What makes a religion “respectable” or not?

[VBM]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all generally treated as “valid” religions

Mormonism, Scientology, Wiccanism, Paganism, and almost all relatively recent religions are generally treated as crazy and non-respectable.

What are the criteria for determining whether a religion is valid/respectable or not?

[Samof94]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all generally treated as “valid” religions

Mormonism, Scientology, Wiccanism, Paganism, and almost all relatively recent religions are generally treated as crazy and non-respectable.

What are the criteria for determining whether a religion is valid/respectable or not?

The second category tends to be younger, and with the exception of Mormonism(which tries to pass itself off as generic Protestant Christianity), do not have that many followers. 
Where do parody religions like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even the Zorp religion on Parks and Rec fall?

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Size garners respect. When you don't have size, power. Without that, you're a fringe group who believe crazy things. Seems rather hypocritical as the only difference is a large group of people believing these things.

[RINO Tom]

A couple things:

1. Having a large following provides credibility and respect for a reason.  Christianity didn't emerge out of some mythical, distant and mysterious past; it arose during a time with ample written sources, many of which have survived.  It supplanted the state-sponsored religion of the most powerful empire in human history amid persecution coming from that very state.  Millions of people in that general era decided for themselves that they felt there was "something to this whole Christianity thing."  We now treat it like some ancient thing we all grew up with and that is why people believe it, but it had to EARN that place in society, and it did that by convincing people with a relatively straight forward and believable message.  Compare that to Mormonism, which also arose during a period with even more written sources and readily available ways to familiarize oneself with the religion and decide if it is valid, and it completely failed to catch on as truly mainstream.  This does not even touch on groups like Scientology.  If you have a lot of followers, it is because at one point your religious ideas were shared with a large group of people, and a lot of them found validity and truth in them.  Having a lot of followers isn't an unfair advantage, it's an accomplishment that serves as a testament to the religion in question.

2. A lot of people find claims of miracles or divine revelation in modern times to be incredibly suspect, and that is what groups like Mormons, Scientology and even Seventh-day Adventists claim as a cornerstone of their faith.  Even many Protestant groups, including most of the Mainline, are cessationist, believing that miracles stopped with the Apostles.  So, it should not be surprising that, say, a Protestant Presbyterian in the US might have more respect and less judgment for the beliefs of a Catholic, Jew or even Buddhist than he would for those of a Mormon.

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave.  There is certainly also an aspect of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. being intertwined with societies, making them less suspect.  If your religion promotes retreating from the broader culture rather than improving life within it, it is naturally going to garner suspicion from others.  Christianity founded institutions like Harvard and Yale, created many of the best hospital systems in the country, provides charity programs in communities across the nation and actively shares its beliefs with the public, with nothing to hide ... meanwhile Scientology has a private compound in California, advises its adherents to only read church-approved literature, shuns and bullies those who leave the church and won't tell you their most integral beliefs about the Universe until you have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars and multiple years of your life into devotion to the church.  They just aren't the same at all.

[Mr. Smith]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all generally treated as “valid” religions

Mormonism, Scientology, Wiccanism, Paganism, and almost all relatively recent religions are generally treated as crazy and non-respectable.

What are the criteria for determining whether a religion is valid/respectable or not?

A: This doesn't really hold all that true anymore, at least not in comparison to the rest of the list. Too much institutional power, very outsized compared to the actual numbers, even if many members still cling to the persecution narrative.

B: I've never heard anyone seriously have a strong opinion one way or another with these, anymore than "parody religions" like Pastafarianism or Satanism.

[Ferguson97]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

[RINO Tom]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Lazy work.

[satsuma]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all generally treated as “valid” religions

Mormonism, Scientology, Wiccanism, Paganism, and almost all relatively recent religions are generally treated as crazy and non-respectable.

What are the criteria for determining whether a religion is valid/respectable or not?

Well, I wouldn't put Mormonism in the latter category, at least not unambiguously. They practically run an above-average US state where people have the right to disagree. Many high-achieving people are Mormons. The shady side has more to do with internal discipline and trying to retain their "cradle" members. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Hasidic Jews, and countless sects and cults of various theologies are tighter in their grip on members.

