(Ex-CAW member here; have been out of it for more than a decade. Posting anonymously for professional reasons, but I used to be personally well-acquainted with both the founders of Church of All Worlds and Robert Anton Wilson.)
Church of all world still nominally exists, and has been through several incarnations during the 60s. Although its foundational premise was indeed deeply silly, it was self-consciously so: an act of intentional myth-making. It encouraged its members to explore other spiritual paths as well as to create their own; and there were many CAW members who were committed Buddhists, Jews, atheists, etc.; a large majority counted themselves as Discordians. The only principles held as official dogmas were things like "Nature is Good", and "Be Excellent to Each Other" (because why the fuck shouldn't Bill & Ted be part of your mythos?). So it was all in rather good fun.
This is not to say that the organization didn't have its problems. Chiefly, it was frequently subject to nasty internal politicking -- personality-driven power-plays of the sort that are unfortunately quite common in idealistically non-hierarchical organizations. But when measured against typical metrics for cults, eg[1], it fails on every single count.
Anyhow, just a gentle reminder that not every new religious movement is a cult (in the conventional modern pejorative sense of the word).
[edit: fixed link.]
1: http://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics
Church of all world still nominally exists, and has been through several incarnations during the 60s. Although its foundational premise was indeed deeply silly, it was self-consciously so: an act of intentional myth-making. It encouraged its members to explore other spiritual paths as well as to create their own; and there were many CAW members who were committed Buddhists, Jews, atheists, etc.; a large majority counted themselves as Discordians. The only principles held as official dogmas were things like "Nature is Good", and "Be Excellent to Each Other" (because why the fuck shouldn't Bill & Ted be part of your mythos?). So it was all in rather good fun.
This is not to say that the organization didn't have its problems. Chiefly, it was frequently subject to nasty internal politicking -- personality-driven power-plays of the sort that are unfortunately quite common in idealistically non-hierarchical organizations. But when measured against typical metrics for cults, eg[1], it fails on every single count.
Anyhow, just a gentle reminder that not every new religious movement is a cult (in the conventional modern pejorative sense of the word).
[edit: fixed link.]
1: http://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics