What's new

Any opinions on this article:

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Gib, you should provide a bit more information.

Title of paper: Scientology: The Art of Cultic Persuasion

"This paper will explore the Church of Scientology to accomplish two main goals. First
we will determine what defines a “cult” in terms of persuasive techniques and whether the
Church of Scientology can be classified as a cult. Then, we will identify the types of rhetorical
strategies and persuasive fallacies used to facilitate groupthink and promote unity as a means to
gain and maintain group membership."

Looks interesting, will read it.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Overall not a bad paper.

I do find her reliance on Lewis' information to be flawed:
Members are free to practice other religions in addition to Scientology (Lewis 2015: 229).
This goes against the phenomenon of cults forcing members into one particular type
of spiritual life; in cults, the leader is the only godly figure to be worshipped by the members.
Not surprising that she's unaware of the facts and co$ views on "other practices".
 

CaliMule

Work Hard and Bray
Wastes a lot of space on trying to define "cult" and see if that label can be hurled at the subject.

"Cult", modernly, is simply a pejorative* name to call some group. Hurling that label at it seems to let people think they can:

1 - relax rigor of thought or the sense of justice required in defaming their target,
2 - seek to make de jure biases against them exist or be effective, and​
3 - generally gratify themselves in afflicting their target while conferring upon themselves a sense of self-righteousness.​

Really a person trying to define "cult" for us usually winds up merely parading their own biases and not very humble opinions.

I don't care if any religious group is a "cult" or not if you can prove the specific illegal, abusive, or otherwise antisocial acts it performs. And if you can, that alone should be the topic of discussion. Don't waste time on loaded language and preferred pejoratives.

If you CAN'T prove the specific illegal, abusive, or otherwise antisocial acts some religious groups does, but still want to gratify yourself by defaming them and posturing as reasonable yourself, call it a "cult" of course.


* (And in my opinion, also "perjorative", which is ill defined as a word but something I like calling things, a lot. Just like the author of the article in question, I think I get to make up words and define their meaning as I please.)
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Overall not a bad paper.

I do find her reliance on Lewis' information to be flawed:

Not surprising that she's unaware of the facts and co$ views on "other practices".
yah, but as you said, she hits it pretty good from the persuasion angle.
 

Gib

Crusader
Wastes a lot of space on trying to define "cult" and see if that label can be hurled at the subject.

"Cult", modernly, is simply a pejorative* name to call some group. Hurling that label at it seems to let people think they can:

1 - relax rigor of thought or the sense of justice required in defaming their target,
2 - seek to make de jure biases against them exist or be effective, and​
3 - generally gratify themselves in afflicting their target while conferring upon themselves a sense of self-righteousness.​

Really a person trying to define "cult" for us usually winds up merely parading their own biases and not very humble opinions.

I don't care if any religious group is a "cult" or not if you can prove the specific illegal, abusive, or otherwise antisocial acts it performs. And if you can, that alone should be the topic of discussion. Don't waste time on loaded language and preferred pejoratives.

If you CAN'T prove the specific illegal, abusive, or otherwise antisocial acts some religious groups does, but still want to gratify yourself by defaming them and posturing as reasonable yourself, call it a "cult" of course.


* (And in my opinion, also "perjorative", which is ill defined as a word but something I like calling things, a lot. Just like the author of the article in question, I think I get to make up words and define their meaning as I please.)
did you read the conclusion of her article?
 

Veda

Sponsor
From the corporate Scientology operated web site, 'Scientology Myths':

"Scientologists find it very offensive when people call Scientology a cult. The word 'cult' is now the most hateful thing you can call a religion. It's used as a slur. It's used by bigots. Not just against Scientology, but against many new minority religions. These are the actions of 'hate'."


Scientology & Jim Jones | Ex Scientologist Message Board
 

CaliMule

Work Hard and Bray
did you read the conclusion of her article?
I was pretty much skimming at that point, as I think she'd set the tone early on and didn't stray far from it, though she weasled around a bit in the conclusion.
 
Top