Cults or Alternative Religions?

A Baltimore mother accused of joining a cult and starving her child says she was acting on her religious beliefs. What's the difference between extreme religious conviction and delusion? Between a religion and a cult?

The sad death of Javon Thompson raises difficult issues regarding parental responsibility, religious liberty, and the intervention of the state. Javon was starved to death by his mother, Ria Ramkissoon, a member of "One Mind Ministries." Media reports, evidently reflecting the evaluation of law enforcement officials, have portrayed Ria Ramkissoon as a "brainwashed" member of a "cult." Amid the confusion and sensationalism surrounding the case, one thing is clear: presuming a distinction between a "cult" and a "religion" does not help us understand anything about the dynamics of alternative religions.

Within the academic study of religion, "cult" is used with great caution. When "cult" is employed as a descriptive category, it is to distinguish new religions from "sects" or offshoots of larger religious groups. But this is something quite different from how "cult" is used within the contemporary media. So called "cult-experts" will often provide a list of "cult" characteristics: unquestioning loyalty to a charismatic leader; denial of family contacts; belief in the immanent end of the world; aggressive proselytizing; and a propensity for violence. But from this perspective, anything from a Buddhist monastic community to the Marine Corps could potentially be labeled a "cult." What makes a "cult" is not its intrinsic character, but its position vis-à-vis those who wish to label it.

For example, in my classes on New Religious Movements, I often have students lay out the characteristics they associate with the term "cult." I then have them reflect upon whether or not Catholicism would meet these criteria. Often I supplement the discussion by providing sample critiques of Catholicism from evangelical Christian sources that portray the Catholic Church as the quintessential example of a "cult." The point is not that Catholicism, or any other religion, is a "cult". Instead, the point is that the very term "cult" reflects highly contested, and contestable, assumptions about what constitutes "normal" or "healthy" religiosity. Simply put, one person's fanatic is another person's saint.

The problem with relying on the term "cult" is that it can distract our attention from understanding the belief systems of alternative religious movements. This is especially the case when brainwashing is identified as a distinctive "cult" practice. As a theory explaining conversion, brainwashing has been found to be inadequate on a number of levels. First, there is no credible empirical way to establish that the brains of "brainwashed" "cult" members have actually been changed. Second, brainwashing theories when applied to "cult's" often rely on a questionable analogy with totalitarian nation states. Third, brainwashing theory overly simplifies the complex continuum between human free will and compulsion: as humans we are neither completely free nor completely subject to external control. The crucial point is this: if we understand cult membership as a simple function of "brainwashing," we are likely to dismiss self-evidently religious beliefs as relevant only to the extent that they reflect the "cult's" coercive power.

The beliefs embraced by alternative religions are part and parcel of their appeal. In order to understand alternative religions, and to develop sound policy with regard to them, we must engage these groups not as "cults" but as "religions." The often tragic impact of ignoring a group's belief structure can be seen in the aftermath of the raid in Waco, Texas. By dismissing Branch Davidian interpretations of scripture as reflections of David Koresh's pathology, the Federal Government unwittingly confirmed, and played a deadly role in, the Branch Davidians' understanding of the fulfillment of divine prophecy. We ignore the beliefs of alternative religions not only at their peril, but ours as well.

The confusions and tensions surrounding "cults" are undeniably manifest in the case of the death of Javon Thompson. In reports from law enforcement, we find little specific information about the beliefs of "One Mind Ministries," other than the central role of a charismatic leader named "Queen Antoinette" and the use of marijuana smoke to "cleanse the spirit." What we hear instead are details about particular mechanisms of control such as the confiscation of cell phones. Oddly enough, there is a proviso that charges against Ria Ramkissoon will be dropped if Javon is resurrected. While this might be a necessary concession for a plea bargain, this seems to recognize the importance of the "cult's" belief structure. But the implications of this recognition are immediately undermined by the expectation that the Ramkissoon undergo "deprogramming"--itself a coercive practice that very much resembles the process of "brainwashing" as popularly understood.

Given the background of Javon Thompson's family, a much better approach would be to consider the cultural and social context in which "One Mind Ministries" arose along with appreciating the specific beliefs that shaped the treatment of children. Spiritual healing, prophecy, coercive forms of discipline, and the use of intoxicants are hardly new phenomena since one finds them, in some shape or form, in most every religious tradition. Of course, one could argue that religion itself is delusional, but that polemical position has problems of its own. The presumption should be that followers of Queen Antoinette are responsible for their actions: even if they gave up their autonomy to her, they did so as a result of decisions they themselves made.

