User talk:JivaGoswami

karma to be on this list

You're obviously upset by the List of groups referred to as cults. I was too initially. My own faith group is on the list but I've made peace with that.

My current understanding is that the list includes every referrence to every group as a cult irrespective of merit. In some sense it may even help in dispelling the negative image attached to the word cult. Or at least make people aware of the danger of relying on the word. I guess it's a bit like a zoo: cruel to the animals; maybe; but educational and conservationist too.

I'm interested in what you think is bad faith in the recent dicussion edits. I would not want you to be upset by a misunderstanding. Do you feel that nice little old ladies revering the Queen of Heaven should not be on a list next to the Beasts of Satan, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Hari Krishnas? I myself am constantly in awe at the breadth of the term. Which I think is inherantly a western word to discribe both formal systems of reverance but also to ascribe disapproval upon unorthodox or foreign groups. Could you let me know what you were meaning by "bad faith"? cairoi 04:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure how to use this talk page.

I'm a Hare Krishna. I'm not particularly connected with the organization anymore and am disappointed with the organization's current state. I do still have faith and expect our problems to resolve. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Hey, my group's been a cult for a long time, and I don't care much what others think. Dogs bark, but the caravan passes by. I do care that it's grouped with Jim Jones and the Moonies. The gap is just too wide and indicates to me a superficial, biased understanding of each group. I don't have time now to dig up solid details and examples, nor find out precisely what "bad-faith" is in Wiki-speak. But in general, to have a cult watch list with an indiscriminant criteria of a media reference, all the while insisting that it's not a cult list and that a group's listing doesn't imply that it's a cult. Add in extensive discussion on what is a cult and which groups are cults, add up to confused and incomplete thinking at best.

It clearly is a list of cults, being on the list does imply cult-hood (doubt for not being a cult is a minor implication, being one is the major implication), and if it's not a cult list, why bother defining what is a cult and who is a cult? It wouldn't matter. Jiva Goswami 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying about some groups seeming not to belong. As I understand it, Wikipedia would not accept a list of "cults" because that would be not be NPOV. I've been upset about the same thing. I did't think the Hari Krishnas should be on the same list as dangerous or suicidal groups. But the term cult is used by christian groups in a sneaky way to ascribe "wickedness" to groups. I've been looking at the list as a way for the Hari Krishnas, JW's and Mormons to help people understand that if the list can include such nice normal people then the term shouldn't always be trusted. That's one of the reason's I've argued for the inclusion of Catholic Cults. They're not controlling or dangerous but they are called cults and they alert the reader to the unstable meaning of the term cult. cairoi 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]