Washington, USA - 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.