One of the appeals of using the term "cult" is that questions about religious liberty can be easily avoided. "Cults" don't have rights; "religions" do. But established religions can and do practice violence, coercion, and chicanery--if one accepts those as crucial makers of being a "cult." While some might argue that "true religion" is somehow separate from such things, anyone would be hard pressed to find an example that meets such pristine standards. The issue is not charting out some idealized vision of what religion should be. Instead, the issue is discerning appropriate restraints on religious liberty in relation to the common good.

Clearly, the state does have an interest in protecting the welfare of children. How that is defined in specific cases is much more complex. In the case of Javon Thompson, for example, there seems to have been the deliberate infliction of harm beyond what would be considered socially acceptable. Similar cases have arisen with regard to dismissing medical attention. While courts in this country have routinely argued in favor of a competent individual's right to decline treatment, they have ruled against parents who claimed a right to refuse life-saving measures for a dependent minor. While such a position is not without its difficulties, it does represent a reasonable balance between religious liberty and the interests of the state to protect children from harm.

As sad as the case is, making a distinction between a "cult" and a "religion" does nothing to help us to respond to the death of Javon Thompson or to understand "One Mind Ministries." The term "cult" is a simply a pejorative term for religions that many of us cannot, or will not, understand.

By Mathew N. Schmalz | March 31, 2009; 5:33 PM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Religion, Cults and Reason | Next: Cult of Cruelty

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

A Pagan Elder and author, Isaac Bonewits, wrote up a pretty comprehensive list of attributes of a cult. They are as follows:

- Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

- External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

- Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

- Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

- Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.

- Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.

- Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

- Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

- Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

- Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.

- Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

- Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

- Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

- Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

- Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

- Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

- Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

- Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

Posted by: Athena4 | April 5, 2009 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Imagine if it was forbidde, on WAPO (onfaith/onreligion & postglobal) to use the words "SA{LLY}" "QU{i}NN" or "DA{VID" "WA{}TERS" or "ZAK{A}R}IA}" or "I{}G{}NATiUS" or the word "PO{OST" etc..???

Please remove curly brackets in WAPO's Editor & hit "Submit" button. For the Word:

""SH{i}L{O}H" [PEACE BRINGER]. So
WHY would Washington Post or George Town University et al; be soo so afraid of a (biblical) word meaning, "PEACE", Freidan, PAZ, Mir, SHALOM or "SH{}{A}{L}{O}{M}", Salaam, Ahimsah, Zhingyu"?.....?.. Testing testing:

"HUE{-}MATES"
"JO{}K}{T}AN" [The UNITED Anscestors]
{WE [i] Cometh from This Father/Mother EBERu line} hence [i] WE; US? are innately evolved as "HUEMATES" not as HUMAN anymore. As Prophecy: WE [i] Removeth the "Scepter & the Rod.. from Both hand & between King DAVID's realm who are "P{E}{L}E{G"ians [The DIVIDED Ancestors]. WE Reverseth the DRUNKIN NOAH [racist] CURSETH/SINETH preposterous Story of Moses & his Jealoused Co., And So
INSTEAD of god, replaced "ITSELF" w/the knowledge of "IT" via the Holyi Cosmic "MELCHIZEDEK PEACE-BLESSING" & more "Good TiDINGS"!

Testing Testing:

"P{E}{L}E{G"
[Means the "DIVIDED" Eber/ABRAHAMICs branch/splinter, Isaac, Ishamael, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Esau, Jesus, includes Muhammad Folks, Mormons too etc.., as their Lineage/Anscestor (NOT OUR's, Never! or unlike US HUEMATE-arians of that Holyi Cosmic NEBULA awared "IT"s (G-D) Naturally Selected , aka, Chosen, "JO{}K}{T}AN"ian) EBERu race!

WOW! WHY WAPO???????????? WHO {Sect?, Cult?, Preacher, Editor, Moderator(s) , Mormon, Evangelousical? , rick Warren? Chuck Colson? etc..} is Behind This Blatant 1st Amendment Violation & Anti Public-Internet DEVILISH/EVIL Censorings???
Wow! Please WAPO & Co., stop Jealously Blocking OUR, not your, Intellectual works about the "IT" [G-D doing work & becoming what one is becoming] And then Borrow for Ye gains or Withholding such whiteboarding hard work from its genuine Authors!?

Posted by: INGOODFAITH | April 4, 2009 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Please remove curly brackets in WAPO's Editor & hit "Submit" button. For the Word:

""SH{i}L{O}H" [PEACE BRINGER].
So
WHY would Washington Post or Geaorge Town University et al; be soo so afraid of a (biblical) word meaning, "PEACE", Freidan, PAZ, Mir, SHALOM, Salaam, Ahimsah, Zhingyu"?.....?.. Testing testing:

Testing Testing:

Posted by: INGOODFAITH | April 4, 2009 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Schmalz,

Your Article States here:
"By dismissing Branch Davidian interpretations of scripture as reflections of David Koresh's pathology, the Federal Government unwittingly confirmed, and played a deadly role in, the Branch Davidians' understanding of the fulfillment of divine prophecy. We ignore the beliefs of alternative religions not only at their peril, but ours as well."

I find this to be a very powerful statement. I am good friends with The Branch Davidian Survivors and actively engaged in study of the message presented at Mt. Carmel. The use of the Word "unwittingly" here, could seem to imply the ATF and FBI were manipulated of human conventions, as they themselves claimed of David Koresh.

If this is this is the case, if such high officials can be "outwitted" and manipulated by a mediochre high-school student, actually considered "challenged", then the scripture which Points that God will use the simple to confound the wise is exponentially displayed here.

I do think "unwittingly" is an accurate description, but I also believe that God moves the hearts of men to perform his will. Revelations 17 and 18 indicate he will move the hearts of the very KINGS of the earth to give up thier Kingdoms willingly to another, to "The Beast."

There are so many levels to this. You see, it wasn't just the events of 1993 which David Propehecied which have come to pass, there were many others. Marc Berault who played a key role in getting the ATF/FBI involved in investigating David Koresh in the first place, copyrighted a document in 1992. In this document, he, a dissident of the church, tried to paint "Good Ol' VERN" as a false Prophet. He further painted those followers, the Davidian Branch Davidian SDA's as "VERNONITES" and listed scripture David Preached while he was there, trying to discredit him by the same. In his presentation he offered doubts to David Koresh's theology, but explains the teaching he was exposed to...that stated in his words.."ANYWAY, THE VERNONITES EXPECT TO BE SCATTERED IN 1995" and indeed they were. Yet another prophecy which has come to pass, and there have been others. You see, in 1994, The suriving followers of David Koresh, were not scattered (as in far and even abroad), while separated by bars they all participated in Court Cases in the same locale, Waco, until at least June, when 6 were sentenced to prison.

And then some were moved to various parts of the country to serve in DIFFERENT PRISONS. So in 1995, the first full year in which those followers,"VERNONITES" as Marc Berault would call them, they were indeed SCATTERED, and those prison sentences, would carry with them in several cases "DEPORTATIONS" upon release.

So again, not only was the US govt unwittingly fulfilling what the DAVIDIAN BRANCH DAVIDIAN SDA students of David Koresh believed to be the fulfillment of Divine prophecy in 1993, but they continued to fulfill that very divine prophecy in 1995 and to this day. Likewise even the dissident Mr. Berault in his attempt to discredit David Koresh as a false prophet, unwittingly copyrighted testimony in 1992 which 3 years later upon it's fulfillment would Serve to do just the opposite of that he intended it to.

IF the US govt, was indeed Unwittingly used to fulfill "divine Prophecy" as the DBDSDA saw it in 1993, who then was motivating them to do the same in 1995?
For that matter, motivating the dissadent
comments of Mr. Berault to document the same event in 1992, 3 years before it would fulfill itself?

I believe what has been overlooked even moreso in this case than the theology of the Davidian Branch Davidians, is the actual Spirit of God manifesting events in the world through movement in mens hearts to perform the divine fulfillment of a prophetic timeline. And if I am indeed correct, not only will all those vicious lies come to surface, all the deeds which have been "dismissed" by the laws of the land concerning the actions of the ATF/FBI in 1993, but as well, those who merely believe surface reports, ignoring "weapons of Mass Distraction"...not a typo, and especially ignore the beliefs of this group I note to have actually followed David, well, they may well do so to their very peril on eternal levels.

I assure you, an awakening is coming, when it does, it will be sudden, it will be swift, and the world will tremble as the veil between the Spiritial kingdom, and the physical realm begins to lift.

-Steven Benjamin
The Mt. Carmel Discussion Board

Posted by: Benjamin | April 4, 2009 4:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is what happens when people have humans {not Huemates} have, uncured, "Pre-Apocalyptic SYNDROME", "Religious Jealousy Psychosis" and especiall "SPLIT MINDED PSYCHOSIS"!

Note: "PSYCHIC DRIVING" [brain Washing techniques, not waterboarding] is how one can turn a naive {gullible} mind into a dry spong?"

IT's TRUE (opposite MYTH) that theres a Sucker born every 1/2 a minute, no more every minute!

Something interesting: PASSOVER {Exodus} Holiday is comming soon. This celebration is about how a CULT-ure or how a "MULTITUDE" (of mixed/captures Slaves becoming unslaved) 750,000 Strong {Prisoners/Fugitives?} have escaped their MASTERS and Became EX[Pharoah/Osiris/Seth/Zeus/MELOCH, CHEMOSH/BAAL] Worshipers turned "God(s) Chosen People" suddenly. AND

the PASSOVER-Line also jubilees about how the "Let my {Circumcised/Branded] People GO" story via dances & drinks & Prays to celebrate the "MASS, 1st-BORN BABY'S HOLOCAUST Killings"???

SO; Passover celebration is about Organised Ex-HEBREWS turned "JEWS" {PELAEG Race} , via Branding, in search of their, not OUR {JAKTAN} "Milk & Honey" dream, come True!?

Posted by: INGOODFAITH | April 3, 2009 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their black leather book boxes and their pointy hats wide, their SUVs big, and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets, talk shows, political conventions and the most important seats in the cathedral, stadium, church or synagogue; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them Dr., Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Pope or Rabbi.

Posted by: coloradodog | April 3, 2009 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I think we have a problem here in that some find the impact of the word 'cult' too useful to really identify those characteristics which may take even the use of 'familiar' religious impulses over the edge into that oppressive and nasty territory.

Many cults appeal to the *familiarity* of mainstream religions, particularly the extremes voiced all the time in politics and the media: it's 'Religion' to try to keep 'women in their place,' ...very often it's a cult when someone actually *does* it.

Being an 'alternative religion' often seen as 'fringey' or accused of being some big nasty 'cult,' ourselves, Pagans are pretty aware of the issue, even if unlike myself personally, we never run across any personally.

I think the uncomfortable fact *is* that what really makes something a 'cult' *isn't* how mainstream the beliefs are, but rather, a matter of degree: *how much* authoritarian power structure, *how much* conditioning, and *how much* isolation from 'nonbelievers' ...in thought and social contact and even contextualization of actions.

Some *very established and popular religions,* yes, can in fact be seen as *just big cults.* Some very fringey and even nonsensical belief systems can have none of these characteristics. You know.... Discordians, for instance. A lot of em take it to the point of dadaism, never known one that would hurt a fly.

Mormons? Trying hard to mainstream as they are, they do *not* like to let people go. I like to give em credit for trying, on some levels, but the structures are still in place.

Christian Scientists? Eminently sensible and nice people who just happen to let people die when we don't approve. Probably largely on account of there's limits to where we Westerners think it's OK to get medieval on the children in our charge.

I mention the Boston Church of Christ and other offshoots, ...to listen to them, they're just 'taking the bible literally' as much as anyone with those social politics does, but I've extracted people from that, and they're... whoo. Well, they were in the news.

Just cause it is or is not familiar ground for those of us who like to think of ourselves as 'theologians' really doesn't inform the ill-defined word in our consciousness, 'cult.'

*Academically* muddying the terms 'cult' and 'alternative religion' ain't protecting anyone. Only means there's fewer of us watching when kids are getting hurt.

Posted by: Paganplace | April 2, 2009 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I understand both your argument and the reasons behind it. And I sort of agree. But I can't help but resent your implication that society is responsible to understand what you call alternative religions. Tolerate, sure. Defend the rights of, absolutely.

But you can call a frog a dog, but that doesn't make it bark. And I'm sorry, but cult is NOT a pejorative term. It's a descriptor, a simple name. If you choose to infer a pejorative meaning if someone calls, I dunno, Heaven's Gate, then perhaps you need to examine your own prejudices.

Perhaps the difference is between denotation and connotation. And that's something that we need to be careful of. But we cannot afford to worry so much about applying connotation to denotation of "cult" that we grant acceptance to the anti-social behavior of groups like Jim Jones' or Heaven's Gate.

Posted by: GoofyPlatypus | April 2, 2009 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

tweeted this @ http://twitter.com/FamilyLawTweets

Posted by: jfiorill | April 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mathew N. Schmalz

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Cults or Alternative Religions?

Comments