I think that the main difference between a religion and a cult is that a religion still allows for individuality, whereas a cult aims to control every aspect of a persons life in order to lose the individual. A religion allows the person to choose whether or not they agree, whereas a cult takes away all choice. The line between a religion and a cult can be blurry, especially to outsiders.
The distinction is often chosen by someone who doesn't understand the beliefs. However, if the set of beliefs hurts the person or their children in anyway, then I think the friends and family have a right to be concerned. For example, I once heard of a group in which the mothers were not allowed to feed their children unless the leader specifically told them that they could.As a result, babies were literally starving to death.
I think that something like that would be considered a cult instead of a religion. I think that religious bigotry does exist, and I have experienced. Growing up, I went to a religious private school.
Although I was technically a part of the same religion, I was from a different branch of that religion. I was told more than once that my beliefs were wrong. Also, other religions were made fun of, and it was generally believed that people of other religions were lesser people some how.
I think that the hallmark of religious bigotry is seeing someone as less human because of their religious beliefs.
To me the only difference between a religion and a cult is how widely known the organization is. If it is something that only a few people practice and know about, then it is considered a cult. Something that is widespread like Christianity is only considered a religion because so many people practice it.
Personally, there is no difference between a religion and a cult. Both large organizations (Christianity, Catholicism, Scientology) and smaller ones (I don't know too many off my head) exploit their "believers" for monetary gain. Some religions may have sound spiritual bases, but many of the large ones have become corrupt.
I feel that religion does a great job of teaching children and adults about to be morally responsible in society, but when a religion begins to teach discrimination and hatred of other religions, I think that it no longer matters if its a cult or a religion, it is not healthy.
It is completely subjective. People use the term "cult" to mean a religion they do not like for whatever reason. The term "religious bigotry" should be restricted to cases where someone is legally prevented from practicing their religion, or where they are denied certain human rights (employment, fair housing, voting rights) on the basis of religion.
Simply disagreeing with someone's religion, even harshly and with ridicule, is not bigotry. Religion makes claims about the world and these claims must be subject to scrutiny like any other. For example, a Mormon is free to claim that American Indians are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and had horses and metal, but is not bigotry to criticize them and cite the genetic and archaeological evidence disproving this.
In a cult--the leader is seen as powerful--given special powers by God--and special favors must be done for the leader in a true religion-the leader is a humble servant.. when I went to catholic gh school-a brother asked--how can we say that our religion is right and the greeks and romans were wrong--they would feel the same way about Catholocism--that got me thinking...pure christianity isn't the only choice to have faith. Utlimately religion is an individual choice---as long as the person has the mental and physical freedom to leave--it should be accepted as a religion.. but if a person is afraid to leave--or if they have irrational beliefs brainwashed into them--about the rest of teh world (such as-only ABC religion is good--if you leave you will perish)----that is not religion.
The difference is one in degree. Generally cults are smaller. They also tend to have more converts than people born into them.
The only objective reason to have a problem with cults is when they isolate people from the people they love - but even monasteries did that - and they are quite respectable. Obviously: once a religious group is large and respectable enough, it can no longer be considered a cult.
Simply put, religion is a divinely inspired cult, and a cult is a 'founded' religion - ie. It has come into being by the mechanics of an individual. And thats where the problem lies... In either case, there are merits and demerits, with both having proofs and arguments... but by definition, a cult has a much smaller following and is obviously not agreed to by a larger number of people, making it susceptible to doubt and ridicule.In short, religion is viewed as good, and cult as bad!
Here are some fundamental differences: 1. Religions respect the individual's autonomy; Cults enforce compliance.2. Religions try to help individuals meet their spiritual needs; Cults exploit spiritual needs.
3. Religions tolerate and even encourage questions and independent, critical thinking; Cults discourage questions and independent critical thinking.4. Religions view money as a means, subject to ethical restraints, toward achieving noble ends; Cults view money as an end or as a means toward achieving power or the goals of the leader.5.
Religions encourage a person to think carefully before making a commitment to join; Cults encourage quick decisions with little information.6. Religions view sex between clergy and the faithful as unethical; Cults frequently subject members to the sexual appetites of its leaders.7. Religions respond to critics respectfully; Cults frequently intimidate critics with physical or legal threats.
Lemme know your thoughts - nadiraziz@yahoo.com.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.