The Encyclopedia of World Religions

110 S cults and sects, religious

ent have acted in such destructive ways. But no one calls their own religion a cult; that is always an outsider’s label. The trouble is that the term imposed by an outsider may stereotype it before one has really looked at how it is different, and how different people within the group may have different experiences. Scholars increasingly just speak of “new religious movements” and study them on a case-by-case basis. Further reading: Robert S. Ellwood, and Harry B. Partin, Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1988); Timothy Miller, ed., America’s Alternative Religions (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995); Elizabeth Puttick, Women in New Religions (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997); Stephen J. Stein, Communities of Dissent (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

in Scandinavia—against which withdrawal groups are tiny and clear-cut entities. In America, while doubtless some religions are more dominant and considered more respectable than others, the scene is far more pluralistic and is always changing. Groups once stigmatized as sectarian or cultish move up to become major faiths, as have the Mor mons, Methodists, and Catholics. Others may lose influence they once had. People now move from one to another with far less social penalty than in the past. For this reason the terms “cult” and “sect” should be used cautiously. “Cult” should also be used with care because it has come to have a negative meaning. People use it to refer to reli gious groups that are believed to be excessively authoritarian, to destroy the freedom and values of members, to cut them off from their families and community, and even to incite them to crimi nal activity. Undoubtedly religions past and pres