site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   2741 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 15, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does anyone see red flags or signs of a cult?

The answer is moo as far as I'm concerned. A religion is just a cult with social standing. It's a very arbitrary distinction.

Do you think this church would provide many of the same benefits as a traditional church?

It would certainly be more interesting

Do you have any other information or thoughts about this church?

Well:

In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the Supreme Court heard arguments on 1 November 2005, and unanimously ruled in February 2006 that the U.S. federal government must allow the Brazil-based União do Vegetal (UDV) church to import and consume ayahuasca for religious ceremonies under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In September 2008, the three Santo Daime churches filed suit in federal court to gain legal status to import DMT-containing ayahuasca tea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_ayahuasca_by_country

So there's certainly precedent.

A religion is a cult with a track record, which is way more useful than social standing. Mass movements that turn into disasters over a decade or more are a dime a dozen; only if a movement has been around for several decades already do you have enough data to guess what disasters it's probably vulnerable to.

"Several decades" would mean that $cientology, Hare Krishnas, and arguably Moonies have made the transition from "cult" to "religion" by now. Certainly in the UK, the anti-cult crowd think that Scientology and Moonies are the most dangerous religious cults.

Yes, and perhaps.

The point of several decades of data isn't that the group definitely isn't going to be an ongoing disaster, it's that there's been time for the disasters to be ongoing rather than sudden. If you joined Scientology in 1960 and couldn't stay on their good side, you might have been quite unpleasantly surprised by what was to follow. I'm told the Readers' Digest exposes in the 1980s were quite brave. But by 1995 or so, if you weren't a kid dragged in by parents, joining Scientology was kinda on you.

Whereas, these guys? They might be perfectly fine. But even if they're not showing the classic "cult warning signs" now, who knows what might be going on after a couple decades of social churn and personal change? Cult leaders have gone downhill on that time scale even if they weren't using psychoactive drugs from the start. Lots of people thought Jim Jones seemed like a decent guy for a long time before the eventual paranoid spiral and the mass murder-suicide.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats