1
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: How do we identify the lunatic fringe of conspiracy thinking?
« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 12:55:33 PM »Lance, I'm going to give a summary comment on the Tippit case and I would like you to explain if you classify it as "lunatic fringe" and say why. But first, a comment on the real issue you raise of what is the difference between a legitimate differing argument or interpretation of evidence, and "wacky" territory. I have an analogy here you might find instructive. It appears in a book I wrote a couple decades ago, "Showdown at Big Sandy", about a Bible college in east Texas I attended for two years in the 1970s. I was discussing the phenomenon of "cults", which is in some ways parallel to the definitional questions you raise here. What is the difference between a religion one does not personally believe, but which one does not regard it sociologically as a "cult"? At the time I wrote the book, one of the leading (supposedly) authorities on cults was Walter Martin, who wrote a book called "Kingdom of the Cults". He wrote from a conservative Christian perspective, and detailed an encyclopedic taxonomy of all sorts of various offbeat and idiosyncratic religious groups with which American history has been filled, part of America's claim to fame.
The problem was in among the extensive cult listings in his book, Kingdom of the Cults, he listed Unitarians. Unitarians?? I found that odd. As I noted at the time, Unitarians have produced four American presidents and too many famous scientists to count--how on earth did he have them defined as a "cult"? Well, he gave his reasons, three reasons. Here is what, in his view, made Unitarians a "cult", and I am not making this up: Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity, they do not believe in hell, and they replace the authority of the Bible with reason. Those three things, said Martin, quite logically make Unitarians a "cult". Obviously Unitarians in America are not a "cult", and it is clear what was going with Martin: he was confusing his definition of "heresy" categories (beliefs different from what he considered correct historic Christian doctrines) with a sociological/behaviorial phenomenon, "cultism", not the same thing, a category confusion.
Greg, give me a bit of time to attempt to respond more thoughtfully to your Tippit scenario. It's 4:30 AM here, and I have six cats yapping for their food.
I have SO MUCH background in religion, and so much evolution of my own beliefs, that the "cult" label is one of my pet peeves. Insofar as what I think the actual Jesus was actually talking about, which I think had way more to do with how you live than what you believe, I have the highest respect for the supposed "cults" of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I think some of their history and beliefs are "not exactly believable," but I also find it hard to believe that the Creator of the universe gives a crap about "correct doctrine." Ditto with the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants - much that is "not exactly believable." That's why I stopped going to church many years ago; there is literally NO branch of the faith that doesn't require me to at least give lip service to major doctrines that I regard as "not exactly believable." The old saying that one man's ceiling is another man's floor can certainly be adapted in the vein of one man's religion is another man's cult. As Justice Stewart said about obscenity, I know a cult when I see one. (Scientology? Now THAT'S a cult!)
Recent Posts

