Talk:Cults and governments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Revert 2 Cults and governments 3 Countries vs. Governments 4 Reverted United Nations 5 Worldwide view

[edit] Revert

I reverted a recent edit by User:Antaeus Feldspar. The text removed is bolded below (my emphasis):

Critics of such measures claim that the counter-cult movement and the anti-cult movement have succeeded in influencing governments in transferring the public's abhorrence of doomsday cults such that it is directed against all small or new religious movements without discrimination, neglecting the fact that doomsday cults are not the only kind of destructive cults.

The original sentence implies that not all small/new religious movements are doomsday cults, and not all small/NRMs are destructive.

The syllogism employed by the critics of government anti-cult measures goes something like this:

• Governments should allow groups their freedom, as long as they are not using their freedom in ways that endanger or abuse others.
• Doomsday cults endanger and abuse their members and outsiders.
• Governments are reining in groups that would otherwise be allowed to operate without interference, because the governments are convinced that these groups are acting in ways that endanger and abuse members and outsiders.
• Someone must have influenced the government to believe that these groups are doomsday cults.

The major fallacious premise in the syllogism is interpreting the second premise as "Only doomsday cults endanger and abuse their members and outsiders." This is, whether intentional or unintentional, a straw man fallacy; groups assert that they must have been accused of being doomsday cults, and if they are not that, they must be perfectly healthy and safe and respectful of everyone's human rights. That is the point of pointing out that that there are other kinds of damaging cults, far more frequent than doomsday cults. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. I think the wording is better now your phrase has been moved by Pgreenfinch. The paragraph is still somewhat unwieldy - I think it needs clarification. Perhaps we could move the two US-EU paragraphs into a section of their own, and then expand on them a little? SeventyThree^(Talk) 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cults and governments

, in fact denying their civil rights to pursue a religion or faith

Removed, because it is factually not correct. There are no laws restricting any religions in Germany, but religious groups are bound to the same law as other groups (e.g. showing no Nazi emblems, no denying of the Holocaust, paying social security for their employees, no anti-constitutional activities). When religious groups are observed by the state, it is not because of its beliefs but because of actual activities of the organization (e.g. Scientology has been sentenced for spying on the government in the US and in Canada, and anti-government conspiracies for Albania and Greece have been found in its own documents - such non-religious facts warrant an observation in Germany, regardless if it is a religious or political group). In France, again there are no laws against any religion, but there is a law saying that a group (religious or political or whatever) can be forbidden, if its leaders have several times been convicted in a French court for crimes like fraud, extortion, kidnapping etc. related to the group activities. Anyone can pursue any religion in these countries, but religious reasons are not accepted as excuse for not abiding by the law and constitution (see the Swiss examples which show the same attitude). --Irmgard 08:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries vs. Governments

I object to the use of the word "countries" in this paragraph. That is not factual.

Some of these countries are, though, as well concerned with possible abuses by cults and have taken restrictive measures against some of their activities. Those measures were generally motivated by various crimes committed by a string of murderous incidents involving doomsday cults circa 1995.

My proposal is the factually accurate:

The goverments of some of these countries are, though, as well concerned with possible abuses by cults and have taken restrictive measures against some of their activities. Those measures were generally motivated by various crimes committed by a string of murderous incidents involving doomsday cults circa 1995.

--ZappaZ 23:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, your proposal is not factually accurate. We are not talking about North Korea or Bjelarus. Germany and France are democratic countries with the government elected by the people, and if the people do not like the actions of the government they select a different government. So the basic assumption is, that the government does what the people who elected it, expect it to do. Therefore it is not ok to introduce a presumed difference in opinion between people and government, if there is no evidence for that. The evidence, in this case, has to be provided by the one who wants to point out the difference in opinion between government and people. If you want to talk about government vs. people in this question, you have to introduce evidence, that the popular opinion sees it differently. No problem about that, if they do - there is real freedom of opinion in both countries and even minorities have a very good chance to be heard. But in this case, the only protest came from some of the NMRs themselves and from the US - and the popular opinion in both countries did not relish either.

Moreover, both countries have had at least one complete change of government somewhere in the last ten years, both had several elections of the parliaments and the attitude towards cults has not changed. So you cannot put the blame either on the current or on a previous government which makes the introduction of the word government absurd. --Irmgard 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard, You cannot make that assertion based on an assumption, that is contrary to NPOV. Would you say that the policy on Iraq is the US's policy or the US goverment polic? 50% of the people did not vote for Bush. I would suggest that you reconsider your text and make it NPOV. The burden in on you, not on me. ZappaZ 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraq can clearly be put to the Bush administration. But France had since 1995 two presidents of two parties (left and right) and five premier ministers of three parties (one left, two right) - which "government" do you mean? And Germany had up to 98 the middle-right Kohl government and since then the middle-left Schröder government (which was before the opposition) - again, which government do you mean? In both cases, there has been no change in the politics regarding minor religions and no protest against it. These are not assumptions but facts. Again - show evidence that a noteworthy group did oppose these measures in France or Germany. Or say which governments you mean - but that will sound like "Bush adminstration and Clinton administration agree..." Irmgard 07:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Irmgard, your argument is not acceptable. I do not need to show noteworthy protest, as you do not need to show noteworthy support. --ZappaZ 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zappaz, you believe that there is a difference between the French and German governments and the French and German people in this case, because you disagree with any government making similar decisions. But to conclude because of this that the Germans and French must feel in this point the same as you do, is a weak basis for a conclusion (with the same right I could assume "the Americans" were pacifists or in favor of European social security systems, no matter what their government says). --Irmgard 16:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To differentiate between "the country" and "the government" is only ok, if there is a real difference, e.g.

• if a specific goverment made a decision which later governments did not agree with (Example: "the Clinton government did promise to sign the Rio Treaty" is better than "the United States did promise to sign the Rio Treaty" - can be shown by government reports)
• if there is an evident difference between the government and the people in general (e.g. the "East Germany government built the Berlin wall" - too obvious to need more evidence than the known fact it was a dictatorship)
• if there is a marked difference between government and people regarding that specific question (e.g. "the Schröder government decided to put the Hartz IV social reform into force in January 2005 which resulted in demonstrations in almost all major German cities" - can be shown by newspaper articles). --Irmgard 16:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would be better to say "the American concept of freedom of religion is different from the European concept of freedom of religion" than "the American government's concept of freedom of religion is different from the European government's concept of freedom of religion" - because not only the governments but also the people see it differently (and not all european countries the same way either)

[1] --Irmgard 16:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted United Nations

The following text was reverted.

United Nations
Just as there is a pan-national element to politics, so to do new religious movements, or cults, adopt to international politics often advertising this strengthen their credibility and gain access to influencing individuals and organizations. One notable examples is the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University.[14]

The citation is simply to the BKWSU's own website. It confirms their relationship with the United Nations but does not confirm the following assertions,

• The motive is to strengthen their credibility,
• The motive is to gain access and influence individuals and organisations.

This is POV and libel unless it can be cited.
Also including of the BKWSU on this page implies that they actually are a cult. This in itself is a degrading term and needs extraordinary proof before it can be taken to be a fact. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 21:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view

• This article would appear much differently if written from a German, French, etc. perspective instead of from a United States perspective. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Smeelgova 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC).