Handling snakes, A religoius practice outlawed

by purplesofa 18 Replies latest jw friends

purplesofa

Much of the same logic and reasoning is done with those that practice snake handling as those that practice no blood transfusion........You might find these articles interesting.

Snake handling is a religious practice that is outlawed in some US states. Maybe some day blood transfusions will be looked at the same way.

Am I crazy to think this?

http://chronicle.augusta.com/headlines/062996/062996serpent.html

Snake Handlers and the Law

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ."
United States Constitution, Amendment I

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18

Is Snake-Handling Legal?

Really, there are three parts to this question, just as there are three branches to our government:

Has the legislature passed a statute outlawing snake-handling?
Have the courts enjoined people from handling snakes?
Will law enforcement agencies arrest people who handle snakes?

More important than this, though, is the question of whether we have a government that preserves our freedom to decide what is right for us or whether we have a government that decides what's right for us and forces that decision on us.

You might not be a snake handler, and you might think snake handlers are misinformed nutcases, but the amount of freedom you have to believe and to practice as you see fit is directly related to the amount of freedom you have in all other areas of your life. The government that can tell you your religion is too dangerous for you to practice it is the same government that can say your smoking, drinking, or dietary practices are too dangerous for you. Once the government is able to dictate to those living on the fringes of society, it's not long before the government begins dictating to those more and more in the mainstream. Today it's the snake handlers, tomorrow it's the Episcopalians.

Now, let's look at the legislative, judicial, and executive aspects of snake handling legality.

Legislative Action

The State Code in Tennessee, section 39-17-101, makes it an offense "for a person to display, exhibit, handle, or use a poisonous or dangerous snake or reptile in such manner as to endanger the life or health of any person." It doesn’t mention religious gatherings; a tourist-trap snake show along the interstate could just as well violate this statute.

The Revised Statutes of Kentucky go a bit further. In Title XL, Chapter 437, a section labeled "Offenses against Public Peace--Conspiricies," section 437.060 specifically outlaws religious snake handling. The section states: "Any person who displays, handles or uses any kind of reptile in connection with any religious service or gathering shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100). "

You'll note that the Kentucky statute is a more direct attack on religious snake handling than the Tennessee statute. In Tennessee, a person could exhibit a poisonous snake in public if he took precautions against endangering people's life or health. In Kentucky, the tourist-trap snake showman would face no criminal penalty even if he didn't take precautions, but the preacher would be liable for criminal charges even if he passed around non-poisonous snakes. From a direct reading of the Kentucky statute, a mainline preacher who displayed a frog during his sermon would be facing a fine.

About 50 years ago in Alabama, Act No. 45, General and Local Acts 1950 (effective October 31, 1950) stated: "Section 1. Any person who displays, handles, exhibits, or uses any poisonous or dangerous snake or reptile in such a manner as to endanger the life or health of another shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for a term to be fixed by the court of not less than one, nor more than five years." In 1953, the penalty was reduced to a misdemeanor, with a $50 to $150 fine or up to six months in jail. Neither of these acts remain on the books today. Instead, snake handlers can be prosecuted under the menace or reckless endangerment laws: Section 13A-6-23, Menacing, says, "(a) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. (b) Menacing is a Class B misdemeanor." Section 13A-6-24, Reckless endangerment, says, "(a) A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. (b) Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor." The constitutionality of applying these laws to snake handling was decided in the case of Hill v. State, which is discussed below.

There are no statutes in West Virginia prohibiting snake handling, either in a religious meeting or generally.

As time permits, information on more states will be added. Eventually there will be separate links to each state in which snake handling has been a legal issue.

Court Action

Regardless of whether or not a state legislature has specifically enacted a statute outlawing snake handling, the courts can still find handlers liable under the common law. If a defendant is told by the court to refrain from snake handling, he can appeal to higher courts in his state or, eventually, to the United States Supreme Court. The opinions of these higher courts are published, so we can consider the reasoning of the court in deciding whether a person has a right to handle snakes or not.

A case in the Tennessee state supreme court in 1975, Swann v. Pack , (527 S.W.2d 99), concerned a Holiness Church in which snake handling occurred. The court examined the matter from the common law point of view, that is, they weren't enforcing any particular statute but were actually deciding if the court had justification to shut down Rev. Pack's church. In sending the case back to the lower court, the supreme court instructed the lower court judge to: "enter an injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining all parties respondent from handling, displaying or exhibiting dangerous and poisonous snakes or from consuming strychnine or any other poisonous substances, within the confines of the State of Tennessee."

Go here to read a scholarly analysis of the Swann case. The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting; it says, in part: "Swann is a far-reaching decision. Some of the foreseeable possibilities include challenges to state statutes requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets, inquiries into culpability for death of terminally ill patients, and efforts to regulate hazardous sports such as hang-gliding."

The church members appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined to review the case. The practical result of this was that Rev. Pack and his congregation were prohibited from handling snakes. As a general rule, this would stand as precedent for any other religious snake handlers in Tennessee, but it all depends on the local authorities.

The Kentucky statute was challenged in Lawson v. Commonwealth, (164 S.W.2d 972 (1942)). Tom Lawson and others were convicted of displaying and handling snakes during a religious meeting, and they appealed the conviction.

The Kentucky court quoted from an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691): "Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."

Using this argument of the importance of the state's police power in maintaining the peace, the Kentucky court upheld the statute, essentially saying that you could believe whatever you wanted, but as soon as you tried to put your beliefs into practice, the state could stop you. This was decided in 1942, and the decision has not since been overturned.

In Alabama, Luther Hill was convicted in DeKalb County Court of displaying, handling or exhibiting a poisonous snake in a manner endangering the life and health of another. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held, on January 17, 1956, that the statute did not violate the federal or state constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion (38 Ala.App. 404). Mr. Hill appealed further, but on February 7, 1956, the state surpreme court declined to reconsider the case (88 So.2d 887). The Alabama court, using the prosecution's account of the incident, acknowledged that only "believers" were invited to handle the snake, and others were asked to remain behind the front row of seats during the service. The court referred favorably to the case of Frolickstein v. Mayor of Mobile (40 Ala. 725), in which a Jewish gentleman who rested on Saturday and conducted business on Sunday was convicted of violating a local ordinance prohibiting Sunday sales. Once again, you're free to believe whatever you want, but you're not free to act on your beliefs. And once again, the Hill v. State decision has not been overturned.

West Virginia, with no statute prohibiting snake handling, also has not had any court cases regarding snake handling. Remember, though, that only cases that have been appealed to a higher court are recorded. It is possible that handlers in West Virginia have been prosecuted under public nuisance laws and didn't choose to appeal.

Law Enforcement Action

This is where the real ambiguity enters. Many of the actions of law enforcement agencies are based more on public relations than on the law. If there’s nothing else for them to do, or if somebody makes a stink about it, there’s every chance that the local police will head for the nearest Holiness Church to bust up the snake handling services.

Advice to Snake Handlers

Please understand that I am not a lawyer and am not setting myself forth as one giving specific legal advice to any particular person. If you want to handle snakes in your jurisdiction and are concerned about the legal ramifications, please consult a competent, licensed attorney.

purplesofa

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News April 7, 2003

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. —Mark 16:17-18

For serpent-handling churches, these verses hold no symbolism—they are the literal words of the Lord that have inspired worshiping believers to handle poisonous snakes for a hundred years.

alt Email to a Friend

Serpent handling is always controversial and in many areas illegal, yet it shows no signs of disappearing from its traditional home in Appalachia, the mountainous regions of the Southeastern United States stretching from Georgia to Pennsylvania.

