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.