Semi-agree, but I think there are 2 fundamental differences between established religions and cults:

1. Complete shunning of non-cult members, and even harsher shunning of ex-members. This one may be a gray area, as certainly many religions identify all members of other religions as "going to hell", and I know Mormons who have been excommunicated for being gay. Still, the level of ostracism in mainstream religions is nothing compared to, for example, what happens if you try to leave Scientology. Scientologists declare you a "subversive person", stalk you, and essentially try to ruin you. I know many folks who have left the Catholic church, but in all honestly the Catholic church still tries to welcome them back with open arms.

2. Be secretive about the details of the cult before you are "bought in". Say what you will about organized religion, but it's pretty trivial to get the full text of the Bible, Koran, and other religious writings. Meanwhile, Scientology requires you to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to slowly get access to their screeds, and they have gone after ex-members who have attempted to publish this information.

Yes in the sense that all religion has a dose of magical thinking, but not in the sense that cults are a specific set of practices that set them aside from mainstream religion.

Shunning of members, cutting ties to non-cult people, taking over the finances of their members (and forcing them to donate).

There are some gray areas and some mainstream congregations can cross into cult-like behavior, but in general, there is a demarcation.

The difference is that Christianity has a huge amount of buy in among the American people. The unification church can’t really say the same about the Japanese people, and in some ways in antithetical to the LDPs nationalistic politics since the church is run by Koreans.

Agreed about Christianity, disagreed that it's the only difference.

There is a set of cult-like behavior that distinguishes modern cults from mainstream established religions. Those practices are an important distinction.

Also, the mindset required to join a fringe or secretive cult today that shuns the rest of society, and is shunned by society in turn, seems relevant to me.

While I won't suggest this is society's distinction between the two, in my mind it's about what happens if you exert independent thought that conflicts with the institution's beliefs and what happens if you attempt to leave the group. Many ex-Mormons claim their former church is a cult and that life in Mormon dominated areas become very difficult for those who have left the faith. Same for Jehovah's Witness but the impact is smaller because not many areas are dominated by them and you don't have to move far to get away from it. On the other hand, the worst cults will hunt you down across the country (and possibly the Earth) if your existence is offensive enough to them, which isn't something typically seen when leaving a mainstream Christian religion. A Mormon in Alabama leaving the church isn't likely to face much social ostracism while a Southern Baptist might, especially if they reject Christianity entirely, but their life isn't likely to be in danger.

Lifted from Wikipedia:

"[H]is mother had given the church about 100 million yen (US$720,000), a parcel of land she had inherited from her father, and the house where she lived with her three children; she subsequently declared bankruptcy in 2002. She had continued donating to the church following the bankruptcy. A male relative later recalled being contacted by Yamagami and his siblings to complain that they had no food at home, prompting the relative to deliver meals and money for living expenses. [..] Yamagami's older brother, who had a longtime struggle with cancer, was not able to afford medical treatment; he died by suicide in 2015."

To me, that sounds quite a bit worse than your average Christian church.

There are certainly some predatory Christian hucksters out there; people like Kenneth "I need my private jet to spread the gospel" Copeland spring to mind, but there are many more (as well as many more abusive ones). Religion is often a comparatively "easy" target for abuse.

However, the religion of Christianity as a whole isn't centred around the concept of "send me your money". I think that's the main difference: is the religion as a whole primarily centred around abuse, or is it just various groups within the religion that operate like that?

There are plenty of cults within Christianity, but Christianity as a whole?

I'm sure there are more formal and academic descriptions, and things can become a bit tricky around the edges for sure, but I find "is it primarily centred around abuse of its members?" to be a reasonably workable every-day distinction.

> What exactly separates a "cult" from any other church?

Usually the difference between a cult and a sect is how hard it is to leave it. church more usually define practice of the "established religions" or as long as it stay close enough to it.

I think in this case it would be more similar if all of the party members were part of the same minority denomination. While most U.S. polititions are Christian, they are members of mostly independent churches that are organized into separate denominations. That is one reason that we have generally been wary of Catholic politicians - because we don't want our government to be under the influence of the Pope.

You're technically correct, but I think that's a different definition of the word "cult" from the colloquial, and from what is being used above. Wikipedia's definition describes a cult as "unusual," "socially deviant," and "novel." I don't think Christianity fits that description in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult