cult" right up front. I had to read the entire article and do independant research elsewhere before understanding what an NRM was as I had never heard the term previously. Additionally, if the purpose of a lead, in part, is to define a topic, that is what "cult" is doing, defining a less commonly understood term, NRM. Aside to Measles: If there were no agreement why did you say "I'm good with how it currently reads"? Sirvice626 ( talk) 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. | ” |
— Wikipedia:Lead section |
(out) Thank you both for coming and offering your opinions and counsel! I think the part about explaining "why the subject is . . . notable" says it all. The usage and term "NRM" is notable precisely because it does replace words like "cult" and "sect" in academic circles.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has gotten muddy, the main point has been lost and I invite fresh input. To clarify where my dispute lies:
Measles, this is a situation I brought up for the SOLE purpose of explaining that NRM is commonly used in place of "cult." What constitutes a cult was NOT the issue raised nor was it discussed. It is another matter entirely. If you would like to add to the history section on NRM explaining that there are differences of opinion as to what makes something a cult, I would encourage you to do so. This discussion was not devoted to that. Additionally, you site the source PE provided as being the authority when I've provided another source, and there are many (see: www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm, www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html, shii.org/knows/New_religious_movements, etc), that say the same thing; NRM is a new and nice way of saying "cult." On a more personal note, I posted a question for discussion. A majority opinion was reached. The minority asked for a third party opinion and two conflicting third party opinions were given. After that, a new sub discussion was started. Where does this end? Or does it only after your minority view is accepted? As I stated some time ago, the impression I'm getting is that there is an agenda here. Sirvice626 ( talk) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'. They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries. | ” |
Measles, I'm quite clear that I did not distort the issue as it was my issue to begin with. If you felt a further explanation of NRM history was in order, that was another discussion for you to have. As for consensus building, that is not my objective. I'm simply interested in clarifying a confusing term and article so that the laymen, such as myself, understands what's being talked about. That being said, I've read the guideline and our interpretation of it seems to be different as well. How many different ways to make a majority opinion are there? Finally, and I hope this settles the matter, I am satisfied with PE's rewrite: "In recent years scholars studying new religions have almost unanimously adopted the term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult'. They continue to try to reach agreement on definitions and boundaries." Is the case now closed? Sirvice626 ( talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Measles, I'll happily belabor the point. The evidence and the common sense in favor of recognizing NRM as cult was overwhelming. The argument stood on its own and needed very little help from me other than some tenactiy. I was not trying to curry favor. If I were trying to sell you a home, I would have sung your praises in song. The change has been made. Sirvice626 ( talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the first paragraph says an NRM is a movement that is not a part of an established denomination, church, or religious body. This is I believe inaccurate. I've seen both Opus Dei and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal listed as NRMs, and I believe both fall clearly within the bounds of the Roman Catholic Church, which definitely is an established denomination, church, or religious body. Maybe the phrasing could be adjusted to say that NRMs are movements which either do not fall within the mainstream of established denomations, ..., seek to restore ideas that are present within the denomination that the NRM's adherents consider neglected, or seek to add ideas which have achieved greater attention outside the denomination. I'm going to try to see what some of the sources use as definitions, but we should want to make sure we don't use a definition which seemingly rules out some of the groups described as NRMs. John Carter ( talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I concur with TB and for those interested I have found the following information useful in NRM and/or cult recognition: www.geocities.com/eckcult/cultexpose/crucible.html Sirvice626 ( talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
On a mundane "technical" note, at first glance when a reader sees, "New religious movement (NRM) is a religion of recent origin . . .", it sounds as if we're saying that NRM itself is a religion (among other religions). Wouldn't it be better to say...
“ | New religious movement (NRM) is a term used to refer to religions of recent origin . . . | ” |
(? or somthing like that) — .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, "A new religious movement (NRM) is a religious organisation of recent origin" would be a better idea. Measles ( talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Who invented this "term"? Citation needed from term coiner(s). ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 09:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the rationale for including this deceptive phrase. In any context NRM refers to the same groups more or less. The fact that "religious movement" happens to redirect to religion does not change this fact, nor does it create any confusion about whether or not NRMs are also "religions". How exactly how does this confusion occur? Depending on the group being discussed an NRM could be considered a religion and at times NRMs aren't even "new", but it is not up to us to speculate about how the three words in the phrase are concieved by people who read them. It is up to us to use reliable sources and to stick to what they say. Unless you have sources that confine this phrase to religious studies in a meaningful way it is deceptive to make that statement. By the way why not "sociology" instead of religious studies? At least in the US religious studies refers to a, be it vaguely defined, discipline in it's own right, which encompasses several methodological perspectives but is not simply synonymous with the study of religion across the academy. This makes it's use even more confusing. PelleSmith ( talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The guideline suggests making the context clear as early as possible--explicitly doing so is only necessary if it isn't clear already. What is unclear about NRM or about the expert sources of knowledge about NRMs? Nothing. Those who study religion clearly use the term as a technical term, but outside of that context it means the same thing. Read the entry on technical terminology, which is what "term of art" is linked to. Its states: "Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field, the nomenclature. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use." If the second part applies then making the context clear explicitly would be necessary, but only then. That is why, once again, we don't write that "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ...". Yes it is the technical term in the culinary arts, but this technical meaning doesn't change outside the culinary arts. The context is implied. PelleSmith ( talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand if we did write "In the culinary arts, sautéing is ..." we might confuse readers into thinking that in another context the meaning changes. The same applies here. PelleSmith ( talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | When the term NRM is employed, then, the characteristics that the designated groups share in varying degrees are that they are part of a very large number of movements that appeared in Western societies or experienced rapid growth since the mid-1960s, are nontraditional and nonimmigrant religious groups, began with first-generation converts as their primary membership base, attracted among their converts higher status young adults, manifest social movement characteristics and may present an anomalous profile with respect to traditional, mainstream religious organization and belief, and proclaim themselves to be in search of spiritual enlightenment, personal development, or contact with immanent/transcendent forces, entities, or knowledge. | ” |
Context is unnecessary right off the bat. Let's remember, though, what brought us to this point. A reader was unclear on this term's relationship with the term "cult". So adios Barker if you must, however a clear concise relationship with the term "cult" is a necessary component of this article's lede.
Next, let me suggest that "faith community" be substituted with
faith-based community. And the lede-sentence wording still needs work. If I and a group of fellow students start getting together each week at the library to discuss philosophy, do we then constitute an NRM?
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 05:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Pelle, I want the lead to read "In religious studies and the sociology of religion, A new religious movement (NRM)..."
What is the problem? Hyper3 ( talk) 09:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook was used as a source for the following statement:
The reference claimed that p. 4 of the Handbook was applicable here. I see nothing there to back this up. The Handbook attributes the creation of this field of study to the fact that scholars in a variety of fields started recognizing something new about these movements, suggesting a new category had to be created (though I can quote several sources that suggest even more clearly that it was meant to replace "cult"). The Handbook also goes on to say that the study of NRMs was established before the cult controversies started heating up. In any event the reference does not back up the statement in the least. PelleSmith ( talk) 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | This academic landscape changed over the course of the seventies. By the latter part of the decade, it had become clear that new religions were not indicative of a broader social transformation—or at least not the kind of transformation observers had anticipated. In addition, issues raised by the cult controversy gradually came to dominate the field. Because social conflict is a bread-and-butter issue for sociology, more and more sociologists were drawn to the study of new religions. By the time of the Jonestown tragedy in 1978, NRMs was a recognized specialization within the sociology of religion.
It took much longer for new religions to achieve recognition as a legitimate specialization within religious studies. This was partially the result of the expansion of religious studies and its own quest for legitimacy within a mostly secular university system. During the early 1970s—when new religions were becoming a public issue—religious studies was busy establishing itself as an academic discipline. Most religion scholars were reluctant to further marginalize themselves by giving serious attention to what at the time seemed a transitory social phenomenon, and as a consequence they left the study of new religions to sociologists. Consequently, it was not until a series of major tragedies took place in the 1990s— specifically, the Branch Davidian debacle, the Solar Temple murder-suicides, the Aum Shinrikyō gas attack, and the Heaven's Gate suicides—that the field of NRMs was truly embraced by the religious studies establishment. |
” |
There are places where its the use of the term that is highlighted, for example Paul J. Olson, The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; Mar2006, Vol. 45 Issue 1, 97-106:
“ | In order to still be able to discuss the groups that are commonly referred to as cults, while avoiding that term, scholars have offered several alternatives. Miller (1996) prefers “alternative religious movements” to describe groups the popular media refer to as cults. Ellwood (1983, 1986) suggests “emergent religions.” Harper and Le Beau (1993) find “marginal religious movements” the best option. Beckford (1985), Barker (1989), and numerous others use the term “new religious movements” (NRMs), which has gained a strong foothold in the sociology of religion. The assumption behind all of these suggestions is that by changing the term used to describe a cult, readers will not be affected by the negative connotations the term carries and will be less judgmental of a religious movement. | ” |
Why object to the idea of the term itself being the focus? Obviously the entry is about an idea, and I know that wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the use of alternative terms to "cult" to achieve a different reception is partly the subject matter in hand. Hyper3 ( talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Measles: I have read the discussion you pointed to, and you seem to have reverted some things that I understand, and others that I don't. Wouldn't it have been better to restore the one sentence that I think you are most passionate about? I think this is "there is still debate..." Hyper3 ( talk) 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe a relevant issue here with our user base on wikipedia is the feeling that we, free-source contributors, are limited by other dictionaries and other encyclopedias when defining terms. Let us create a new definition for the word "cult." Such a new definition does need not be so far different from the common definition but could be more specific, logical, and so true to its etymology.
cult: 1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
Perhaps the word 'cult' should be defined as 'the care or cultivation of.' As a past particable of Latin "colere," which means "to cultivate," "cultus" meant "did cultivate." Being that cult is from cultus, such a definition should be that cult means 'the care or cultivation of' in a past tense; how ever, as there is no present such tense other than the word 'care,' whose past particable is currently "cared," cult can be a unique word--both of past and present tense.
