Sunday, March 19, 2006

Cults: From L. Ron Hubbard to George W. Bush

Cannon here: Yesterday, as I was driving to the Fuller Theological Seminary (where the bloody library turned out to be bloody closed), a local Air America broadcaster asked -- perhaps appropriately -- an old question: "What is a cult?"

The host asked this in relation to the South Park-v-Scientology feud. In case you haven't heard, the re-airing of an episode mocking Scientology led to the resignation of Isaac Hayes. Rumor holds that the whole debacle is somehow the fault of Evil Tom Cruise, who refused to publicize Mission Impossible 3 unless Viacom (which owns both Paramount and Comedy Central) canned that South Park segment.

First, let's talk about "Evil Tom" and his odd faith.

I know all about Scientology. Many a moon ago, the great science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon befriended my Mom (Sturgeon made it his business to befriend every attractive female in Los Angeles), and at a dinner party -- Mom was big on dinner parties -- Sturgeon told my nine-year-old self that he personally heard L. Ron Hubbard brag that the best way to make a million bucks was to start a new religion. First-hand testimony, that. In the years since, I've amused myself by tracing Hubbard's influences -- i.e., the folks from whom he pilfered ideas -- and have paid a special attention to the Aleister Crowley connection. (In a recorded lecture, Hubbard once claimed AC as a friend, although the Mage actually considered "Ron" a common con artist.) Every library should have copies of A Piece of Blue Sky and Bare-Faced Messiah. Even before those books appeared, I would keep a wary eye on the scary Sea Org dudes who would pop in whenever I grabbed some cheap eats at New York George's, a joint across the street from the "Big Blue" Scientology headquarters. And I've had the opportunity to speak to a couple of former high-ranking sectarians who had broken with the group and, years later, were still running scared.

So don't question my credentials as an anti-Hubbardian, and don't offer any lectures on the Ghastliness of Elron if I dare to ask a simple question: Just what is it that Tom Cruise and Isaac Hayes did wrong in this matter?

Hayes has a right to withdraw his services from South Park, or from any other employer, if he feels so inclined. Many have scored him for partipating in episodes that knocked other religions while becoming angry only when the writers blasted his silly beliefs. But so what? Most people behave in a similar fashion: Satire remains a laughing matter until it whacks you in the nose. One can't blame the guy for being human.

A publicist for Tom Cruise denies that he used his alleged power over Viacom to have the episode pulled. Even if this denial is disingenuous (as perhaps it is) -- so what? Unless he signed a contract stipulating otherwise, Cruise has a legal and ethical right not to do publicity for the upcoming Mission Impossible film. He may speak or not speak to anyone he chooses, for any reason he sees fit.

Incidentally, I happen to think the guy is a damn good actor. Go ahead and snicker. The DVDs of Born on the Fourth of July and Magnolia and Minority Report will be around well after the snickering stops. If you snub the work of every artist who has behaved erratically or held a foolish belief, you will rob yourself of most of the art ever produced.

As some of you may have discovered on your own, anti-Scientologists can be almost as wacky as those still mired within the sect. Ex-cultists still think like cultists. In that respect, they're like alkies or druggies.

All of which brings us to the question: Is Scientology a cult? What IS a cult?

Buzzflash addressed the question today in an editorial about the cult of Bush. Here's the BF definition:
It's a movement that is comprised of people who believe in a leader contrary to reality and the harm that the person does them.
Not bad, not bad...but. One could apply that same phrase to the followers of some very admirable people. Probably the bravest person alive today is Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, whose followers risk great harm and act contrary to the sad realities now prevailing in that nation.

Not only that. Catholics speak (without any hint of insult) of a "cult" of this or that saint, or even of a mode of prayer, such as the Sacred Heart. In this context, the word carries no negative connotations; it simply refers to a type of religious devotion practiced by a subset of individuals within the larger body of Catholicism. Outside the United States, people do not sneer when they use the term cult; historians may speak of the Mithraic cult without implying that Mithraism ever hurt anyone.

I used to argue for a return to this non-prejudicial usage, for a purely numerical definition of the word "cult." When Mormonism gained a certain number of adherents -- say, a million -- it ceased to be a cult and became just another religion. Granted, it is a religion devised by a con artist who wrote science fiction -- as is the case with Scientology. But a religion nonetheless.

And yet...and yet...

Language evolves. We cannot impede the process by which old words take on new meanings. Can we still define "cult" with an abacus? We also speak of a cult of Mao and a cult of Stalin; those cults had many millions of adherents. We cannot deny the political phenomenon of the cult of personality. Buzzflash argues that Bushevism is merely the latest example of that phenomenon.

But the Bush cult, if we can call it that, is really an outgrowth of fundamentalist Christianity -- which may or may not be a cult, depending on the elasticity of your definition. The insecure adherents of fundamentalism know full well that the "unsaved" tend to be smarter and better educated. They know that the American south, where the virus of fundamentalism has infected nearly everyone, is culturally and economically inferior to post-Christian Europe. They know that they cannot scientifically defend Creationism or the more preposterous tales related in their "inerrant" scriptures. They know that rational people consider their theological principles small and vicious -- particularly their barbaric "blood atonement" doctrine, as well as their hyper-neurotic conviction that billions will burn eternally for committing petty "sins" of the flesh.

Having a president who thinks as they do (or who says he thinks that way) makes fundamentalists feel less stupid. Bush validates them. That's why he still inspires devotion, despite the ruin he has brought to this country.

One out of three Americans adheres to this belief system. That's not a majority -- thank you, Jesus! -- but it is no small percentage. Can we really use the word "cultist" to describe so many of our fellow citizens?

I have yet to stitch together a definition of "cult" that covers all of this territory. If you can do so, please let me know.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always thought the word “cult” and “cultivate” derive from the same activity which is to focus unwaveringly and uncritically upon one thing, leader, personality, Holy Book, etc to the exclusion of all other evidence or authority – or reality. It really doesn’t matter the number of extant cultists. For example, Christians focus on the divine inspiration, immutability, and infallibility of the Bible to the exclusion of any facts to the contrary. That makes them the cult of the Book - a big cult, but still a cult. Dare I list other examples?
Peace,
Bob Boldt

Anonymous said...

I have a book called "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power" by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. On page 32, they characterize a cult as a "specific way to to refer to groups with an authoritarian structure where the leader's power is not constrained by scripture, tradition or any other 'higher' authority." They continue on page 33, "In a cult, absolute authority lies in a leader who has few if any external constraints." They make the point that religions probably started as cults, but as time went on and mythology, rituals and belief systems were developed that transcended the importance of the founder or leader they were no longer considered as cults. This is the operational definition they used in their book, and I think it's a good one. The other characteristic I associate with cults is total subjugation of an individual's will to that of the leader. I've sometimes thought cult leader might be a good career option for me, but I haven't found anyone to pledge all of their earthly possessions to me. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

At the URL below, you will find some examples of the Cult of Bush in full swing. These are reader comments to the Wall Street Journal shortly before the Iraq War, in response to a nauseating paean of praise to George Bush by Peggy Noonan. She ended with the phrase: "This presidency feels like a gift!"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/responses.html?article_id=110002995

Oddly, though the comments are still online, I haven't been able to locate the article that provoked them. My search for the "feels like a gift" phrase brings up only a previous Noonan article from 1998. Apparently it was one of her more successful efforts, so I guess she thought the phrase could bear recycling.

In her most recent article, Peggy Noonan has changed her mind about Bush, a few thousand dead bodies later - for what she calls his "liberal" spending policies! (Of course, true liberal spending would not cut social programs, which are actually *investments,* in favour of war and corporate welfare.)

The overblown praise for Bush in the reader comments, and the way they repeat the same phrases, makes me suspect that most of them originated from a rightwing letter-writing campaign. Even with the best of presidents at the helm, who in their right mind could have possibly felt "safe and protected" during those turbulent years?

DrewL said...

I've often looked at cultism as describing one's devotion to an arguably unrealistic cause or belief that often acts against the best interests of the individual. In that regard, I consider most if not all organized religions - even the "mainstream" ones - to be little more than glorified cults.

Perhaps my status as a "non-religious" person colors that viewpoint, but when I have attended religious services of one faith or another, and have taken a step back to divorce myself from the seemingly mainstream normality of it all, some of the things that are said and done in those services really tend to creep me out! Kind of like ADULTS putting out snacks and drink for a fat, bearded guy dressed in red who is going to slide down a billion chimneys all over the world in a span of 18 hours as eight flying reindeer gallop around the globe carrying $100 billion worth of gifts in a slight the size of a Ford pickup truck. But they really believe it! They really do!

Ultimately, it seems that society brands something a cult if it somehow threatens to undermine the generally accepted cults/religions that have been around forever. Is it insecurity? Perhaps. Is it fear? Probably. Is it ignorance? Absolutely.

Anonymous said...

