It's impossible to distinguish between a cult and a religion with an objective criterion. So it's just political nonsense to try to do that. Though, it would be better if people would stop altogether to believe in supernatural things. God is in the realm of pure imagination, and it would be far better for society if all this brainpower, devoted to demonstrate that God is real or anything related to theological doctrine, were employed to more useful aims.

With this restriction, I don't care if someone choose to be a catholic, to give all his money to Scientology or to loose it all in a Casino. It's the right of every human to be dumb, as long as he doesn't infringe on my right to find this entire religious thing deeply dumb.

JCE34, the question isn't whether you have the right or not to choose any religion.

Cults are not religions.

Cults for example will trick people in joining them and then to keep you deluded, they will make you cut all contact with the the outside world, and make you work for them, pay them for any type of services and sometimes even have sytematic and organised sexual rewards for their leaders.

This type of action is not in line with what is done by the major faith of this world, they are forms of extortion and manipulation that can truly damage and destroy lives.

Those organisations are not religions, they pretend to be, but they are not.

Is it that wrong to protect citizens from fake religions who only aim as abusing them and spoiling them of their right to choose?

Bourguignon:

"Cults are not religions."

You'd have a difficult time convincing a lot of people of that, especially a court.

"Cults for example will trick people in joining them and then to keep you deluded, they will make you cut all contact with the the outside world, and make you work for them, pay them for any type of services and sometimes even have systematic and organized sexual rewards for their leaders."

Have you read the news... ever? If that is your criteria, or even if you take the criteria that France has laid out, most major religions would fall into the cult category. For instance, growing up in the Catholic church, not only was I tricked into joining, I was forced to join at an age where I couldn't even walk. I was taught to stay away from certain people and cultural influences (TV, video games, etc.) from the outside world. I worked for them as an alter boy, choir, and in other capacities... and do I have to go into the sex scandals plaguing the Catholic church?

Please don't think I'm defending Scientology though... I think there should be more regulations surrounding all religions and that they should be paying taxes.

"fake religion" - an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Since you are condemning all religion, please demostrate how Islam is fake or a cult. This is poignant since I am a Muslim convert.

Thank you.

Usama3:

Since you are condemning all religion, please demostrate how Islam is fake or a cult. This is poignant since I am a Muslim convert.

It's fake because there is no god, Allah, or whatever you would call your imaginary deity.

"God is in the realm of pure imagination, and it would be far better for society if all this brainpower, devoted to demonstrate that God is real or anything related to theological doctrine, were employed to more useful aims. " While I agree that it really isn't possible to distinguish between a cult and religion due to the fact that they are just more or less of the same thing, I will have to disagree that their "brain power" would be put to a better use. Most advancement in society comes from a very small handful of very intelligent people. Those that fall under such easy sway of an organization which tells them how to live, generally aren't very capable of thinking for themselves anyways. If anything, religion gives rise to social organization which is essential for civilization to exist. This prevents people from becoming social outcasts and glues people together for a common purpose. You are much more likely to want to help out your neighbor who you see at church every week then one whom you've never met. Basically, religion is B.S., but it is beneficial to society anyways.

One of the more amusing ironies is that the belief that faith-based beliefs are 'stupid' is itself faith-based. So you're really just calling yourself - along with everyone else in the world - stupid.

You may not believe in god and as such be an atheist, but this shouldn't prevent you from respecting those who believe in different ways.

Religions is a mode of thinking as good as an other, but cults on the other hand are destructive and manipulative.

Let's not mix the two.

The discussion here isn't one of religion or cults, but of government responsibilities. Is the the responsibility of our elected government to save us from our own stupidity?

Say an organization (religion, cult, club, whatever) wants 10% of your income for whatever reason, and a portion of your free time every week. Its a cause you believe in, and you can afford it without negatively affecting your life or that of your family. Clearly not a stupid choice to be part of this. How about a group that wants a significant portion of your money, soaks up copious amounts of your free time, and is trying to convince you that you should have no contact with those outside of the group aside from attempting to convert them? Sounds like a bad choice to me.

But is it the government's job to step in and do something about it when someone is dumb enough to fall for a scam? Before saying yes, you always have to ask the question, "What is the limit to this responsibility? Its pretty clearly fraud if someone sells you a fancy can opener that doesn't open cans, but what about a fancy bible with no way to determine if it sends you to heaven?

The more we rely on the government to make decisions for us that we should be able to make ourselves, the more of our freedom we are giving away. We absolutely have the right to be dumb, and the government shouldn't have the right to step in and say, "Whoa whoa whoa, you can't sell that, our citizens aren't smart enough to know how they should be spending their money!"

First, I think that religion is an opinion like any other. As so, you may subject it to the test of reason, and religion always fails this test, because it's in its nature to be based on faith : believing without proof. Even the most elaborate theological theories are in the end based on faith. So, for me, someone who bases his belief system on something irrational makes a dumb decision. It's dumb like having a political opinion and not knowing why.

It doesn't mean that the believers are wrong, because there may be a God or a supreme being of some sort, but you can't deduce the attributes of this Supreme Being nor his very existence from anything rational. So why being Muslim, Christian or something else ? It's irrational, and it's greatly because of education. If you've never been told about a guy named Jesus, there is zero chance that you become a Christian, which is inconsistent with the idea of a divine revelation.

But do respect believers. I don't think I'm immune to make dumb decisions, but most religious people deeply think that people like me are inherently inferior because of our lack of faith, and that all the bad things that may happen to us are well deserved. So calling a believer dumb is not worse than being called a bad people because you don't believe.

Moreover, it's true that if you lack the will, or don't have enough reasons to keep yourself away from drugs, stealing, or any behavior that is antisocial, the fear of a divine retribution may be useful for society. I don't if it's better or not than having a strong system of moral values based on respect of other human beings. It's an endless debate to try to figure out what good, if any, religions made to humanity (inquisition and crusades versus peace and truce of god). After all, strictly godless societies were nightmares (think about the Nazis or the Communists).

So, maybe it's better to be dumb, because we don't have very good results to show when we try too hard to think by ourselves.

Very well put, adamdean. You stated what I was thinking far better than I could have.

"Say an organization (religion, cult, club, whatever) wants 10% of your income for whatever reason, and a portion of your free time every week. Its a cause you believe in, and you can afford it without negatively affecting your life or that of your family. Clearly not a stupid choice to be part of this. How about a group that wants a significant portion of your money, soaks up copious amounts of your free time, and is trying to convince you that you should have no contact with those outside of the group aside from attempting to convert them? Sounds like a bad choice to me." Sounds like a very arbitrary line. When exactly does it go from being a religion to a cult? 20% of income? 50%? 20% of your free time? 50%? That's why no one can define a cult because the definition itself is arbitrary and any logically definition would surely include many main stream religious denominations.

Here's a reasonable criterion: overt threats of actual harm (bodily or financial) if you leave the cult.

Perhaps you can tell the rest of us how islamic prescriptions of death for apostasy fit in a civilized world?

Bourguignon:

I wonder how you resolve the apparent contradiction between the prescription of death for apostasy in islam (well documented, accepted, I believe, by almost all schools of islamic jurisprudence, and in fact actually directly threatened - and even undertaken - in the name of islam, all over the world) and (1.) your distinction between a cult and a religion, and (2.) your suggestion that such beliefs are worthy of respect?