The agricultural meaning, between cult and cultus, may have been long ago lost, forgotten through ignorance and inhibition, but may be still used (though considered archaic). As many ancient forms of worship involved animal worship and other nature worships, exempli gratia sun worship and moon worship, (and may be studied with wikipedia's "animal worship" article), I do presume that such is the reason for the current connection between cult and religion.
Distinguishing between the words 'cult' and 'religion,' I would propose religion to be the same as cult, where one cult would be less established than a religion. Where a religious sect(ion) is a theo-/philosophically unique sub-religion, a religious cult is a less established theologically unique sub-religion or less established theologically unique religion. By my definition, Christianity was a cult of Judaism until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Mormonism was a cult of Christianity (of which section, or denomination, I am not so much aware or concerned), and is considered to still be by a majority, until it became so established and unique that it was able to be considered a religion; Anglicanism, also known as English Catholicism, is not so theologically removed, unique, from Christianity to be considered a cult, as much as it is theo-/philosophically unique and so may be considered a sect of Roman Catholicism--a sect of Christianity, the most simplified and old cult of Jesus Christ. Anglicanism, how ever, is so established that it is now considered equal to Roman Catholicism as a sect of Christianity and so much be considered, while catholic, the Church of England, not English Catholic.
Ancient cults such as Indian and Greek cults idolized an animal or God separate and perhaps above or removed from other animals or Gods that were also the subjects of such religions. Current cults of religions may also revere an other above others or even an out side influence, being a development of that master religion. Cults of cults do not usually exist due to the relative unestablished nature of that potential master cult; two separate cults of one master religion, though, are much more usual. As a religion is merely an established religious cult, a religious cult an unestablished religion, an unestablished and unique religion with no master religion, (not a sub-religion), would be considered merely a cult. The barrier between establishment and obscurity, whether kept by the need or desire for secrecy, by the hate or misunderstanding of extraneous persons, may keep a cult one. An example of such aforementioned religious cult, in modern context, is the Church of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiZeNgAmOtX ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase in the lead that makes it sound like there is an ongoing and active "debate" over the definitional boundaries of NRM. It is more accuracte to point out that definitional boundaries may differ between scholars, which is more common than one might think in the social scniences and humanities. The point is that this isn't exactly actively debated. Maybe we also shouldn't say "still" when using a reference that is nearly ten years old. It would also be nice to see some other sources on this so we can asses the notability of this debate, particularly as something "current". My understanding is that there isn't really a debate over definitions at this point even though there is no one strict definition that everyone adheres to. We have to remember that this is a new subject matter and things are bound to keep changing in the study of it for the next few decades. PelleSmith ( talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The following helps to clarify the position. Taken from the introduction to a 2006 publication: Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: History and controversies, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0275987124.
Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative,or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. (p. xi)
As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.
No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. (p. xiv)
Measles ( talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
here are more examples, grabbed from the introduction and conclusion of a book that deals directly with the so called debate:
Interestingly, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category has also found its way into the academic/social scientific study of ‘new religious movements’, with some papers and articles drawing parallels between ‘cults’ and Al-Qaeda (see e.g. Melton, 2003;2004:238–239; Introvigne, 2004; Lucas and Robbins, 2004). However, the expansion of the ‘cult’ category entails a muddying of this very category, thus adding further confusion and lack of clarity to a concept which is already contested and controverted a point which this volume argues. (p.3)
Third, this book does not accord unique privilege to the voice of the academics/social scientists in this field of study or the academic discourse and does not consider the body of academic knowledge as automatically standing above the body of knowledge which the other contenders in the debate have accumulated. For this reason, academics working in this field may find this book unsatisfactory or in disagreement with their own positions, because it seeks to show that academics/social scientists/sociologists of religion are similar to the other interest groups involved in the debate of NRMs in that they, too, have brought different sets of agendas into play. These are partly related to pressures to which the academic community itself has been subjected, such as obtaining funding, raising institutional profiles, and the need to produce publications, arising partly from the desire to build personal reputations, and partly from the particular stances which academics have adopted with regard to new religious movements, some of which are driven by personal motives. (p. 5)
The previous chapters examined and reviewed institutional responses to NRMs and the way in which they have interacted with one another. Although I have dealt with a selection of institutional responses, my objective has been to place these in the contexts in which they unfolded and to show how academic, ‘anti-cult’, and theological responses have evolved as the NRM debate progressed over time. (p.326)
from Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions, Elisabeth Arweck, Routledge, 2006. Measles ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Another example, from the preface of Understanding new religious movements, John A. Saliba, Rowman Altamira, 2003:
It would be a mistake to assume that this book will offer, once and for all, a final, all-encompassing picture of the phenomenon of new religious movements and/or a solution to all the problems their presence has raised. The discussions conducted in diverse academic settings testify to the variety of irreconcilable opinions among those who have been studying the new religions for the past few decades. They also show that the quest for simple, unequivocal answers is unrealistic. (ix)
Measles ( talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Volume 2 accordingly raises most acutely the problems of definition that are involved in using the admittedly malleable categories of “new” and “alternative” religions. The description of a religious movement as new or alternative only begs further questions. Novelty can be in the eye of the beholder, or in the mind of someone claiming to be innovative. That is, religious movements are judged to be new, alternative, or anything else only in particular contexts and by certain audiences. They may claim, for example, to retrieve and correctly interpret or represent past beliefs and practices, which have been neglected or forgotten. But their opponents might view the same claims as dangerous and deviant inventions. New religions themselves often manifest a pronounced ambivalence about their own novelty. A fundamental dynamic in new and alternative religions is that they strive to present themselves as both new and old, as unprecedented and familiar. The novelty of new religions cuts both ways; it can just as easily excite the interest of potential adherents as it can strain their credulity. As they spread their messages to those whose interest, approval, and even acceptance they hope to secure, NRMs proclaim both their challenging novelty and their comforting familiarity. (p. xi-xii)
As this overview suggests, the definition of what counts as a new or alternative religion is frequently open to argument. Many groups that appear dramatically novel to external observers would claim that they are simply being faithful to ancient traditions. Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, was a restoration of primitive Christianity. Groups that claim to be innovative often express their messages in the form of fresh interpretations of ancient texts, as with Swami Prabhupada’s effort to present the ancient Indian classic, the Bhagavad-Gita, “as it is”; or Rael’s contention that the mentions of “Elohim” in the biblical book of Genesis actually refer to extraterrestrial beings who came to earth in space ships. Because of the subjective nature of the categories —new to whom? alternative to what?—it will always be difficult to delimit precisely which groups definitely do, and do not, “count” as new or alternative. Moreover, in popular discourse, where the category cult is frequently used but appears devoid of anything other than emotional content, and in interreligious arguments, where cult easily expands to include “virtually anyone who is not us,” attempts at substantive definitions give way entirely to polemics. Discussion of new and alternative religions in the United States thus always refers to a shifting and vigorously contested terrain where categories like “alternative religion” or “cult” and implicit comparisons like those implied by “new religious movement” are used to establish, reinforce, and defend certain kinds of individual and group identities, even as they threaten, compromise, or erode other kinds of individual or group identities.
No mapping of such terrain can hope to be definitive. Too much is in flux. Those who enter the terrain need trustworthy and experienced guides. The essays in these five volumes provide just such guidance. Experienced, authoritative, and plainspoken, the authores of these essays provide both perspectives on some of the most prominent general features of the landscape and full descriptions of many, but by no means all, of the specific areas within it. (p. xiv)
Pelle, again, this is your opinion, nothing more, and you are attempting to advise us on how we should interpret the sources, I find this problematic. I have a brain, and I can read, I have the titles in front of me, therefore I'm aware of the issues you are raising.Stating that scholars are still engaged in a process (standard academic inquiry) of deciding what definitions and boundaries might apply, really is not a contentious suggestion, so I don't know why you are making such a fuss about a very short mention of this in the article. Multiple sources note that contention exists, and they are all good on the WP:VER front so what's the problem? Measles ( talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The term NRM, which is much debated and somewhat ambiguous, typically refers to religious
groups that have developed, or at least come to the attention of the general public and
political authorities in recent decades in the United States. However, when one examines
the situation outside the bounds of the United States, the term should include some not-so
-new groups in other societies, mainly because groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
Latterday Saints (Mormons), and many evangelical Protestant groups often get lumped with NRMs in other countries. Some scholars use terms like “minority religion” to encompass this broader grouping, but herein I use “NRM,” but with the broader attribution. (p. 82)
As part of the anticult campaign, a countermeasure was developed to reverse the effects of cultic programming-deprogramming. A debate ensued between anticult activists (including some scholars of NRMs) and most NRM scholars that has created continuing controversy over the meaning and significance of NRMs. (p.73)
From intro toNew Religious Movements: Challenge and response
For students of religion or sociology, New Religious Movements is an invaluable source of information, an example of penetrating analysis, and a series of thought-provoking contributions to a debate which affects many areas of contemporary life in many parts of the world.
