Cult

==Definition and usage==
In the English-speaking world, the term ''cult'' often carries [[Pejorative|derogatory]] connotations.<ref>[[cf.]] Brink, T. L. 2008. "[https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/TLBrink_PSYCH13.pdf Unit 13: Social Psychology]." Pp. 293–320 in ''Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach''. p. 320: "Cult is a somewhat derogatory term for a [[new religious movement]], especially one with unusual theological doctrine or one that is abusive of its membership."</ref> In this sense, it has been considered a [[Subjectivity|subjective]] term used as an ''[[ad hominem]]'' attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Bromley, David Melton, and J. Gordon. 2002. ''Cults, Religion, and Violence''. West Nyack, NY: [[Cambridge University Press]].</ref> As such, [[religion scholar]] Megan Goodwin has defined the term ''cult'', when it is used by the layperson, as often being shorthand for a "religion I don't like".<ref>Ingram, Wayne, host. "[https://religion.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Ep_-2-Turkey-Ritual.pdf Turkey Ritual]" (transcript). Ep. 2 in ''Study Religion'' (podcast). Birmingham: Dept. of Religious Studies, [[University of Alabama]].</ref>

In the 1970s, with the rise of [[Secularity|secular]] [[anti-cult movement]]s, scholars (though not the general public) began to abandon the use of the term ''cult''. According to ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'', "by the end of the decade, the term 'new religions' would virtually replace the term 'cult' to describe all of those leftover groups that did not fit easily under the label of church or [[sect]]."<ref name="Lewis, 2004"/>

[[Sociology|Sociologist]] Amy Ryan (2000) has argued for the need to differentiate those groups that may be dangerous from groups that are more benign.<ref>Ryan, Amy. 2000. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20051118223258/http://rand.pratt.edu/~giannini/newreligions.html New Religions and the Anti-Cult Movement: Online Resource Guide in Social Sciences].'' Archived from the [http://rand.pratt.edu/~giannini/newreligions.html#Definitions original] on 18 November 2005.</ref> Ryan notes the sharp differences between definitions offered by cult opponents, who tend to focus on negative characteristics, and those offered by sociologists, who aim to create definitions that are [[value-free]]. The movements themselves may have different definitions of religion as well.<ref>[[Bryan R. Wilson|Wilson, Bryan]]. 2001. "[https://www.scribd.com/document/115621228/Why-the-Bruderhof-is-not-a-cult-by-Bryan-Wilson Why the Bruderhof is not a cult]." Retrieved 12 July 2017. p. 2. – via Scribd:

Wilson makes the same point, saying that the [[Bruderhof Communities|Bruderhof]] is not a cult, pointing out that the public imagination is captured by five events that have occurred in religious groups: [[Jonestown]], the [[Branch Davidians]], [[Order of the Solar Temple|Solar Temple]], [[Aum Shinrikyo]], and [[Heaven's Gate (religious group)|Heaven's Gate]].</ref> [[George Chryssides]] also cites a need to develop better definitions to allow for common ground in the debate. Casino (1999) presents the issue as crucial to international human rights laws. Limiting the definition of religion may interfere with freedom of religion, while too broad a definition may give some dangerous or abusive groups "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations."<ref name="Casino-DefiningReligion">Casino. Bruce J. 15 March 1999. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20051110101400/http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm Defining Religion in American Law]" (lecture). ''Conference On The Controversy Concerning Sects In French-Speaking Europe''. Sponsored by [[CESNUR]] and CLIMS. Archived from the [http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm original] on 10 November 2005.</ref>