quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: LOL Your arguments are absurd. You can't even give the name of this "organization" that the Fromms are running. The very first requirement to be a legal personality or "organization" is to have a legal name: I think this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone proposing the involuntary formation for an organization. When taxes are filed with the IRS as a religious organization, they do it voluntarily for the tax benefits. They also form an organization for the various other benefits of having an organization. No one is forced to form an organization. In the case of Young Life, they submitted their taxes as a Church to get the benefits. They could easily relinquish that status at any time and pay regular taxes. You stand common practice and common sense on its head by forcing involuntary formation of an organization. Where the local government fail is the application of a law mean to apply only to organizations is instead being applied to individuals. Your failure is in the basic definition of an organization.

the name? the Cult of the Fromms

banished from all local churches due to their heretical ways....

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: An organization has a more specific legal definition than the dictionary definition. That is why it is defined as a legal personality. Since we are talking about a matter of law, the legal definition takes precedence. Nice try though.

Did you happen to notice the legal definition in my post? Again, where are you getting your facts, because you have it wrong? In fact, you have it exactly backwards. An organization must exist in order to become a legal personality, but it is not a requirement that the organization do so. Organizations and businesses become legal personalities when they go through the processes of Incorporation or becoming a Limited Liability Company (LLC). One of the primary reasons organizations and businesses go through this process is to separate the legal responsibility of the organization or business from its shareholders or leadership, but again, this is not a requirement. Using the Fromms as an example, they could choose to incorporate their group, which would protect their personal assets in the event that an individual or another organization chooses to sue them.

So just in case you didn't get it....

Organization first, legal personality second, but not a requirement.

My recomendation to you... Brush up on your facts!

Your "legal" definition as you state is not a legal definition. It is another dictionary entry:

quote association n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure. An association is not a legally-established corporation or a partnership. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant.

You want to go by some loose definition of an "organization". I believe it is clear that in the legal area, an "organization" is a very clear and specific term. You believe that an "organization" can be involuntarily imposed on a group of people. I believe they must actively seek organizational status.

Neither one of us is going to convince the other. So I'll leave it at that.

quote Originally posted by KidO: Did you happen to notice the legal definition in my post? Again, where are you getting your facts, because you have it wrong? In fact, you have it exactly backwards. An organization must exist in order to become a legal personality, but it is not a requirement that the organization do so. Organizations and businesses become legal personalities when they go through the processes of Incorporation or becoming a Limited Liability Company (LLC). One of the primary reasons organizations and businesses go through this process is to separate the legal responsibility of the organization or business from its shareholders or leadership, but again, this is not a requirement. Using the Fromms as an example, they could choose to incorporate their group, which would protect their personal assets in the event that an individual or another organization chooses to sue them. So just in case you didn't get it.... Organization first, legal personality second, but not a requirement. My recomendation to you... Brush up on your facts!

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your "legal" definition as you state is not a legal definition. It is another dictionary entry:

It was a definition from a legal dictionary. I'll leave it at that.

quote Originally posted by KidO: It was a definition from a legal dictionary. I'll leave it at that.

If that is the case, then why didn't you use this entry from your site?

http://legal-dictionary.the...ary.com/organization

quote A generic term for any type of group or association of individuals who are joined together either formally or legally. The term organization includes a corporation, government, partnership, and any type of civil or political association of people.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: If that is the case, then why didn't you use this entry from your site? http://legal-dictionary.the...ary.com/organization [QUOTE] A generic term for any type of group or association of individuals who are joined together either formally or legally. The term organization includes a corporation, government, partnership, and any type of civil or political association of people.

[/QUOTE]

If you go back and look, I included both. That is why I also included the legal definition of association as well. You need to define one to define the other. The gatherings at the Fromms would qualify as a civil association of people.

quote Originally posted by KidO: If you go back and look, I included both. That is why I also included the legal definition of association as well. You need to define one to define the other. The gatherings at the Fromms would qualify as a civil association of people.