Barker in New Religious Movements: Challenge and response:
How many NRMs are there now?: The short answer is that we do not know with much accuracy what the incidence of new religions is. A somewhat longer answer starts with the simple truth that, of course, it all depends on what is meant by an NRM. Do we include each and every New Age group or do we lump them together as a single ‘movement’? Do we include movements within mainstream traditions (Opus Dei, Folkalore, the House Church movement – each House Church)? What about the African Independent Churches? What about the United Reform Church? Are the ‘self-religions’ or Human Potential groups really new religious movements? How new is new? What about Subud, Vedanta or possibly Jehovah’s Witnesses which is the first ‘sect’ that comes to mind in a country such as Italy when the phrase New Religious Movement is mentioned? Might we include even the anti-cult movement – sections of it certainly exhibit several of the characteristics that ‘anti-cultists’ themselves attribute to ‘cults’?
Barker again:
Definitions of movements: There is, of course, no ‘right’ answer. Definitions are more or less useful, not more or less true. The definition from which I personally start – for purely pragmatic reasons – is that an NRM is new in so far as it has become visible in its present form since the Second World War, and that it is religious in so far as it offers not merely narrow theological statements about the existence and nature of supernatural beings, but that it proposes answers to at least some of the other kinds of ultimate questions that have traditionally been addressed by mainstream religions, questions such as: Is there a God? Who am I? How might I find direction, meaning and purpose in life? Is there life after death? Is there more to human beings than their physical bodies and immediate interactions with others?
From intro to Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions:
Perhaps the most important ‘first’ that this book achieves is its bold questioning of the whole intellectual apparatus of the Sociology of Religion as it has been applied to the understanding of the New Religious Movements. For the first time this has not been used as the source of an ‘objective’, or, at least, disinterested framework for the research but has itself been held up for interrogation as the product of a complex set of interactions with the other interested parties in what, as the story unfolds, looks more and more like a developing dance, not so much choreographed as improvised, in which all the interested parties move among shifting alliances and hostilities, until it settles into an increasingly predictable pattern.
Arweck on the many questions raised:
My questions included the following: how close can/should academics be to their subjects? How much hospitality should academics accept from NRMs? Should academics
attend NRM-sponsored conferences? If yes, should expenses be accepted? If yes, how much? Should academics attend conferences organized jointly by academics and NRMs? Should participant observation be overt or covert—which or what combination of the two will ensure ‘authentic’ data? If covert participant observation is ruled out as unethical, how do we avoid only seeing the group’s ‘shop window displays’? How much time is needed to investigate a group? How much and what kind of participation should there be in participant observation?
Further questions preoccupied me: should academics stand up for NRMs, for example, by defending their activities at press conferences? Should academics sign petitions on behalf of NRMs? Should academics appear as expert witnesses for NRMs? Should they write affidavits for NRMs? What about the quality of research based on ‘flying’ field visits? Should NRMs impose their agenda on academic conferences, as happened at the 1993 conference in London? What about academics with sympathies or even allegiances to a particular Weltanschauung? What about the increasing number of NRM members enrolled in university programmes? What about NRM graduates in academic posts? Are they any different from theologians or other committed religionists? Should research projects be funded by NRMs? How do academics preserve a ‘healthy’ distance between themselves and their ‘subjects’ to avoid ‘going native’ or adopting a particular group as their tribe or their area of expertise or being adopted in turn by a group as their expert? What about academics ‘with a mission’, who use their academic standing to support and defend a particular position? Commenting on ‘subjects’ and the researcher’s attitude,Pepinsky uses advice quoted from L.T.Wilkin: ‘Kings and queens have subjects, researchers should not!’ (Pepinsky, 1980:232). Sometimes, academics create the impression that they represent the group they study, simply by using the group-specific vocabulary. (p.18)
Early social scientific study of this ‘new’ phenomenon showed that, despite similarities, NRMs significantly differed from one another. This made it difficult to generalize about them, for example by developing general typologies, as each movement presents distinctive doctrines and tenets. Sweeping generalizations have been a point of friction between academics and the ‘anti-cult movement’ (ACM). Where the ACM might talk about ‘cults’ engaging in a set of activities—itemized in checklists as the ‘marks of a cult’ (see e.g. Pavlos, 1982:4; Hounan and Hogg, 1985: Chapter 6), academics might speak of a particular movement engaging in a particular activity comparable to, although not the same as, another movement’s activity. Conflict of context and purpose regarding their construction explain the ‘gap’ between such statements. Academics construct ‘ideal types’—grounded in both theory and empirical findings—whose purpose and language differ from those required for political or legal contexts. Such typologies accommodate general tendencies in NRMs rather than identical movements: NRMs in a particular category share some, but not all, features. If, for example, asked in court whether all NRMs engage in ‘brainwashing’ or ‘breaking up families’, academics would find it difficult to answer, because academic motives and purpose for NRM categorization differ greatly from those of the ACM, which subsumes them under one heading: ‘movements which take away our children’. Academics also find it difficult to answer, because—as Fenn (1982) suggests—some institutions ‘impose’ their language on those dealing with them and some settings, especially court and classroom, specialize in raising doubts about the trustworthiness, credibility, and authority of ‘serious speech’. (p.31)
An important aspect of all these considerations is that the study of NRMs is a highly sensitive area because of the potential for controversy and contest. The clash of interests between the various participants in the debate are connected to the different agendas which each party pursues. Reconciling research interests with one set of participants may alienate another set and thus preclude research in that area. What paralysed me in my own research at some points were areas where methodological and ethical considerations were closely intertwined and where relative lack of experience and status affected the situation. (p.333)