The others you mention practically don't have cradle members. Scientology is almost straightforwardly a scam and crime ring. Its high-achieving members aren't simply drawn from a base of normal Scientologists, but a result of its strategy of targeting celebrities and wannabes.

Neo-paganism (Wicca is just a single form of neo-paganism) is definitely unique. It's hard to imagine getting dogmatic about it because it's basically pre-Christian religion, reconstructed together with various occult ideas, because people just think witchcraft and magic are cool.

To sum up: respectable to whom? Do you respect them? I see shades of gray here.

[Continential]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

[RINO Tom]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

Or any of them.  I’d like to hear his articulation for each.  For example, the Crusades were clearly religiously motivated, but they do NOT fit the international consensus definition of a genocide at all; they were an effort to reclaim holy land that had been under Christian control before being invaded and conquered by force.  I think Ferguson is smart enough to know that no religion could be claimed to be the motivation for most of the prominent genocides of the Twentieth Century like the Holocaust or the millions killed by Communism in the USSR and East/Southeast Asia.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are all generally treated as “valid” religions

Mormonism, Scientology, Wiccanism, Paganism, and almost all relatively recent religions are generally treated as crazy and non-respectable.

What are the criteria for determining whether a religion is valid/respectable or not?

Well, I wouldn't put Mormonism in the latter category, at least not unambiguously. They practically run an above-average US state where people have the right to disagree. Many high-achieving people are Mormons. The shady side has more to do with internal discipline and trying to retain their "cradle" members. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, Hasidic Jews, and countless sects and cults of various theologies are tighter in their grip on members.

The others you mention practically don't have cradle members. Scientology is almost straightforwardly a scam and crime ring. Its high-achieving members aren't simply drawn from a base of normal Scientologists, but a result of its strategy of targeting celebrities and wannabes.

Neo-paganism (Wicca is just a single form of neo-paganism) is definitely unique. It's hard to imagine getting dogmatic about it because it's basically pre-Christian religion, reconstructed together with various occult ideas, because people just think witchcraft and magic are cool.

To sum up: respectable to whom? Do you respect them? I see shades of gray here.

As much as I disagree with its theology, I must echo that Mormonism doesn't really belong on that second list.

[Frodo]

Speaking of the younger religions that you placed in the second category, it is important to remember Christianity wasn't 'respectable' either, being one of many eastern cults of the Empire that was unique for its monotheism and for refusing to worship the emperor, and was persecuted accordingly...until it became accepted due to the eccentricities of one man from the cold, far western corner of the Empire who thought Christ was the God who brought him victory in the recent civil war, and therefore the imperial throne. 

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

You haven't heard of the dhal genocide yet? Smh

[Kamala's side hoe]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

For the sake of argument, I'll mention the 2002 Gujarat riots (this is the biggest Modi controversy that I've heard of) and the alleged persecution of Buddhists in the Subcontinent by Hindu rulers during the early 2nd millenium CE.

[afleitch]

Tradition and community acceptance.

[RINO Tom]

Speaking of the younger religions that you placed in the second category, it is important to remember Christianity wasn't 'respectable' either, being one of many eastern cults of the Empire that was unique for its monotheism and for refusing to worship the emperor, and was persecuted accordingly...until it became accepted due to the eccentricities of one man from the cold, far western corner of the Empire who thought Christ was the God who brought him victory in the recent civil war, and therefore the imperial throne. 

Very true, and this plays into my point I was making earlier.  All brand new religions start out viewed with the same suspicion and prejudice as a "faith" like Scientology.  The fact that certain faiths like Christianity go from that to the most popular religion in the world is a sort of accomplishment that quite logically will cause less suspicion and more acceptance.  In other words, it would not have grown the way it did if it did not have mass appeal ... and Scientology, for very obvious reasons, does not.

[John Dule]

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave. 

Interesting distinction. Now let's see how it works when applied to Islam.

[RINO Tom]

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave. 

Interesting distinction. Now let's see how it works when applied to Islam.

I would not say those standards condemn Islam, really.  I will also say that I think you can have aspects of cult-like behavior or norms within a religion (especially within specific countries) while the religion itself should not really be called a cult.  I would certainly say that groups like ISIS are cults, but I would need to look at each individual case, I suppose.

[Frodo]

Speaking of the younger religions that you placed in the second category, it is important to remember Christianity wasn't 'respectable' either, being one of many eastern cults of the Empire that was unique for its monotheism and for refusing to worship the emperor, and was persecuted accordingly...until it became accepted due to the eccentricities of one man from the cold, far western corner of the Empire who thought Christ was the God who brought him victory in the recent civil war, and therefore the imperial throne.  

Very true, and this plays into my point I was making earlier.  All brand new religions start out viewed with the same suspicion and prejudice as a "faith" like Scientology.  The fact that certain faiths like Christianity go from that to the most popular religion in the world is a sort of accomplishment that quite logically will cause less suspicion and more acceptance.  In other words, it would not have grown the way it did if it did not have mass appeal ... and Scientology, for very obvious reasons, does not.

Mass appeal (among the lower classes) is part of it, sure, but Christianity would never have come as far as it did had Roman elites -starting with Emperor Constantine- not made it acceptable for Roman citizens who had long looked down on the Christian cult to eventually embrace it.  Without imperial patronage and elite acceptance, and in such a rigidly hierarchical society, I think Christianity would have remained just one of many other cults of the empire from its eastern fringe, albeit with some mass appeal to the lower strata.  

It was chance -not destiny- that brought Christianity to where it is today.  That's my point.  

[RINO Tom]

Speaking of the younger religions that you placed in the second category, it is important to remember Christianity wasn't 'respectable' either, being one of many eastern cults of the Empire that was unique for its monotheism and for refusing to worship the emperor, and was persecuted accordingly...until it became accepted due to the eccentricities of one man from the cold, far western corner of the Empire who thought Christ was the God who brought him victory in the recent civil war, and therefore the imperial throne.  

Very true, and this plays into my point I was making earlier.  All brand new religions start out viewed with the same suspicion and prejudice as a "faith" like Scientology.  The fact that certain faiths like Christianity go from that to the most popular religion in the world is a sort of accomplishment that quite logically will cause less suspicion and more acceptance.  In other words, it would not have grown the way it did if it did not have mass appeal ... and Scientology, for very obvious reasons, does not.

Mass appeal (among the lower classes) is part of it, sure, but Christianity would never have come as far as it did had Roman elites -starting with Emperor Constantine- not made it acceptable for Roman citizens who had long looked down on the Christian cult to eventually embrace it.  Without imperial patronage and elite acceptance, and in such a rigidly hierarchical society, I think Christianity would have remained just one of many other cults of the empire from its eastern fringe, albeit with some mass appeal to the lower strata.  

It was chance -not destiny- that brought Christianity to where it is today.  That's my point.  

Semantics with your choice of using “chance,” IMO.  Constantine chose it because it was a faith easy to unite people behind, and it spread quickly because of that.  Scientology simply could not have achieved the same.

[SInNYC]

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave.  There is certainly also an aspect of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. being intertwined with societies, making them less suspect.  If your religion promotes retreating from the broader culture rather than improving life within it, it is naturally going to garner suspicion from others.  Christianity founded institutions like Harvard and Yale, created many of the best hospital systems in the country, provides charity programs in communities across the nation and actively shares its beliefs with the public, with nothing to hide ... meanwhile Scientology has a private compound in California, advises its adherents to only read church-approved literature, shuns and bullies those who leave the church and won't tell you their most integral beliefs about the Universe until you have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars and multiple years of your life into devotion to the church.  They just aren't the same at all.

I dont know. Christianity started with one guy cloistered with 12 guys hanging around him, unpatriotic to  the emperor, and plotting to take on the existing order using subterfuge. I'm sure there were rumors of sordid things they were doing in their cabal, though it would have to be word of mouth since social media didnt exist to amplify the stories.

I tend to define a religion as a cult that has caught on. Out of the numerous cults today, one of them will probably be a religion 1000 years from now (unless we have outgrown religion).

[Ferguson97]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

Hindu nationalists in India are clearly in the early stages of a genocide against Muslims.