Of course, true liberal spending would not cut social programs

Kasha,
Table 3.16 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows government expenditures by function. Federal spending starts at line 42. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid

From 2000-2004 (most recent data available) total federal annual spending has increased an average of 5% annually. Annual spending is up 7.3% on "Health", 13.8% on "Elementary Education", is up 7.2% on "Higher Education", is up 7% on "Disability", is up 5% on "Welfare and Social Services", and is up 11.3% on "Unemployment".

Annual inflation was roughly 2.5% during that time frame and annual population growth was maybe 1%, so, exactly to which social programs are you referring when you say they were cut?

An investment is an expenditure on an asset made with the expectation of generating future returns on that asset in excess of the next best alternative use of that expenditure, or in protecting the value of other assets (e.g., insurance or defense). Education spending would be considered an investment, but welfare spending would not be. That would be a transfer payment, like taking money out of your left pocket and putting into your right. Or more aptly, taking money out of someone else's left pocket and putting into your right.

Joseph Cannon said...

I cannot access the site you list, but I know that the picture is more complex. Pell Grants are being cut off from many students, and have effectively been reduced incrementally over the years because they remained static during inflation. HUD is down dramatically. The discretionary spending budget of the Department of Health and Human Services has been cut, even though the overall budget has risen. And so on..

All of that said...

We are in some slight agreement here, jed. But the underlying reason for the continued spending on welfare is that Bush must play to his red state base, and these states are welfare hogs. For a good piece on this, go here.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001039.shtml

Of course, I've made the point many, many times on this blog: Red states are leech states, blue states are producer states. The pocket being robbed belongs to a Californian or a New Yorker.

But even I would countenance this welfare-for-hillbillies program if it were counterbalanced by cuts to corporate welfare, which is where the real waste comes in. This article in the National Review...

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200509231145.asp

...a source that I hope you will not dismiss as hopelessly liberal, argues that Bush could have saved some 50 billion bucks over the course of ten years by cutting needless giveaways to corporations. I suspect that the actual figure would be substantially higher, especially if we rein in the obscene abuses which are traditionally found in the military production sector.

Of course, even those abuses are insignificant compared to the money wasted on this stupid war.

Anonymous said...

Try this:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N

Table 3.16 - make sure you change the pull-down menus to get back to 2000.

Joseph - we've discussed this "leech" thing in the past, but to my recollection I don't think you've ever answered my underlying question - Why is it acceptable, in your worldview, to have individuals "leech" but not states? The logical outcome of redistributionist federal tax policy is for money to flow from relatively rich states to relatively poor states. Since the per capita income is higher in New York and California than in Alabama or Utah, money flows that way.

With respect to Pell grants and higher education spending. . .I haven't seen a lot about income inequality on your blog. This isn't something I necessarily believe, but something I've been thinking about . . .if returns to higher education spending result in successful individuals who obtain the education, and if income inequality problems are exacerbated by those with educations versus those without, and if minimizing income inequality is a social goal, why should any policy subsidize higher education spending? As a policy, the consequence is subsidized income inequality.

I'll read your references later.

Anonymous said...

Joe, a small point about what it is that Tom did wrong and what makes many people fee creeped out.

It's called in law and business, "tortious interference in a contract," a doctrine that says, it is wrong to "butt into" a contract between two consenting parties, and if you destroy their transaction, you are liable. (Literally, "mind your own business".) To make a point, the law tends to reduce these doctrines to absurd examples to make a point, so here goes: supposed you are about to buy a hot dog on the street (I guess my choice of hypothetical reveals I'm in NY and not LA) and some vegan fanatic runs up to you and starts screaming, standing between you and the hot dog vendor, and you don't get your hotdog and the vendor doesn't get to sell his hot dog. It just doesn't seem right, and the vegan is reducing business (and therefore wealth maximization)between consenting adults. It doesn't matter that the vegan (like Tom) has some interest in the seller, like he was the vendor's landlord; that would make it worse.

To take the absurdity further, suppose Bill Gates became a militant vegan, and he commanded that Gateway, Dell, and other computer companies could not sell computers to meat eaters.

A more realistic example is that although labor unions can picket their employers, they cannot join a picket between some other union's employer and that other union; it's called a secondary boycott and is considered "butting into" a conflict they have no business in.

In this case, Viacom was willing to buy this episode; and South Park fans were willing to watch it; advertisers were willing to pay for the air time; and Tom barges in with his fanatic preferences and says even though you are all consenting contracting adults, I'm going to interfere because it goes against my preferences.

The normal answer is: Tom, if you don't wanna see Scientology get bashed, don't watch it; but don't prevent Viacom from showing it to people who want to watch it.