From New Religious Movements in the Twenty-First Century
It is impossible to estimate accurately the number of NRMs to be found in Britain today (one problem is the definition of a new religion—whether, for example, one includes self-development groups and/or all the small congregations within mainstream religions), but the number could be anywhere from 900 to 2000. (p.26)
Melton introduction to Saliba's Understanding new religious movements:
In the pages that follow, Saliba will offer a variety of standing places from which to view the new religions. Psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, religious studies, the law-each offer insight into the life of the new religions. In the process of moving from one perspective to the other, the reader will gather the most important building blocks from which he or she can then construct a meaningful picture of the world of the new religions. (p.xvi)
Saliba points out that there are multiple perspectives, across different academic disciplines:
This book is based on the assumption that examining the new religions from different academic perspectives is a necessary preliminary step for understanding their presence in our age and for drafting an effective response to their influence. Rather than limiting the observations to the boundaries of one discipline, this study has taken the admittedly more perilous path of considering various approaches, even though these differ in their assumptions, methods, theories, and goals. Thus, historical and sociological approaches are more likely to adopt a position that is religiously neutral. Psychology and psychiatry, however, make a definite evaluation of the mental and emotional health of cult members and the effects membership in new religions might have on their lives. In like manner the legal issues brought about by their presence require that some assessment be made of their activities. Theological reflections are always made from a particular faith perspective and aimed at evaluating religions from welldefined doctrinal and/or moral standpoints.
more on issues raised and another definition:
With this brief overview of the new religious movements of the late twentieth century and the long-term trend in religious pluralism in which they participate, we can begin to answer our starting question-What makes a new religion and what makes it new? What are the new religions whose life is to be examined in the text below? New religions are those innovative and dissenting groups on the fringe of the larger religious community. They are the groups that challenge the beliefs and practices of the majority party while attempting at the same time to challenge the secularity of modern life. We group the different “new” religions together not for attributes they share-they believe and practice a bewildering array of ideas and rituals-so much as for the attributes they lack. They dissent in a serious way from commonly accepted beliefs and practice. (p.xv)
Four major ideal concepts of religious institutions or groups are discussed in sociological literature-church, denomination, sect, and cult. The way these disparate organizations are related both to one another and to society at large, their evolution over the course of time, and the factors that influence their development have been the subject of debate among sociologists well before the debate over the new religions. (p.10)
Because of the ambiguous and derogatory meaning that the word “cult” connotes, attempts have been made, largely by sociologists and religionists, to find a better phrase to designate those religious phenomena popularly known as cults. Phrases like “new religions,’’ “unconventional,” “fringe,” “alternative,” or “nontraditional” religions, “intense religious groups,” and “new religious movements” are common. The last phrase (NRMs for short) is often used in professional literature, even though it has serious deficiencies. (p.11)
Besides the debate on the definition of a new religion, one encounters an even more acrimonious controversy about those characteristics that distinguish the new groups from traditional ones. Both scholarly and popular literature is replete with descriptions of the main qualities that enable one to discriminate between cults and the mainline religious organizations. Many of these characteristics are related to the definition of a cult. Two diverse schools of thought can be found in contemporary literature. Both need to be considered, since their respective views have been debated in society at large and in the law courts. One tends to take a rather negative approach and lists the pejorative qualities of cult ideology and lifestyle. Another adopts a somewhat neutral or cautionary optimistic perspective that concedes that there are good features in the new religious movements, features that may outweigh, in the long run, the defective elements in their beliefs and practices and offer an explanation of why people get involved in them. The major problem with these attempts to depict a cult is that new religions do not form one amorphous or homogenous group with exactly the same characteristics. They do, however, share some traits and can thus be grouped together under one name. (p.14)
At least six issues can be identified in the current debate about the new religious movements. The first deals with the definition of a cult. The second questions the reasons for studying the new religious movements and the methods that should be used to examine them. The third concerns their variety and hinges on whether any generalizations can be made about them. The fourth centers on their distinguishing characteristics. The fifth focuses on the models that are devised to understand why they come into being and to explain their significance for, and impact on, modern Western culture. The sixth discusses the societal response that is appropriate to their persistent presence, a response that is determined by the answers that are given to the first five issues. (p.129)
From Lewis's (ed.) Controversial New Religions (2005)
At the time of this writing, the NRM field continues to expand. Some indicators of this growth are the increasing popularity of the sessions of the New Religious Movements Group at the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the growing number of prominent academic presses publishing NRM titles, and the emergence of NRMs as a recognized field of study in graduate programs in a number of European countries, particularly in the United Kingdom. Additionally, an increasing number of NRM academicians are beginning to subspecialize—hence one now encounters self-identified scholars of the New Age, Pagan specialists, historians of Western esotericism, and the like. One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole. (p.3)
Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview. Until the development of NRM subspecialities, the core of the field consisted of studies of controversial new religions plus analyses of the “cult” controversy.
