None of the above has anything to do with the actual subject developed under the label. The cult-like organization about which the scandals and shock stories are generated are about on a par with the scandals of horny priests in some Christian cults--they are not a reflection of the philosophical propositions or the tenets of the subject, as it was developed by the original thirteen key players back in the day. Instead, a cult developed of badly altered teachings, political and economic infighting, and loud PR both pro and con.

Trying to get any insight into the subject from exposes in the media is like trying to understand the Sermon on the Mount by watching a big-money televangelist doing a fundraiser.

This is the kind of fairly mindless claptrap that makes me sympathize with Christians whose beliefs and undersatandings of the world have been slimed by bad actors and madcap organizational highjinks which have pretty thoroughly changed the meaning of the word.

While I have little sympathy with the cult and am happy to see it subjected to PR catastrophes brought on it by its own actions, I think the distinction should be preserved.

A