Thirty Years Ago Today ...

I remember my father telling me this story in 1979 when I was but a young child. He called it "religious stupidity" and since then, I have been weary of religion and its effects on the weak minded.

I always thought the phrase "drink the Kool Aid" went back to Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters...

As for Jones, perhaps he wouldn't have ended up so paranoid if the authorities hadn't actually been out to get him?

I too, thanks to Mr. Jones, have been leery of super charismatic, hyper religious, or very organized religions myself. I usually just stay away.

Ok Greg, yes Jim Jones was a maniacal yet enthralling fanatic, who, before he turned completely whacko, did bring some peace and belonging to some folks. Perhaps, as noted in the comments above, they were "weak minded" - though that smacks a bit of elitism. Sad to say, what Jones did is NOT representative of religion in general, nor Christian religion specifically. So let's keep all indictments - implied or otherwise - of religion out of the discussion of this horrible anniversary. His followers deserve better then that.

Phillip: Nope. Let the chickens roost where they may. There is plenty of overlap between Rev. Jim's church and other churches not dubbed "cult" that many people are members of. My argument, quite specifically, is this: It is often assumed or proposed (as you seem to have) that cults and religions have nothing to do with each other, and the word "religion" is used for some groups and "cult" used for others specifically to reinforce this fallacy.

What you have stated in your comment is fait-au-complete there is a distinction. Saying "I falsify the hypothesis because I say the hypothesis is wrong" is not sufficient! Explain in more detail why this cult and, say, the typical small charismatic fundamentalist church is different in every single way.

It wasn't actually Kool-Aid; it was another fruit drink called "Flavor-Aid." The original reporter got it wrong, and the meme has stuck.

Greg,
ok here goes . . . I was baptized and raised Presbyterian. We're fairly religious as Christians go, and we're definitely a "very organized" church. Presbyterians have many divisions, as do other "reformed" Christian traditions, including some who can best be labeled conservative evangelicals. Yet none of the congregations I've participated in, and none who align themselves with the Presbyterian denominational bodies have ever gone into mass killings. We do, however do a lot of good work in disadvantaged communities.

None of this makes me "weakminded", nor does it means we have anything in common with Mr. Jones and his most fervent followers. Over and over again I've seen many of our colleagues here in SB deride and decry religious persons, and they point to things like this as their excuse. Well, friend, I don't like being so insulted. To insinuate that ALL organized religion, or ALL organized Christian religion will or must devolve to a Jones-ian level of depravity is too far a stretch, and I will not go sit quietly in the corner about it. Nor should I.

If one actually reads Scripture, one does not ever find Jesus telling his followers to go out and commit murder or mass suicide. The closest He comes is in His discussion of taxes, where He tells his followers to "render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and render to God that which is God's." Thus, those like Jones who become paranoid, delusional freaks and lead good people to kill their children and then themselves are most categorically not following Jesus' teachings. And so to say that those of us who are trying to are in any way shape or form anything like Mr. Jones is not something I will or can ignore. And I thought some of your commenters were headed that way.

Philip H., your cult may not do mass killings, but mass killings are not the only definition of a cult.

Philip: I've not asserted or supported the weak minded idea, so I'm not going to address that part of your comment.

The historical presence/absence of a mass killing event is not what I'm talking about at all. Two days before November 18th 1978, Jonestown was a cult where there had been no mass (or singular) killing, and the day after, it was still a cult.

To insinuate that ALL organized religion, or ALL organized Christian religion will or must devolve to a Jones-ian level of depravity is too far a stretch

And also sloppy from a scholarly point of view. I agree. What I am objecting to is the converse: That there is a stark and easily defined line between what people call "religious group" and what people call "cult."

If one actually reads Scripture, one does not ever find Jesus telling his followers to go out and commit murder or mass suicide.

Well, that's kind of a separate issue. I don't buy that modern Christianity as a whole has rejected the Old Testament (as per the "sermon on the mount" theory). Indeed, the more culty groups embrace much of the OT. And in the OD god clearly orders people to go out and kill, on numerous occasions, with various outcomes.

Off hand I can't think of a specific order to commit group suicide.

Greg,
First, thanks for being willing to debate this on the merits. It seems some of your commenters are not so . . . intellectually open (NB: Science was also considered a cult once - Galileo was killed by the Catholic church for being a scientist- so telling me I'm in a cult just because I'm a Christian wins you no intellectual brownie points). As I understand your point its that you are "objecting to is the converse: That there is a stark and easily defined line between what people call "religious group" and what people call "cult." Again, I can see your point, but I think you are guilty of some of the fallicious thinking you accuse me of. You appear start from the premise that all religions are cults, in part because you do not share beliefs with the religious in question, and in part because you see a contimuum of behavior in both organizations that is indistinguishable to you. Just because they haven't done it, you reason, doesn't mean they won't so they must be the same.

Since you began there, I have to ask - is there any context in which you you will grant any religious body its existence without the "cult" label? If not, then we'll just have to disagree on a few points here. If there is, then you've just blown a hole in your own "there is no dichotomy" argument.

That aside, part of my reaction here is because there is this continuing, and annoying, thread in SB that you are either religious (and therefore weakminded and all the other things PZ heaps on us), or your are a scientist and therefore rational and atheistic. Those of use who fall in the middle are summarily thrown out of both camps, and I have never understood why. Open, inquisitive, rational scientists should be the last group to be exclusionary, but anytime we discuss religion in SB they prove themslevs to be anything but.

The definition of "cult" is pretty straight-forward, Philip.

--

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate more at wheel
Date: 1617
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
--

Phillip:

My point put a slightly different way. I think the word "cult" has been used by pro-organized religious people/organizations to label certain religions in a way that takes them out of the running for being part of the overall, inclusive definition of religion.