Junior G. McCormick is a serpent-handling pastor from Georgia. He explains that, for him, handling snakes is simply following the gospel to the letter. "Other folks don't do this because their churches don't believe, or it's just something they're scared of," he said. "They come to that scripture but want to jump over that part because it's a deadly thing."

(Practitioners, or self-described sign-followers, prefer the term serpent-handling to snake-handling noting that they incorporate poisonous reptiles not common snakes into religious worship.)

The practice began in the early 1900s. Its popularity has waxed and waned through the years. According to Ralph Hood, a professor of social psychology and the psychology of religion at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, serpent handling is currently at a fairly low ebb of popularity. Such fluctuations are characteristic of a faith that persists throughout Appalachia.

The perception that communities that practice serpent-handling church services are poor, isolated rural areas is simply no longer accurate, according to Hood.

"Historically that's where it emerged, but that's no longer the case," said Hood. "Some of these churches are near cities like Atlanta, Georgia, or Middlesboro, Kentucky—and the middle Appalachian region itself is less rural than it used to be. Serpent handling is no longer restricted to miners."

While a number of churches with small congregations around a dozen members survive throughout the heart of Appalachia, the faith is also practiced in adjacent states of Ohio and Alabama.

Family Faith

Churches survive and grow not by attracting new members, but because of enduring family traditions. "Serpent handling is maintained through powerful families whose children have carried on that tradition for up to four generations," Hood said. "There are a small number of converts, but they generally maintain themselves through these families, and by people marrying into the tradition."

While Junior McCormick's grandparents handled serpents, he said he came to the practice later, after a religious awakening that included baptism and scripture study. "I prayed for this, for God to give me the sign to do this because it was in the scriptures," he said. "I don't want to get out of it. I want to get further into it."

Churches that practice serpent handling tend to be wary of publicity. This desire for privacy stems, in large part, from negative media attention that inevitably follows the practice after injuries or deaths due to snakebite occur.

"There are over 100 documented deaths from serpent bites," said Hood. "In every tradition, people are bitten and maimed by them. They risk their lives all the time by handling them. If you go to any serpent-handling church, you'll see people with atrophied hands, and missing fingers. All the serpent-handling families have suffered such things."

"It's a misconception that these people believe they won't get hurt," Hood explains. "The Bible says to take up serpents, not that they won't be bitten. If they're bit, that's up to God. The issue is obedience to God. There's no magic power type of stuff. They know the reality of it because so many families have had people hurt and killed."

Junior McCormick has seen many serpent-handling bites, and experienced them himself. None of those experiences have deterred him from answering his calling. "Some people were bit, and I believe God was ready for them and their time had come," he said. "I was bit 14 times, by rattlesnakes, copperheads, water moccasins, and I never used anti venom—all I had was just Jesus. I've been bitten badly, but I'll go back the next week and take them out [serpents] again."

Higher Calling

What is it that inspires these worshipers to handle poisonous snakes? Like other Christian fundamentalists, serpent handlers' beliefs are rooted in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

These activities don't dominate services, but play a limited role within more traditional worship. "In almost all serpent-handling churches, they don't handle them all the time. They usually don't even handle them every Sunday," Burton explained.

Tom Burton, a professor emeritus at East Tennessee State University, has attended many snake-handling services and studied the practice for over 30 years. He's the author of Serpent Handling Believers, an authoritative study of the belief. Burton says that much of what goes on at such churches would be familiar to other Christians. "If you were there when they were not taking up serpents, or even during other parts of a service where they did, it would be like many other Pentecostal groups," he explained. "There is singing, preaching, laying on of hands, praying, testifying, and that sort of thing. It's kind of an expressive church service where people freely share emotions, a very participatory service like most Pentecostal services."

But those anointed by the Holy Spirit answer the calling by taking up the deadly reptiles or by drinking poisons. Burton said: "Only certain individuals commonly handle serpents, and it goes without saying that they warn people: 'If you're not directed by the Holy Ghost to do this, you'd better not.'"

While few outsiders are drawn to the dangerous and controversial practice, Ralph Hood predicts that it's future is assured. "Since the beginning people have been predicting that it will disappear, but as long as there is Appalachia there will be handlers," he explained. "It's an integral part of Appalachian tradition and it's not going to fade away."

dawg

I believe I get close to god while partaking of payote and smoking weed... still it's illegal.
purplesofa

For snake handlers, going to church can prove deadly
Roanoke.com/April 18, 2004
By Laurence Hammack
When the Rev. Dwayne Long picked up a rattlesnake in church last Sunday to show his faith in God, he was breaking a Virginia law that makes it a misdemeanor to handle dangerous snakes.
A conviction could have cost him $250.
His convictions, however, cost him his life.
Long, 45, died the next day of a snakebite he suffered during an Easter service at a Lee County church, drawing a media spotlight on the practice of handling poisonous snakes as the ultimate submission to God's will.
"Every time you come to church, it's a matter of life or death," biblical scholar Bill Leonard said of the practice.
Followers of the fundamentalist movement, who usually gather in small, rural churches scattered throughout Appalachia, read literally the words of Mark 16:17-18, which includes the "taking up of serpents" as one of five signs that identify true believers.
So fervent is the belief that Lee County Sheriff Gary Parsons figures a misdemeanor citation and a fine would not deter snake handlers from their faith.
The way Parsons sees it, what happened to Long at Arthurs Chapel in the community of Rose Hill is no concern of the law.
"I don't feel I'm in a position to question the way they believe," said Parsons. "They make a conscious decision to go in that church and worship in that manner. If it was in a public place, it might be different."
Unfair stereotypes
Although statistics are hard to come by, it's estimated that between 70 and 80 people have died from snakebites suffered during a church service since the practice began in the early 1900s, according to Leonard, dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University, who has researched and written about snake handling in Appalachia.
The practice has Pentecostal origins and can also involve drinking poison and speaking in tongues. It's believed to have about 2,000 followers - although that number, too, is only an estimate.
"Many of these services are way back up in a hollow somewhere, so who knows?" Leonard said.
Relatives of Long, the son of a snake-handling preacher and the father of five children, said through the funeral home that they did not wish to comment. Several members of the congregation also declined to speak or did not return telephone calls.
"They're very private people," Parsons said.
As the sheriff fielded calls from local newspapers and The New York Times last week, and as the news of Long's death was carried across the country and as far away as Canada and Britain, some researchers who have spent time with the snake handlers say the sensational nature of such incidents often leads to unfair stereotypes.
"These people are not just religious fanatics; they're not strange people," said Thomas Burton, a professor emeritus of English at East Tennessee State University and the author of the book, "Serpent Handling Believers."
"They're members of the Holiness Pentecostal faith, and they are religious fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God that should be taken literally."
One such tenet, from the book of Mark, quotes Jesus speaking to his disciples before he ascends to heaven: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
By handling poisonous snakes during their often-frenzied religious services, "they believe they're verifying the word of God for the rest of us," Leonard said. "They're saying that if it's not possible to take up serpents, then maybe it's not possible that Jesus rose from the dead."
'Voyeuristic danger'
Although most Pentecostals do not practice snake handling, historians trace the origin of the practice to George Went Hensley, a Pentecostal minister. He preached in the mountains of eastern Tennessee during the first decade of the 20th century.
By one account, Hensley was in the midst of a sermon about Mark 16 when some men dumped a box full of rattlesnakes in front of him. Hensley is said to have picked up the snakes while continuing to preach, thus starting a practice that ultimately led to his death in 1955.
When a worshipper is bitten by a snake and dies, followers generally accept it simply as God's decision that it was time to take that soul.
"Some will say that God doesn't say that you won't get bit, or you won't die, he just says to do this," Burton said.
The decision to take up a serpent is usually made only after intense prayer, often during high-energy services that include music from guitars, drums and tambourines.
