A Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected.
The condition was made a part of Ria Ramkissoon’s plea agreement, officials said. She entered the plea Monday in Baltimore, Maryland, to a first-degree felony count of child abuse resulting in death, her attorney, Steven Silverman, said Tuesday.
Ramkissoon, a member of a group called One Mind Ministries, believes Javon Thompson, her year-old son, will rise again, and as part of her plea agreement, authorities agreed to the clause….
Ramkissoon and the others are accused of denying Javon food after the group’s leader, a 40-year-old woman who goes by the name Queen Antoinette, decreed the boy was a demon since he refused to say “amen” after meals, Silverman said.
“Ria would cling to him every day and try to get him to say ‘amen,’ ” Silverman said. Eventually, Queen Antoinette ordered that Ramkissoon be separated from the child, he said.
Javon is believed to have died in December 2006, court documents allege. Following his death, the group members put the boy’s body in a back room, and “everyone was directed to come in and pray,” according to the documents. “The Queen told everyone that ‘God was going to raise Javon from the dead.’ Javon remained in the room for an extended period of time (in excess of one week). The resurrection never took place.”
There’s truly no end to the downward spiral once you decide to separate your intellect from your search for the truth.
Thanks, K B
#42 – “If you are a critical thinker, consistent in your beliefs, you must then disavow any belief in the philosophers existed…copies of their writings can be counted on the hands…and the testimony Plato, Socrates, or even Shakespeare existed, pales in comparison to scripture…”
I don’t disavow their existence, but I do doubt their writings, yes. But even if what they wrote is complete bunk, or if they didn’t exist at all, that doesn’t make the Bible any more true.
re: #39 “Superstition, oh yes by all means, as long as it gives structure to the values necessary to survive as a species.”
Another perpetuated lie. Superstition, religious or otherwise, has been shown NOT to be the source of moral values. Moral values and judgement have been observed in many social animals, including other primates and cetaceans, and has been clearly indicated as an evolutionary strategy for survival in a particular social setting.
#43 – “You begged the question. You have every right to disagree with the 10 facts, but stating YOUR BELIEF is not the same as proving you are right…”
Your so-called “facts” are just as much an opinion, written by a Christan to justify his beliefs. You cannot claim your source is fact and then claim all facts given by the other side are just opinion. Then you magically win every argument.
# 25 (After a long interlude)
Might I note, in a very time appropriate manner given what has come between, that I never said a word about “religious” communities, but rather spiritual ones. While I think that there is a great deal of wisdom in religious texts, the codification and exclusion necessary to create a religious brand more often than not creates the very excesses that destroy any real spiritual (defined as an awareness of consciousness outside oneself) experience. Some of the best spiritual communities I have found are in strange places; people gathered to chat over coffee, amiable parties, people gathered around the campfire. The joy and love of fellowship makes anything spiritual and wholesome, not just meetings that are made in specific places of worship. And that love itself is great and good no matter how it is inspired, be it from children’s cartoons or the Koran. Religions try to make a monopoly on love, of course, and I can see how you might have mistaken me for making this argument, having heard it so many times before. But love springs from such a place of unequivocal affection that it could never discriminate, or be segregated in this way. The mere suggestion that such a thing could be so is a sign of the greatest hubris. It is literally saying “My love is real and yours is not, and so I don’t love you.” In the end such people are rewarded by loosing even the love amongst themselves, for their stinginess in giving it to others.
Last one was for Mr. Fusion, BTW. 🙂
Having an debate with Alfred is circular. All roads will eventually lead to “God says so”.
Still, it’s great to have him join this group. He validates the argument that our future cannot be placed in the hands of irrational people.
#48, Li… nicely said, and I agree under those circumstances.
If only those same institutions didn’t tend to organize into larger, more powerful singularities, expressing condemnation (outside their loving groups) to differing ethos, promote themselves by preying on inherent fears, or spreading the opinion and belief under the guise of the ultimate truth….
Re:51… “If only those same institutions…” I meant to say “same gatherings”.
Alfred1: Religious stories (any religion) are just that–stories. That’s the way it is….
#51 Amen to that. But it seems that men are attracted to power over each other, and such corruption always seeps in. I prefer small gatherings over large, for that reason. Less time for the corruption to take hold, and less power to tempt the weak with.
Just my 2 cents.
#53 I’ve found truth in even wholly fictitious tales, why exclude stories about things that merely may have occurred from your consideration just because they are stories?
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
If I rob a bank, and then give them all the money back, does that mean I am immune from prosecution? No.
She murdered her kid. Resurrection or not, she still did the crime.
That’s a very slippery slope the DA just stepped on.
If she manages a resurrection, it would be hard to prove murder on the retrial anyhow, habeas corpus and all. 🙂
Don’t we have a legal precedent now that officially recognizes resurrection?
#48, Li,
A good post.
I think we are pretty close in attitude. What you call spirituality I would call community. And, you are correct, I do associate the word spirituality with religion.
Humans need a sense of community to survive. We are are after all, a herding species. Those that can not find a sense of community miss their inclusion in society.
Thank you for correcting me and expanding your reasoning.
#56, Ron,
WHOA !!!
That is one heck of a persuasive argument. I would like to hear a counter to it. Not because I disagree, but because anything countering that point would have to be a pretty powerful, logical reason.
#41, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
RE: #33
Do you actually get the message behind the mythos that you are defending, or does your interpretation of “objective” reality allow you to own weapons and make threats?
“Mythos that you are defending…” bobbo and fusie frolicking limp wristed in the moolight, is not a myth…and I don’t defend it…
AND said events are ONE reason I got guns…
#44
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, picture…
two limp wristed fairies tip toeing through the tulips…and me on the grassy knoll, taking aim…
So now your delusional mind is fantasizing killing two people because you disagree with them. Where YOUR bible said “Thou shall not kill” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” now clearly puts you into the hypocrisy camp.
You have merely confirmed the worse fears about America lax gun laws.
I can’t get over the cult / occult’s was named one mind ministries. hilarious!
#61 (and by inclusion, #56):
While it’s certainly true that she would have committed the act of murder, from a purely practical perspective it’d be impossible to prove. (And, actually, #56 is actually wrong on the robbery analogy, but for entirely different reasons which I’ll get to in a second).
The simple fact of the matter is no one has thus far seen Resurrection happen (outside of Battlestar Galactica, har har. Or I suppose the Bible, but no one has actually *seen* is happen in the Bible either, since them folks are 1,950 years dead and all.) So if you attempt to take this to trial, the defendant’s first witness would be the boy, whole and hale. The state would then have to *prove* resurrection beyond a reasonable doubt… and if 10,000 years of philosophy and theocracy hasn’t done it, a prosecutor with 6 months worth of trial prep won’t be able to do it. (Though I admit, I *am* professionally curious about it.)
As to #56’s bank robbery analogy – you’re kinda wrong. One of the elements of larceny/theft is intent to permanently deprive the victim of the object stolen. If you return the cash after you took it – because you never intended to keep it in the first place – the state would have to prove that you only brought the cash back for another reason. That being said, would a jury really believe that you took money from a bank you weren’t intending to keep? Tough sell, methinks.