Experiments in Living --

* a defeat for a generation lost in a world with no taste

Imperial College Union on Cults

I would like to draw attention to an imperial college union web page that explains about cults. (1) I am not writing this article in an attempt to attack mainstream religion, but I want to highlight that the distinction between a supernatural religion and a cult is not conveyed by the Union. I find the section entitled "What should I look out for?" particularly outrageous when I think about the first Alpha Course meeting I went to this week. The Christians who I met at the meeting seemed to be people:

* with easy answers or solutions to your or others problems...

* who are excessively or inappropriately friendly...

* who invite you to free meals, meetings, lectures or seminars...

* who pressure you into doing something ...

* who make you feel guilt for no reason ...

I did not devise the list above, its an extract from the union website! But outwardly the people I met at The Holy Trinity Brompton (the originators of the Alpha Course) appear to fit these criteria well. Should I suspect them of being a cult? They did explicitly deny it on several occasions, which I thought oozed a certain insecurity, especially since they were unprompted by the participants! So what is the distinction between conventional religions and cults? The Union web page makes many arguments:

"The techniques used to get people to join are sophisticated." Well the Alpha Course meeting I attended this week was extremely sophisticated, well organised and professional. I do not want to offend the Christians whom I met there, I admit that I do not fully understand their beliefs and I am keen to learn more.

Is the distinction that they "involve guilt"? But don't some Christians insist that we are all sinners who need to be saved? If we are so sinful then surely we should feel guilty. Or should we feel guilty if we have had liberal sex with many other consenting people, possibly at the same time? As a non-believer I wouldn't necessarily see a need to feel guilty about this, but conventional religions tend to use mechanisms of guilt or fear to dissuade people from such things.

Is it "peer group pressure"? Well all of the most successful religions proselytise (that frustratingly difficult to pronounce word),and if your friends are religionists of any sort then you are likely to be subject to pressure.

The Union page points to the sort of public perception that "they have quite bizarre beliefs about flying saucers landing and taking them all onto a better place", but conventional religions also have supernatural beliefs that seem equally (if not more) questionable to me!

The Union also says "The only time cults really seem to get reported is when mass suicide by cult followers or leaders bring about the deaths of members." I don't even want to broach the issue of religiously driven suicide, but I don't think the suicide bombers we have been seeing on the news recently are regarded as cult followers.

"Cults are viewed by the media as ‘off-beat’ groups whose beliefs appear to the public as being bizarre or socially unacceptable." Well this seems like a fair argument. So are cults simply supernatural religions that are socially unacceptable? Since we do not oppose religious freedom in general (and I don't think we should) I can't see why we should brand any groups as 'socially unacceptable' by using the term "cult". Even if their beliefs are terrifying this sort of dismissal discourages constructive debate.

I could compare every other criticism that is made of "cults" to the arguments, beliefs, or recruitment techniques of conventional religions, but I want to move on to the most important statement of all. The Union page says that:

"To others, many religious groups may appear strange or different, but what makes a cult ‘a cult’ is that the members are routinely lied to and deceived by others in the group."

This is the only way to distinguish a religion from a cult according to the Union web site, so the entire Union web page could probably be condensed to:

A cult is a religion in which the leaders do not have genuine conviction in their beliefs or principles.

Now, can anybody tell me how to assess the conviction of religious believers? Should we look out for ulterior motives that might be driving the religionists? It seems to me that conventional churches, mosques, temples and synagogues have maintained a great position of authority and have often achieved many special benefits. Don't they also have a vested interest in perpetuating their beliefs?

As far as I can see, unless we can view them retrospectively (after their demise), the only ways to distinguish "cults" from supernatural religions are that cults are treated with greater scepticism and are looked down upon by a greater proportion of society!

So if the Union welfare department wants to explore the idea of a "cult" then I think it should do so in a more intelligent fashion.

Contributed by Marcus Ellington

(1) http://www.imperialcollegeunion.org/information-and-advice/health-wellbeing/diversity,51,ICUAP.html