[RINO Tom]

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave.  There is certainly also an aspect of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. being intertwined with societies, making them less suspect.  If your religion promotes retreating from the broader culture rather than improving life within it, it is naturally going to garner suspicion from others.  Christianity founded institutions like Harvard and Yale, created many of the best hospital systems in the country, provides charity programs in communities across the nation and actively shares its beliefs with the public, with nothing to hide ... meanwhile Scientology has a private compound in California, advises its adherents to only read church-approved literature, shuns and bullies those who leave the church and won't tell you their most integral beliefs about the Universe until you have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars and multiple years of your life into devotion to the church.  They just aren't the same at all.

I dont know. Christianity started with one guy cloistered with 12 guys hanging around him, unpatriotic to  the emperor, and plotting to take on the existing order using subterfuge. I'm sure there were rumors of sordid things they were doing in their cabal, though it would have to be word of mouth since social media didnt exist to amplify the stories.

I tend to define a religion as a cult that has caught on. Out of the numerous cults today, one of them will probably be a religion 1000 years from now (unless we have outgrown religion).

I think it’s laughably simplistic and wrong to think humanity just “grows out of religion,” as if educated and intelligent people don’t wonder about ultimate questions that the natural sciences don’t try to answer because they can’t.  Even many secular scholars don’t entertain such an idea, it’s just atheist kids online who fancy this view because it elevates their position on this topic to something “more advanced” or “ahead of the curve” in their eyes.

All people won’t just all become materialists, because that doesn’t explain the Universe.  And people will always explore grander questions through disciplines that actually look to address those like philosophy and theology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3. Another huge aspect of what makes a "religion" suspicious is cult-like behavior.  Despite what militant atheists say, no mainstream Christian groups behave anything like a cult.  If you decide you are no longer a Methodist, your Methodist family members will not disown you (at least not by church instruction, anyway).  The UMC does not encourage people to only read UMC-approved literature.  There is no lingering threat toward those who leave.  There is certainly also an aspect of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. being intertwined with societies, making them less suspect.  If your religion promotes retreating from the broader culture rather than improving life within it, it is naturally going to garner suspicion from others.  Christianity founded institutions like Harvard and Yale, created many of the best hospital systems in the country, provides charity programs in communities across the nation and actively shares its beliefs with the public, with nothing to hide ... meanwhile Scientology has a private compound in California, advises its adherents to only read church-approved literature, shuns and bullies those who leave the church and won't tell you their most integral beliefs about the Universe until you have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars and multiple years of your life into devotion to the church.  They just aren't the same at all.

I dont know. Christianity started with one guy cloistered with 12 guys hanging around him, unpatriotic to  the emperor, and plotting to take on the existing order using subterfuge. I'm sure there were rumors of sordid things they were doing in their cabal, though it would have to be word of mouth since social media didnt exist to amplify the stories.

I tend to define a religion as a cult that has caught on. Out of the numerous cults today, one of them will probably be a religion 1000 years from now (unless we have outgrown religion).

I think it’s laughably simplistic and wrong to think humanity just “grows out of religion,” as if educated and intelligent people don’t wonder about ultimate questions that the natural sciences don’t try to answer because they can’t.  Even many secular scholars don’t entertain such an idea, it’s just atheist kids online who fancy this view because it elevates their position on this topic to something “more advanced” or “ahead of the curve” in their eyes.

All people won’t just all become materialists, because that doesn’t explain the Universe.  And people will always explore grander questions through disciplines that actually look to address those like philosophy and theology.

You do often see people who are actually in the natural sciences making this sort of assumption as well, but that is because academic specialists in general tend to have an inflated view of the social and cultural importance of their disciplines.

[Continential]

Generally speaking, you need to commit at least one genocide in order to gain street cred.

Please elaborate on the genocides Hindus committed; I would love to learn about them.

Hindu nationalists in India are clearly in the early stages of a genocide against Muslims.

90% Muslims feel free to practice their religion and a supermajority of Hindus support freedom of religion and while many may want to live differently from each other, it doesn't mean that there will be a "Muslim genocide" anytime soon.