--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Curtis, > > > > What you write is funny -- and as Sal conveyed, its a mocking of > > ourselves in a "past life". > > I agree with Sal's description, BTW. And with > statements made by others over the years. When > I talk about "cult thinking," I'm including my > own past behavior in the descriptions. > > > That said, your post made me think about religious tolerance. I mean > > few of us would poke fun at hasidic jews, buddhists, muslims, etc in > > traditional garb, or practice. Its more as if we think, "not for me, > > or not something I am familiar with, but you seem to thrive on it so > > more power to you bro". > > I tend to internally define 'cult' by the dict- > ionary definition, not the modern one. That is, > the term has no negative connotation *in itself*, > and only begins to when the autonomous religious > or spiritual group (which is all that a 'cult' is) > begins to display certain "them vs. us" or other > behaviors. > > For example, presenting themselves one way in > public and acting completely differently in private. > That is the issue I pointed to in the Gurupurnima > Celebration invitation. We all KNOW how it works. > We all KNOW from past experience that the person > or persons who wrote this will next week be making > the rounds of schools and governments and prisons > and other potential benefactors and describing TM > as secular and scientific and having no behavioral > or belief-oriented rules associated with it. As I > said earlier, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with > these folks dressing up like wannabee Indians and > worshiping Hindu deities and toeing the misogynist > party line, if that gets them off. Hassidic Jews > and Muslims often do similar things, and should be > allowed to do so if that floats their boat. The > difference is that Hassidic Jews and Muslims don't > tend to pretend to be one thing in public and then > act completely different in private. > > > So where is the line between such -- and "cults". I mean I have > > made my share of fun of scientologists, TBs, and all. Probably > > not my best moments. > > In my opinion -- and again, to make it clear, all > I'm saying IS opinion -- that same area is where > the Scientologists went afoul. They claimed in public > the opposite of what they were doing on a daily basis > with the "Fair Game" policy in private. They were > doing "Fair Game" "hits" against Scientology critics > that were *fully sanctioned and supported by the > church* while claiming they weren't. "Fair Game" was > even spelled out in their DOGMA, in print, ferchris- > sakes. It's the hypocrisy thing that helps to turn > a 'dictionary cult' (just a group of people who share > the same belief system) into a 'modern cult' (a group > that has tendencies that many perceive to be not good > for its members and/or society). *Duplicity* when > dealing with "them" is one of the first signs that > "them" has gone off the rails. > > > But I am not clear -- where is the line in the arena of religious > > (and ethnic) tolerance and diversity between respecting "wierd" > > practices and garb of some traditions, and making fun of others. > > > > I don't know. > > I don't know, either. I just find this whole subject > fascinating, because I can remember how many years > I bought into such things hook, line, and sinker. > When I bailed from the TMO it was MUCH less of a > 'modern cult' than it is now, but it was too much > of one for me; I could no longer handle the duplicity > I was being asked to practice on a daily basis. (In my > case, being a minor honcho in the US movement and > being expected to go around to schools and governments > and tell them that TM had no rules and regulations and > behavioral components to it during the day, and then > at night watching groups of TM teacher *blackball* > fellow TMers and throw them out of the center or keep > them from attending courses because they had the wrong > books on their bookshelves or were living with their > G/F outside of marriage. It was a level of hypocrisy > I couldn't stomach, so I split. > > And that was BEFORE the TMO went stark raving bonkers, > and started inventing imaginary countries and imaginary > "Rajas" who "ruled" those countries and started the > "export a poor pundit kid for world peace" business > and the "Scorpion Nation" stuff. > > I think that there is a certain freedom in ADMITTING > the cult-like aspects of the trip one is part of, > and in not living in denial of them. The folks here > who seem most well-adjusted have NO PROBLEM saying > that at one point in their lives they were part of > a group that had some 'modern cult' aspects to it. > They don't go ballistic trying to deny those cult > aspects or demonize those who talk about them. And > on the whole they seem a great deal happier and > balanced than the ones who DO deny those aspects > or make excuses for them or demonize those who > bring them up. >
Turq, I think you make a good distinction where hypocrisy is a dividing line to cults-gone-bad. But then should ridicule, if deployed at all, be only on the hypocrisy elements? And does having hypocrisy open the door for mocking on all issues, beyond hypocrisy? And if the TMO did not have the hypocrisy, then its dress, customs, traditions would not be mocked? I don't know. The dividing line for ridicule vs honoring diversity and religious / ethnic tolerance is still a bit fuzzy to me.
