15 ms·
In the 21st century should we continue to use words like "cult" to refer to non-Abrahamic cultures. The choice of words colour our view of older societies and
by naruvimama 6y ago
In the 21st century should we continue to use words like "cult" to refer to non-Abrahamic cultures.
The choice of words colour our view of older societies and does not give a fair and objective narrative.
- zrth 6y agoOr should we instead rather expand words like "cult" to refer to Abrahamic cultures too?
- naruvimama 6y agoWords like "cult" or "pagan" were used as derogatory terms to belittle non-christian cultures, much of which do not exist today. Academia should be thorough in cleaning up the vocabulary, if not out of politeness, at least as a means to avoid bias. If John Doe's CV read, "Barbarian John Doe" or "Cult leader John Doe" - where objectively neither of them were true. Bias sets in at the very beginning.
- Kye 6y agoLivescience dot com is not academia. I would like to see the atrocious state of science reporting improve, but it's not going to happen there on a web that's dependent on ad impressions.
- naruvimama 6y agoIt is not uncommon for some religious groups to distort or manipulate academic output, so what is obvious nonsense today becomes a fact a decade in the future.
- INTPenis 6y agoMaybe because they don't really know which cult the temple belonged to. There were many smaller cults in those days like Mithraists for example. Could even have been a Christian cult centered around some martyr or saint.
- GreenHeuristics 6y agoMithraists, in Norway, 1200 years ago?
- INTPenis 6y agoSure why not, they were in the british isles in the 5th century. I only used it as an example because I'm reading a book about them atm. ;)
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoMithraism was present in England only because Roman soldiers from else in the Empire were stationed there (the Roman army was the major factor in the spread of Mithraism). However, no Roman soldiers ever set foot in Norway, so no, it is not a reasonable hypothesis that Mithraism existed in Norway in the first millennium.
- the_af 6y agoI don't know if this is the case in English, but in Spanish the equivalent word "culto" doesn't mean "unimportant", "minor" or "fringe/dangerous". In fact, the Catholic (Abrahamic!) religion is referred to as a "culto", as is the Jewish religion and yes, also the religions of indigenous people. "Freedom of religion" is referred to as "libertad (freedom) de culto". I read "cult" in the title of this article with this mindset, maybe influenced by my native tongue. Was I wrong?
- naruvimama 6y agoWikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult "In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2]:348–56 It is usually considered pejorative." I am sure the Catholic church would object to being called a cult in the English speaking world, do realise that a different set of laws might apply to a cult as against a religion.
- neaden 6y agoThe Catholic Church uses the term cult to refer to the movement around the veneration of particular saints, ex: The Cult of Saint Joseph.
- fogihujy 6y agoI looked it up just to be sure: > A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. Based on the article, this seems to have been the dominant religion in the area. Norse and Rus ship burials are fairly well-documented so I must agree with the grandparent: using the word cult seems quite derogative.
- eloisius 6y ago
- Jiocus 6y agoIf I understand you correctly, you're reasoning that the word cult is a derogatory term aimed at non Semitic religious practices. I don't think that reasoning seem sound, and here's why. Firstly, the negative connotation is but the most recent way the word has been used to color something in an immoral or bad way. Even using the word cult in a secular way (“the cult-following of Twilight Zone”) seem to be older, and more positive overall. Secondly, the word cult is a useful and suiting word in religious science when referring to religious worship and devotion - often aimed at a particular phenomenon within a larger religious context, such as a specific deity in a pantheon (in this light, the article use of the word seem less fitting). Third, and I may be wrong on this one as I base it on pure intuition. From a Semitic perspective, other religious practices has been viewed historically as less legitimate, more primitive or outright as false practices at odds with say, Christianity. Those “heretic” practices has often been linked to Satan himself, causing many religious or spiritual traditions to be regarded as simply Satanic cults. Of course, this is negative press for the accused - but Satanism is also a Semitic religious idea. My point is lost, but Should we continue to refer to Satanism as an immoral threat to society?
- naruvimama 6y agoMy point is simple, can it be simply a "temple". 1. “the cult-following of Twilight Zone” - it is immediately obvious that it is a fan club. 2. No religion today would like to be termed a cult. And there are also legal reasons. 3. Should we apply a "Christian/Islamic world view" on cultures some of which are more sophisticated and liberal than christianity. It is wrong to assume Christianity as a religion is "normal" or a benchmark. The old religions around the world have more in common with each other than with Christianity or Islam.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- err4nt 6y agoIs what is considered a 'temple' and what is not considered a 'temple' something all laypeople and scholars agree on? (anecdotally, I've discovered some people have very strong reactions to the word 'temple' being used for certain buildings, and I am curious to know why - haven't figured out why for the people I know yet, but be aware it's not going to be a conflict-free term either)
- tokai 6y agoAnthropologist use the word cult to refer to Abrahamic religions as well. You are misconstruing the word, which in this case means systematic worship and veneration. You cannot use layman definitions to critique academic word use.
- colechristensen 6y agoThe academic usage of the word cult is quite different than the common usage, the common usage is the one that has relatively recently acquired a deragatory meaning. I’m not in favor of taking words, misusing them, and then taking that misuse as standard and saying nobody should use them.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoI came here to give a shout-out to the earlier, established use of cult to mean small religion - before it was hijacked by people like Walter Martin to demonize religions they didn't like.
- shripadk 6y ago> The academic usage of the word cult is quite different than the common usage, the common usage is the one that has relatively recently acquired a deragatory meaning. Words used for non-Abrahamic Religions: Myth, Legend, Cult, Folklore, Pagan, Heathen, Infidel, Idolator, Disbeliever/Non-believer. All of these words inherently have a derogatory, racist meaning. This should be classified as racism and is as bad as, or worse than Nazism[1][2] but since 2/3rd of the population follows one of the Abrahamic Religions it is given a pass. 1. Read up on Goan Inquisition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition#Persecution_of... 2. Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History: https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust...
- cercatrova 6y agoWhy don't we start calling all religions cults instead. That would solve the problem of word usage you're talking about.
- throwaway894345 6y agoAs others have mentioned, the academic usage is value-neutral. Moreover, the more recent vernacular with pejorative connotations doesn't mean "non-Abrahamic cultures", but rather a new religious dogma often centered around a single living deity or prophet and often exploitative. Note that this usage is sometimes applied to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (Abrahamic) and is not applied to Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, etc (non-Abrahamic).