It seems to me that the only reason the term “new religious movement” is not used more often is that the term “cult” is much more effective for selling magazines. After all, the idea of a new religious movement is more congruent with your belief that they are “part of the formation of civilization; in the past it was how we got our religions.”

Labeling a group a cult is like labeling an individual a pervert. The allegation is so horrific in itself that somehow people tend to assume that there must be some compelling evidence behind it — other than further emotional appeal and generalization.

For example, you seem to imply that MSIA, like other groups gaining popularity in the ’70s who were later called “cults”, employs “ruthless techniques of manipulation.” A fair amount of outside research by new religious scholars indicates otherwise. None of it, however, makes it into glossy magazines, or convinces those who have already made up their minds in a forum or discussion group.

Fundamentalists tend to disparage of any non-traditional religion; atheist tend to think all religions are about manipulation. Which means, especially in this country, a lot of people back the term “cult” as a convenient means to dismiss anything they are unwilling to take time to more fully understand.

Cheers,
Robert