This introduction to a special issue of Nova Religio marking the fortieth anniversary of the deaths in Jonestown, Guyana, provides the background for the articles that follow. A brief history of Peoples Temple and discussion of the events in Jonestown precede an examination of the dominant narratives that have described this new religious movement. An analysis of popular narratives follows, utilizing Erving Goffman’s frame theory and the classification system outlined by Anson Shupe and Jeffrey Hadden. A summary of the articles that appear in this issue notes the contributions that a new generation of scholars makes to reframing the story of Peoples Temple and Jonestown. By shifting attention from the deaths in Jonestown to the lives in Peoples Temple, they are enlarging the frame for understanding how and why new religions succeed or fail.

Peoples Temple has been seen as the paradigmatic cult exemplifying the horrors of manipulative leaders and brainwashed followers due to the deaths in Jonestown on 18 November 1978. This article argues against the utility of making comparisons to such an extreme event, however. Drawing upon Godwin’s Law and its observation that online debates eventually raise the trope of Hitler and Nazis, the article introduces Jones’ Corollary: Discussions of new religions inevitably begin with a comparison to Jonestown. Making generalizations about new religions by starting with Jonestown is inappropriate because of the unique nature of Peoples Temple and its extraordinary ending in Jonestown. Nevertheless, Jonestown functions for the anticult movement and in online exchanges the same way that references to Nazis and Hitler do—to evoke shock, disgust, and outrage, and, ultimately, to terminate analysis.

This article describes the First International Symposium on Cultic Studies, sponsored by the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Two North American participants narrate their encounter with Chinese scholars, whose views about new religions diverge markedly from those in the West. The symposium revealed the various attempts by which "cults" are defined and understood by Asian scholars, and demonstrated a concern for protecting individuals from harm and for maintaining a stable society. Taking primarily a psychological rather than a sociological perspective, many conference participants focused on individual pathologies and charismatic leaders, although there were notable exceptions. The symposium revealed an openness to listen and to engage in dialogue by all participants that promises profitable exchanges in the future.

The expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" has entered the American idiom with little reference to its origins in the Jonestown tragedy of 18 November 1978. Instead, people are using Jonestown—— the event——and Kool-Aid——the phrase——to signify a number of contradictory meanings and values. This is because those who died in Jonestown were ritually excluded from cultural consideration. The more traumatic the original incident, the more likely memory of that event will be forgotten or repressed. The author identifies the ways Kool-Aid and Jonestown are used in the news and on the Internet, and catalogues four main groups of uses: cult disasters, including 9/11; political uses; entertainment; and business uses. The categories of cult disasters and politics use Jonestown references negatively,thereby indicating a tenuous connection with the origins of the concepts. The entertainment and business worlds, however, use the references both negatively and positively,thus revealing dissociation and amnesia about the reality of Jonestown.

This Response to Thomas Robbins' Comment, first, points out Dr. Robbins' excellent qualifications to comment on Peoples Temple; second, highlights the fact that the original article makes it abundantly clear Dr.Robbins' work was considered fully in the context of comparative studies; and third, notes that the author takes exception to certain claims made by Dr. Robbins. This Response directs readers to the appropriate works, to judge for themselves the validity of the original analysis. Finally, the author indicates her agreement with Dr.Robbins on the need for further dialogue about the role endogenous and exogenous factors play in religious violence.