>"Remember him as the cool, charismatic and popular religious leader of
> disenfranchised people who joined his church (the People's Church),
> worshiped with him, and found some sense of personal fulfillment as
> members of this church. Then look around you."

Sorry, Jeremiah Wright's moment was last spring. I fail to see why you neocons keep bringing him up.

It seems to me that the label cult is used as a form of the "no true Scotsman" argument. Dangerous lunatic groups like the people's temple are dismissed as "cults" as if they were something different from "ordinary" religion. But the fact is that both require you to suspend your rationality and believe - the difference is a matter of scale rather than of substance.

Philip, you might want to check your history on Galileo. He was placed under house arrest for being unwilling to stop teaching "heresy," not killed and not for any group affiliation. He wasn't really known for being a joiner.

There are plenty of ways to avoid the parts of ScienceBlogs that function as a safe place for atheists to vent. If it bothers you that much to hear it, I suggest you adopt one of those strategies. The need for atheists to be able to speak freely without catering to the emotional needs of the majority isn't going away.

That cover was one of the few things I felt I had to hide from my daughter. I didn't feel up to explaining that craziness at the time.
Anne G

Anne: You mean at the time, in 1978, or today???

"There are plenty of ways to avoid the parts of ScienceBlogs that function as a safe place for atheists to vent. If it bothers you that much to hear it, I suggest you adopt one of those strategies. The need for atheists to be able to speak freely without catering to the emotional needs of the majority isn't going away."

Stephanie, I have no issue with atheists venting. I have an issue with being labeled a cultist because I'm not an atheist, especially by people whose only interaction with me is here in this highly restricted digital universe. All I keep advocating is tolerance and respect. Neither of those concepts prevents atheists from venting that I can see. Both of them go a long way toward ensuring that we all have a place to freely discuss our ideas. Greg has always seemed open and welcoming to me of all view points, and the only reason I waded in today was because I was worried (perhaps rightly it turns out) that a good rational discussion of the lessons of Jonestown (and there are MANY lessons) would get trashed. Granted I may not have made all my points eloquently, but who does each and every time.

None of that means you can't have your say. Just stop denegrating me for mine - it makes it hard for me to see how anyone doing that can claim the moral high ground.

Let me rephrase. Putting aside (because we don't need ME to make this argument) whatever good comes from whatever religion or religious organization, it is true that there is a certain amount of wackiness associated with religion. When I was a kid, we believed that spirits could inhabit pieces of furniture. A fairly harmles belief, but wacky. Jim Jones believed on November 18th 1978 that the only course of action for everyone in his flock was to die. Harmful, wacky.

If you actually look at the history of Jonestown, it was quite good for a lot of people using the same exact standards that religions often use to judge themselves. A lot of disenfranchised people were re-enfranshized in a very positive way, and were much happer. Up to the part where they all died, but before that things were different.

Now, if you are a Catholic or whatever, you might prefer that the really wacky stuff, and especailly the harmful wacky stuff, that happens among groups that call themselves congregations (or whatever) that meet in churches or temples (or whatever) and that have leaders that call themselves reverend (or whatever) not be associated with religion in general. So you use a word like "cult" to label those groups, and you explicitly say ... and vigorously defend this ... that "they are not a religion, they are a cult."

What I am saying is that this label, "cult," and it's meaning, "they are not part of religion," is a post hoc self serving lie.

I am not saying that all religion is a cult. And in this post, I'm not speaking about overall good or bad. I'm not even really trying to define what is wacky. I'm just saying that some religions have labeled themselves "mainstream religion" and the same religions have labeled selected other religions as "cults" but I would prefer to keep them all in the same category ... "religion" and thus force the religious people and organizations to face the reality they create for themselves and often attempt to force on the rest of us.

Actually, Philip, atheists venting is exactly what you're objecting to. You want us to stop in the middle of ranting about craziness to reassure you that we don't mean that you're crazy. That's not how venting works.

There's plenty of conversation out there that's all about making you feel comfortable. This isn't it.

Stephanie,

You are right - it doesn't make me comfortable that I tried to disagree rationally with Greg, and for my troubles I get labeled, at least indirectly, weakminded and a cultist.

My problem with that response is that I see it as crossing the line from venting into irrational exclusivity based on a single trait. Those of use who have religious beliefs, no matter our discipline and career choice, always seem to get thusly pigeon holed. "Oh look, here comes the religious kook. We atheists know better then he does because we're rational and he believes. Let's go vent all over him because he's a lessor person - he clearly can't think much less articulate a complete sentence." It's moral B.S., it's hipocracy, and SB ought to be better then that. We're scientists for Pete's sake - we're supposed to be open and inquisitive, not closed off to things and people just because they're "not like us."

I get labeled, at least indirectly, weakminded and a cultist.

Let the record show that I did not call you a weak minded cultist. Or weak minded. Or a cultist. Or anything.

Philip, we'd happily continue to vent if you went away. Once more: This. Is. Not. About. You.

Unless you see yourself in what someone's saying, of course.

Actually I'm pretty sure the main difference between Jim Jones and Palin's pastor is that Jones was an avowed atheist and Marxist

Well, I'm certainly not going to read through that rambling dialog, though it does look interesting.

Many churches have very Marxist practices even if the parishioners would be horrified to realize this (as they would also be horrified to realize that some of the things they hold most dear in the US are socialized!).

The atheist part ... I assume all of these charismatic preachers are atheists. That was a given.

The pusher does not do the dope. The pusher sells the dope.

Well, OK, I searched for "atheist" and got this:

(Jones:) "... Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist. Uh, we we think Jesus Christ was a swinger. ..."

Now, you have to remember, that back in those days, "swinger" was a kind of camera. A Polaroid Swinger.