On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:21:31 -0800, "Magoo"

<magoo44@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

(Cut) The definition for the word "cult" is different than the usage of the word "cult." This happens to words all the time, over a span of time, because all languages evolve. The word came from the Sanscrit word that mean "circular" or "wheel" or "cycle," and was passed down through the Teutonic and the Romanic languages. A cult was a "group of people," which later evolved into "a group of people who worship the same way, to the same gods."

For some three hundred years and up until about the year 1,940CE the word "cult" meant "Any group of two or more individuals who profess the same religious creed, practices the same religious rituals and precepts, and worships the same god(s)." There was therefore the cult of Isis, the cult of Jesus, the cult of Mohammud, the cult of Vishnu.... with no derogation implied.

Current usage is considerably different. Around the year 1,950CE the word "cult" started to mean "Any religion other than mine."

Around the year 1960CE it again evolved to mean "Any destructive, abusive religion." By the year 1,970CE the word included those derogations, plus had the sense of "faddishness" added to it.

Since there is nothing in Scientology that is religious, the word "cult" does not, technically, apply: one can certainly say that Scientology is "cult-like" in that it uses cult techniques to enslave its customers ("members,") but Scientology is a business enterprise, not a religion (obviously).

Seems to me there should be a word coined that defines non-religions like Scientology that behave like destructive, abusive religions for economic gain and political power. No doubt someone has already coined such a word, but I do not know what that word is.

(And the word "Microsoft" is already taken!)

Go Back