Now I suppose that this kind of interference happens all the time in the cut throat business world, but the idea of tortious interference with contract is pretty well accepted and legitimate as a way of condemning that behavior.

HamdenRice from DU

Joseph Cannon said...

I thank you much, Hamden. But I think there's a difference between wheat Crusie allegedly did and what the mad vegan in your hot dog example did. Cruise (let us presume for the sake of argument that the rumors are true) is not actively putting himself between Viacom and the advertisers. He was simply saying "I have a right not to give interviews if I so choose." It's a little hard to make the argument that keeping silent and staying home to play Doom is a form of interference.

Aren't abortion protestors practicing tortious interference" every day?

As for jed...I see no reason to argue with someone whose values are so different as to make dialog impossible. If my ladyfriend (I THINK she is still my lady) did not have some financial aid (which she will surely pay back in spades, due to higher earnings and taxes), she would be forced to give up college and work at menial labor. And her upcoming professional career would go not to a motivated, hard-working lady with a 3.7 GPA but to some snotty rich kid who doesn't feel obligated to get such high grades because his or her only competition would be other snotty rich kids.

Now, you may be okay with that. You may be okay with the fact that class mobility has become much worse in this country than in, say, Europe. I'm not. And I don't see any evidence that the folks in European mixed economies live worse than folks do in more libertarian economies. But that's the problem with libertarian fanatics: They don't CARE about results; they only care about ideology. "This trick SHOULD work," they keep muttering, even when experience shows that it does not.

If you give welfare to an indvidual, he has no choice but to understand that he is on welfare and should be motivated to get off it. That, interestingly enough, is how it works in Sweden. I spoke recently to small business person there, who explained that the social stigma attached to taking government handouts for any extended period of time is severe. That keeps the number of welfare recipients small. (That, plus a good education system and a government devoted to protecting jobs.)

But...if you give those handouts to an entire state, a region, there is no stigma. Especially when we allow the leeches to live with the fantasy that they are NOT leeches. Especially when those hillbillies operate under the delusion that the real leeches are always "the Others," -- those damn liberals, those damn blacks, those damn furriners, anyone but the hillibilly in the mirror.

I say: Force those motherfucking southern-fried Jesus-lovin' LEECHES to stick their hillbilly faces right into the truth, the way you'd make a dog confront the poop on the rug. Force them to confront the fact thet they, the red-staters, are the TRUE recipients of gummint largesse, and that they owe money to the Californians they have robbed and insulted year after year.

Those sons of bitches always complain about the films we make. At least WE make a product the world likes. How many hillbillies can make that claim?

So one of the running themes of this blog is "Stick their faces in it." That's the only way to get that "social stigma" factor back in operation. It works in Sweden; why not Jesusland?

Anonymous said...

If my ladyfriend did not have some financial aid (which she will surely pay back in spades, due to higher earnings and taxes), she would be forced to give up college and work at menial labor.

There's a missing phrase that is implied in your sentence that's conspicuously absent. I think you're impling that "if [your] ladyfriend did not have some publicly subsidized financial aid. . ."
To this I say nonsense. There are plenty of private loan programs for higher education, which carry interest rates at market prices (I happen to owe on several). And in addition to getting subsidized interest rates, assuming your ladyfriend isn't in the top 10% of income earners, she'll get to deduct a large portion of the interest payments from her taxable income. The lack of government loans wouldn't force your ladyfriend into menial labor anymore than the elimination of "corporate welfare" would force those companies into bankruptcy. Subsidization of higher education loans reduces class mobility, it doesn't enhance it.

If you give welfare to an indvidual, he has no choice but to understand that he is on welfare and should be motivated to get off it. Yes, he or she should - but that's not the way it's worked in this country, and your analogy can be drawn for any urban center, which is much more subject to your issues than entire states.

I've provided a reference to standards of living in Europe vs. the U.S. in a past posting. (link below) Last year, Timbro looked at consumption in the EU and the U.S. In that study, they looked at consumption for "the poor" (their description not mine, a level of which was not indicated explicity in the study, but did follow a section citing the 12% U.S. poverty rate). In the U.S., the percentage of "the poor" owning a microwave, color TV, clothes dryer, VCR/DVD, and personal computer was greater than the average citizen in France and Denmark. Those owning dishwashers was about equal. Dwelling space per person was greater for "the poor" in the U.S. than for the average person from either France or the aggregate EU (although the average citizen in Denmark had more dwelling space per person than "the U.S. poor").

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf