Sara E. Stauffer and Dr. John Thomas, Social Sciences
While working at the United States Senate in Washington, D.C., my attempts to determine the legal difference between a cult and a religion were met by brick walls and forks in the road. The question became one fraught with sticky nuances and thinly drawn lines; it was an issue shrouded in grey. In today’s world, defining a religious belief is equivalent to opening a Pandora’s box; it only unleashes trouble and controversy. Consequently, my quest for greater understanding of the legal intricacies concerning religious liberty became frustrating. I found that the more I learned, the more questions I had. I began my search by reviewing Supreme Court decisions, transcripts of past Senate and House hearings on religious liberty, and interviewing those in positions of legal and religious doctrinal authority. This process eventually led to my clearer understanding of what defines both a religion and a cult in contemporary American law. Moreover, it brought about my newfound respect for the law and the justice it attempts to regulate.
On February 28, 1993, a group of religious zealots known as the Branch Davidians shot and killed four federal law enforcement agents as they attempted a raid on the Davidian compound. Later, on April 19, 1993, the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas burned to the ground, leaving seventy-five Davidians dead. This tragedy followed a fifty-one day standoff between the Davidians and federal law enforcement, during which time the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) attempted to extricate members from the compound for various criminal offenses. From the ashes of Waco, the Davidians raised numerous questions regarding the way in which the public, media, and law enforcement treated groups labeled cults. The Waco tragedy soon became the basis for my questioning of the law concerning religious liberty and its constitutional protection.
Cult and religion are two ends of one spectrum when it comes to defining. One dictionary defines a cult as “a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs.” The same dictionary then defines religion as 1 a “belief in a divine or supreme power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of any specific system of belief and worship, involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.”2 Use of such definitions often help people in their need to categorize. A group that is deemed unusual or frightening is quickly categorized a cult. Conversely, a group that is very much a part of the community with a long history is categorized as a more mainstream religion. Unfortunately, categorizing creates labeling, which eventually leads to intolerance and discrimination. In the course of my research, I found labeling to be the biggest obstacle in determining the difference between a cult and a religion.
Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court defines religion. As scholar Dmitri N. Feofanov states, “we need a definition of religion because it determines what is protected and what is not.” Indeed, the core of the issue concerning the difference between a cult and a religion lies in protection of beliefs and actions. All beliefs, regardless of how irrational, bizarre, or unfounded they may be, are unconditionally protected under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. While the right to believe is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, the right to act on those beliefs is not. An act that is typically illegal, such as drug usage or statutory rape, will not be protected under the guise of religious liberty. Many groups commonly referred to as cults practice certain illegalities on a regular basis, and when confronted, claim religious motivation and protection for their activities. According to the Court, however, such claims do not necessarily merit that protection.
After much research, I have concluded there is no legal difference between a cult and a religion. While it is important that all beliefs are protected, the law must also protect its citizens from undue harm. “Illegal conduct cannot be excused or ignored because the group engaging in that conduct has religious beliefs or affiliations” it is important to treat everyone’s beliefs equally. It is also important to adhere to the law, even when the law crosses into sticky moral territory.
References
- Neufeldt, Victoria, editor, Webster’s New world Dictionary, Webster’s New World, New York (1988) 337.
- Neufeldt, Victoria, Webster’s New World Dic New World, New York (1988) 1143.
- Feofanov, Dmitri N., “Defining Religion: An Immodest Proposal”, 23 Ho Review (1994) 311. 3
Statement by Ronald K. Noble to the United States Judiciary Committee (1995) 8-9.