TBH, pretty much every major religion could once have been described as a cult (and could still?)

I couldn't honestly tell you what the difference is...

Jon

What about Scientology then? Is he willing to denounce that as well?

Well they have lawyers.

Whatever your personal beliefs or lack thereof, denouncing a major global religion as a cult is:

a) Not strictly accurate
b) Massively defamatory
c) A big sign to the world that you are ignorant to what religion can mean to others

Definitely not a good idea for any politician, but sadly, something I've come to expect from people here.

And since when have either A), B), or C), been a problem to the republican party?

I'd argue that a) by definition precludes b) to a degree. Someone may say that a religion is a cult but it's quite hard to prove either way, because the definition of 'cult' is so vague. In that case arguing that saying so is defamatory is very shaky legal ground. It's essentially a matter of opinion and matters of opinion are very rarely defamatory, legally speaking. Most defamations are the statement of fact which are not correct e.g. saying someone was having an affair when they weren't.

I also note that c) would matter more apart from the fact it's being said in a country which is congenitally ignorant of anything outside it's own borders.

Or murdoch.

TBH I would put all religions into the cult category. Morals are not tied to any one religion, they are common to all decent behaviour even atheists are moral.

I wasn't really talking about the republican, or in legal terms.

Just as a human being...

My attitude is that all religions are cults, to a lesser or greater extent. Though some are more benign than others. The extreme branches of Christianity are just as bad as sects of Islam. I do appreciate that for some it is a great help in their lives as is a cannabis joint to others. As long as they do impose their beliefs on me and others then they can believe what they like whether it is the New World Order or we are all aliens from another planet. I do not think that they should get tax privileges just because they call themselves a religion. Otherwise Goldman Sachs will register as a religion the worship of money.

Yeah, but saying:


Is a lot different to saying:

or:


Stating your opinion as fact is what I object to in this case. Dawkins does this and a lot of people here do when it comes to faith. Americans don't have the monopoly on ignorance.

I was not stating my opinion as fact. But religion leaves me cold and as long as people want to believe in this or that I have no problem. Some would regard Star Trek or linux mac fanboys as a cult. I do not think that religions or cults should get tax privileges just because they are religions. If they have a charitable wing that does benefit the community that could get charity status but that is different from the religion as a whole. Morals again are separate from the religion. There are atheists who are just as moral as those who believe in some god or other. If you want to believe that there is a god watching over you, or some giant pink snail that will be sent as an avenger if you mess up is no different.

Maybe not to you, but saying that to people of faith is a delicate subject and should be handled as such at all times IMHO. Especially on the internet where you don't know everybody else's thoughts/feelings/beliefs.

I will accept that some take their religion very seriously. Though I am not against anyone following what ever belief that they want, be it Christianity Judaism, Jedism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Paganism, Astrology or Satanism. Generally religion is a non starter for me, I do treat it as delicately as possible.