In many ways, NRM studies is a residual category. Though the designation “new religions” implies that all kinds of emergent religions are part of this field, in practice NRM scholars have tended to avoid studying movements already claimed by other scholarly specialties. Thus, to cite a few examples, Pentecostalism has been left to church historians and cargo cults to anthropologists (Lewis 2004). This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.
Although NRM studies has been accepted as a legitimate part of the academy, in many ways the field remains segregated from the larger discipline of religious studies, despite the fact that it is easy to make a case for the importance of researching new religions. (p.4)
The controversy over new religions is a complex social issue that has engendered an emotional and sometimes mean-spirited debate. Decades of social conflict have left their impress on the term “cult,” which, to the general public, indicates a religious group that is false, dangerous, or otherwise bad. The sharpness of this controversy has tended to polarize observers of such groups into extreme positions, making it difficult to find a middle ground from which to approach the issue. (p. 5)
We can keep digging, but it's clear this is a controversial subject, and not simply because of the cult versus NRM debacle, it is simply a complex area because it includes such a wide range of perspectives, it seems natural that debate would continue, so I'm not clear why you want to avoid mention of it, but as I said, I have no problem with the wording discussed above. Measles ( talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The rise of new religious movements (NRMs) has been one of the hallmarks of Western culture over the last fifty years. Scholars from different disciplines have been involved in studying and trying to explain the origin and success of NRMs in an age when religion seemed to be on the decline. The new movements have also been a source of conflict and debate, sorting scholars into four major camps: (1) those who look on them as social and/or psychological aberrations, (2) those who examine them as social or cultural organizations, (3) those who study them as genuine religious expressions, and (4) those who denounce them as false religions and/or diabolical intrusions in the search for truth. (p.41)
Amid the controversies and social conflicts that came to be associated with the study of new religions, feminist critiques of the movements contributed additional insights that further problematized the study of new religions in contemporary society. (p. 232)
That critical approach shown in the feminist literature was the foundation for the study of abuse in new religious movements, an area of research that covers a wide range of behaviors including physical and sexual violence. (p. 233)
Findings such as these have caused a controversy within the sociology of religion, particularly among those scholars who emphasize the virtues rather than the problems of new religious movements. For the most part, the sociological literature on NRMs has avoided the difficult questions of gendered violence and sexual exploitation, emphasizing instead the constructive and functional aspects of religious commitment. In an effort to protect religious freedom and to counter the stigma typically associated with alternative religious groups, scholars in the sociology of religion have often been reluctant to recognize and discuss the abusive practices of these movements, despite the violence identified in the research. At academic conferences and in reviews of the literature, feminist scholars who have brought these abuses to the attention of their colleagues have been heavily critiqued and the accounts of their informants have come under attack and are viewed with suspicion. (p. 233)
Although the field of new religious movements has achieved the status of a recognized specialty, it is a very odd field of specialization, one that lacks an adequate internal logic for determining which phenomena fall within its purview.
One advantage of these subspecialities is that they focus on a reasonably well-defined subject matter. The same cannot be said for the NRM field as a whole
This boundary issue is only one of the questions that need to be asked before new religions can become a cohesive field of study rather than an ad hoc grab bag composed of all the groups no other scholarly specialty wants to bother with.