Good for you. That definition clearly supports my argument and proves the Fromms are clearly not an organization.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Good for you. That definition clearly supports my argument and proves the Fromms are clearly not an organization.

but they are a cult

and - should not be holding their rituals in residential areas

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: but they are a cult and - should not be holding their rituals in residential areas

I agree that they shouldn't be holding their "rituals" (and that word USUALLY carries with it a negative connotation, but I don't have information to use it in the negative sense. I am using it in the strict sense of a repetitive action) in the residential areas due to the zoning laws, and the size of the group.


I have no idea where you got the information to conclude that it is a cult.

If you really want people to know what you are talking about, you would have to give your definition of a cult. And what information you have access to that fits your self defined criteria for a cult.


Otherwise, your use of the term cult in absence of any indication of such, your use of the word ritual in an apparent negative connotation, and your admonition to "get back in the church where you belong", don't really forward anything about the discussion in the thread, and just reflect the degree of your bias against certain people.

/\

there is no actual information. we are ALL speculating wildly. I am just choosing to speculate that they are a cult. I am thinking if it were an actual "religion", a church would allow them to do their rituals in a proper location. there are many bible based cults. perhaps these folks are like the David Koresh crowd? this is why succesful cults locate OUTSIDE residential areas. these folk attempted to "blend in" with "normal people" and failed.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: /\ there is no actual information. we are ALL speculating wildly. I am just choosing to speculate that they are a cult. I am thinking if it were an actual "religion", a church would allow them to do their rituals in a proper location. there are many bible based cults. perhaps these folks are like the David Koresh crowd? this is why succesful cults locate OUTSIDE residential areas. these folk attempted to "blend in" with "normal people" and failed.

OK.

It is just that you had said, "they are a cult." That comes across as a statement, and not speculation. You also state there are many bible based cults. But you don't define cult. Are you talking about a bible based group that pressures people to separate themselves from the influence of family and others, and isolates them? And also tries to separate them from their money?

Or are you defining cult as any group that tries to have an influence on people? Because then almost all political groups are cults, for one example, because they certainly want to influence people. I don't consider them a cult because, while they try to influence people, they don't try to separate them from their families and others.

Cults don't try to "blend in". They try to isolate. They didn't fail in blending in. Their presence was almost universally accepted by their neighbors, who never felt threatened or expressed concern about WHAT they were doing. It was the residential zoning issue brought up, apparently, by a neighbor that was the (legitimate) concern, not their "rituals".


What isn't speculation is your now repeated assertion that you get to define where a "proper" location to meet is. You have defined it as in a church building.
Others aren't WILDLY speculating. They are saying, it seems like this might be a legitimate concern normal people would have, and then giving opinions.


You have evidence that these are not weird, outliers in society who are getting together under the undue influence of a cult-like leader, from the impression the neighbors are giving. It really seems that YOU are the one wandering off wildly, by calling them a cult.

That is why I say the posts seem to say more about YOU than about the topic.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: OK. It is just that you had said, "they are a cult." That comes across as a statement, and not speculation. You also state there are many bible based cults. But you don't define cult. Are you talking about a bible based group that pressures people to separate themselves from the influence of family and others, and isolates them? And also tries to separate them from their money? Or are you defining cult as any group that tries to have an influence on people? Because then almost all political groups are cults, for one example, because they certainly want to influence people. I don't consider them a cult because, while they try to influence people, they don't try to separate them from their families and others. Cults don't try to "blend in". They try to isolate. They didn't fail in blending in. Their presence was almost universally accepted by their neighbors, who never felt threatened or expressed concern about WHAT they were doing. It was the residential zoning issue brought up, apparently, by a neighbor that was the (legitimate) concern, not their "rituals". What isn't speculation is your now repeated assertion that you get to define where a "proper" location to meet is. You have defined it as in a church building. Others aren't WILDLY speculating. They are saying, it seems like this might be a legitimate concern normal people would have, and then giving opinions. You have evidence that these are not weird, outliers in society who are getting together under the undue influence of a cult-like leader, from the impression the neighbors are giving. It really seems that YOU are the one wandering off wildly, by calling them a cult. That is why I say the posts seem to say more about YOU than about the topic.

well, ANY group can be called a cult - even us here on PFF. And, you know this is wandering into BS territory when people need to "define".
Cult are by no means exclusively Jim Jones/David Koresh mind influancing groups of wacko's. Obviously, it is in the interests of the "main religions" to make it sound that way, which is why it has the negative baggage. And, of course, all the horror movies which feature nutty cult leaders & zombie like followers. This could the Fromms. We have no idea.
the only claims of "almost universal acceptance" come from sources which favor them overall. NOONE KNOWS. maybe them folk are already "under the cults influance"?

there is NO actual anything to go on here. just people speculating, and exposing their own bias's - you included.
sorry, but after page 2 - this topic was done. everything from there after is just playing with it.

The Fromms are cult leaders who are negatively impacting their neighborhood.
whether or not they are a "wacko" cult - who knows - but I doubt it.
whether that negative impact is just a single whiney person - who knows - but I REALLY doubt it.
but, it is a 100% reasonable statement based on what little info has been provided.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: you know this is wandering into BS territory when people need to "define".

With most people, there is no need to define because we all, within range, use the societally agreed upon definition of a word. You don't always do that.


When you start throwing the word cult around, I don't have confidence that you are staying within the normal range and have to ask, to try to understand what you are saying.

Same thing as when you use the words conservative and liberal. Or fundamentalist.

Your definitions aren't the same as the rest of society are using, and it makes it hard to understand what you are saying.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, ANY group can be called a cult ...

... but that alone doesn't make it so. (I could even call a raven a writing desk.) I agree with frontal lobe on this. Not only are you apparently using your own definition of "cult," but you're stating it as an established fact rather than just your own unsubstantiated opinion. You might as well have been channeling Lewis Carroll:


"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'"

― Through the Looking Glass


Mad Hatter: “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Have you guessed the riddle yet?” the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
“No, I give it up,” Alice replied: “What’s the answer?”
“I haven’t the slightest idea,” said the Hatter”

― Alice in Wonderland

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: ... but that alone doesn't make it so. (I could even call a raven a writing desk.) I agree with frontal lobe on this. Not only are you apparently using your own definition of "cult," but you're stating it as an established fact rather than just your own unsubstantiated opinion. You might as well have been channeling Lewis Carroll:

Online Dictionary-

quote cultNoun/kəlt/ 1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

Oxford Online Dictionary-

quote cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\ Definition of CULT 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 <health cults> 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

Dictionary.com -

quote cult    /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 3. the object of such devotion. 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Part of the definition from Wiki-

quote The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society. The word was first used in the early 17th century denoting homage paid to a divinity and derived from French culte or Latin cultus ‘worship,’ from cult- ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshiped,’ from the verb colere 'care, cultivation'.[citation needed]

I hate to say it, but Pyrthian is correct in what he is saying. There are many people that view Christianity (and other organized religions) as Cults, and technically they are correct.

Now, can you guys continue in the discussion since this is settled?

Brad

Any way to find out what the original complaint was about? Too many cars or what?

quote Originally posted by dratts: Any way to find out what the original complaint was about? Too many cars or what?

Good question.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Now, can you guys continue in the discussion since this is settled?

Sure. Absolutely.

Except, oops. He is defining the group as a CULT because they don't do their "rituals" WITHIN the church, which by the strict definitions in the dictionary, is ALREADY a cult.

So, then, he should have been referring to a SUB-cult, I guess. Or a SUPER-cult?


But SOME reference that indicated that we just aren't talking about all those REGULAR cults.
THAT is the problem with discussing with people that won't make clear what definition they are using.


MOST people in the U.S. DON'T think of Christianity as a cult. They use cult in the sense of more emphasis on the LEADER who draws attention to himself to such a degree that HE tries to assert CONTROL over people. To the point of ISOLATING them from their family and friends, to remove them from any other threat to his control over them.


It REALLY isn't that hard, EXCEPT when people make it hard by throwing words around that HAVE a definition, but is being used in a DIFFERENT definition by the rest.