Can I suggest that if you still have an issue with mention of this you pursue WP:RFC because without demonstrating your position using appropriate sources you really are doing nothing here except pushing a point of view. Measles ( talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem I have with mentioning the strong notion of "debate" being discussed above is that it implies a level of disagreement in the field that questions not just the use of the term, but the meaningfulness of studies that focus on NRMs. There are ways, however, to discuss the major disagreements in the larger field of study in ways that are, in my view, more informative. In the Oxford Handbook James R. Lewis writes:
The "cult controversy" was very influential in shaping the direction of NRM research in the 70s and 80s and this has implications to the more general attributes of and theories about NRMs which have been published over the years. Hotly debated topics within the cult controversy like "brainwashing" and "mind control" also pushed researchers to look into specific areas of interested like how these groups recruited and maintained members (while, as Lewis suggests, focusing on a very select number of groups). Of course the cult controversy is pretty much over since it's major focus, "brainwashing", legitimately become a fringe position in the late 80s. Anyway how about following Lewis' lead in thinking of ways to discuss disagreement and controversy without over emphasizing it. PelleSmith ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
race, politics, sex and religion
. It's hard for some to imagine how you feel while you're cringing in your small room listening to the Muslims and Christians battling it out somewhere near your house. There were times when we actually expected to hear helicopters coming in to lift us out of all that. So please, friends, let's please continue to make with the AGF. Do that and you will have my sincerest gratitude!Two cites using the CESNUR website have problems:
The intro of the article claims that NRM is
now, in my opinion, a new religion is not necessarily a cult. While the idea of using a neutral term as an alternative to a loaded and ill-defined word, is a good thing, the idea that "New religious movement" should be a neutral alternative to "cult" is actually loading the term NRM with a negative connotation. Cults are not per se religious. They are not per se new. Those new religious movement that aren't cults, get the "cult" connotation by claiming that "NRM" is a terminological alternative to "cult". Instead the intro should claim that sociologists erected a term to try to cover a kind of new religious movements, that derrogatorily have formerly sometimes been described as "cults" by detractors... or some such. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You will want to add to your references "Comprehending Cults: the Sociology of New Religous Movements" by Lorne L Dawson (Oxford University Press) and now in its second edition. And a link to this review of Dawson: http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/cults.html Thanks for a fine article. Rumjal rumjal 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)
There is a deficiency in the article - controversial NRMs are not mentioned, seemingly because they are mentioned separately in another article, cults. There is currently a debate over the word. I suggest including references to NRMs that are called cults as well.
I think there needs to be some more joining of the dots between pop culture and the new religions it is helping to spawn, eg.
Matt
I don't know how to cleanup this article, because maybe the term is unclean. The content seems to be accurate but the article makes no sense. It is reasonable to believe that the term cult increasingly got bad connotations, and therefore that the term "new religious movement" was coined as a replacement, but the sections Definitions and Joining seems to indicate that the term became fluff instead of a clear well defined term despite 100 years of experience. Measuring between my index finger and my thumb I get the following impression: there are movements that are pretty "new" and that attain a "religious" surface. These can probably be subdivided into:
and also that:
and also that totalitarian groupings are pretty ineffective and utilizes lots of effort to keep individuals under controle, so that it either
By confusing all this, one ascertains a dysfunctional term. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Only general families are listed here (tens of thousands of individual denominations exist); some of these groups do not consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by scholars and the public at large:
To him that typed the above "denominations:" to denominate is to become a religious sect(ion), that I do state to become a religious section, of an established religious cult, also known as "religion." Debate only exists surrounding such topics as denominations, protestants, religious cults, religious occults, and religions, due to the common man's lack of knowledge concerning symmantics, etymology, and histories. Protestant is one that protests. The word protestant is capitalized when referring to one of the Protestant Movement--those protesting the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England and the Church of Germany, being those Anglicans (followers of the King of the English, representative of England) and Lutherans (followers of Luther), were Protestant of the Roman Catholic Church, and so Anglicans and Lutherans are Protestant (Protestants is really vulgar). Lutherans could be considered not in Protest, how ever, as Luther only wanted to reform the Roman Catholic religion. Lutheranism would then be considered a theo-/philosophical sect of Roman Catholicism; instead, though, Lutheranism is so established that it is a sect of Christianity (the cult of Jesus Christ as from Judaism) like Roman Catholicism. So called Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, etc. are for the most part, depending upon what one believes to be et cetera, all reformed Anglicans or protestant Anglicans. Puritans are reformed Anglicans, as were Lutherans reformed Roman Catholics. Congregationalists are protestant Anglicans, being that they did not wish to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury (Pope of the Church of England, English Catholic Church). Presbyterians are reformed Anglicans, as are under the Church of Scotland; how ever, as they did schism with the Roman Catholic Church in the same period as the Church of England, the Church of Scotland may be considered not at all a Scottish development from the British influence of the Church of England but rather a Protestant denomination from Roman Catholicism--and so a sect of Christianity. WiZeNgAmOtX ( talk) 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry but this page is all about cults, isn't it supposed to be about "religious movements"?
I've removed the following:
This needs to stop being added in. Unless time passes that we know this is not a fad and is a real movement it should be excluded - there are plenty of websites devoted to fictional religions that seem real: Klingon Ecumenical Alliance for one, The Order of the Sisters of Zathras for another. Trödel| talk 7:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Now, consider the text layout:
which is a non-definition, because it doesn't add anything to the concept New religious movement that cannot be inferred from the combination of the words "new", "religious" and "movement", the definition is not valid,
Now the business becomes serious (acc2 WP:OR, WP:SYNTH possibly also WP:POV): it appears that even the article try to define a concept NRM is dubious, because it concocts a concept from disparate concepts with no clear connection. I do not doubt that there is a malformed concept New religious movement out there, I've heard about it as a label confusing the businesses of para-religions, minor religions with destructive and evil cults, but Wikipedia cannot write like this: the article must – in this very case – instead find external sources concocting this original-research-kind of confused concept and then compare them. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)