Those who feel "anointed," or overcome with the presence of God, are the ones who handle the snakes, which are kept in "serpent boxes" that are sometimes decorated and branded with Bible verses.
Snake handlers usually represent about 10 percent of the congregation, but all of the worshippers are said to be powerfully affected by the display.
"There's a kind of voyeuristic danger to it," Leonard said.
Leonard and others agree that for the most part, members of the congregations come from secluded rural areas where residents face financial and educational hurdles.
"They've lived hard, and they get saved hard," Leonard said. "They've often had lives that were ... rough and coarse, and some of them have been in trouble with the law. And then they get saved. And just as they sinned hard, they live for Jesus hard."
But there are questions among biblical scholars about whether Mark 16:17-18 is really part of the Gospel, according to Rusty Simon, a director at Mission Virginia in Roanoke, a Pentecostal-based program that trains young people for the ministry. Even if the verse is genuine, there's still the question of whether it should be interpreted so literally.
"I like to offer people grace and just assume they are sincere, although sincerely in error," Simon said.
A right to handle snakes?
Prosecutions for snake handling are rare, even though every state except West Virginia has a law against the practice, Burton said.
"I think that generally, law enforcement feels that these people are better left alone as long as nothing happens," he said. "If somebody gets killed, that sometimes brings about charges if they feel pressure to do something about it."
Long's death was not reported to police, and authorities checked into the incident only after hearing about it through "word on the street," Parsons said.
After being bitten by the rattlesnake last Sunday, Long decided not to seek medical attention, authorities said. As is often the practice, members of the congregation prayed for Long, who died early Monday at his home in Rose Hill.
In Virginia, it is a misdemeanor to handle poisonous snakes "in such a manner as to endanger the life or health of any person." The offense does not carry a possible jail term; the maximum fine is $250.
Meredith Farrar-Owens, associate director of the Virginia Sentencing Commission, said a statewide search of often-incomplete misdemeanor records found just one prosecution under the law since 1997, in Henrico County.
It's unclear if that case stemmed from a religious service. Officials in the Henrico County commonwealth's attorney's office could not be reached for comment.
Although many believers assert they have a First Amendment right to pick up a snake or drink poison as part of a religious service, that issue has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Burton.
In researching his book, Burton found several state Supreme Court decisions. One of them, decided in 1947 by the Tennessee Supreme Court, affirmed the convictions of several members of a serpent-handling church. The high court ruled that while the right to believe is absolute, Burton said, the right to practice a religion that entails snake handling is conditional upon the state's interest in maintaining a "robust citizenry."
Parsons said he might be more inclined to use the law under different circumstances, such as someone handing a snake to a juvenile or an unwilling participant.
But snake handlers don't try to coerce anyone to reach inside a serpent box, according to Burton.
"Almost invariably the pastor will say, 'This is dangerous stuff,'" Burton said. "If you're not anointed by God to do this, you better not do it. There's death in that box."
deaconbluez

The verses where Pentecostals get the idea for snake-handling (Mark chapter 16) are believed to NOT be part of Mark's Gospel by just about all Biblical scholars. Even if the verses were authentic, they say nothing about snake-handling being a requirement for Christians or a required form of worship.

These people that behave like this give Christians a bad name. Not all of us are insane.
purplesofa

The verses where Pentecostals get the idea for snake-handling (Mark chapter 16) are believed to NOT be part of Mark's Gospel by just about all Biblical scholars. Even if the verses were authentic, they say nothing about snake-handling being a requirement for Christians or a required form of worship.

These people that behave like this give Christians a bad name. Not all of us are insane.
These verses, Mark 16:9-20 are in the NWT under Long conclusion. I am not a bible scholar.
but
Even if the verses were authentic, they say nothing about snake-handling being a requirement for Christians or a required form of worship.

These people that behave like this give Christians a bad name. Not all of us are insane
just as the bible says nothing about snake handling being a requirement for Christains or a required from of worship, neither does blood transfusions, a practice that alot of Christians would find give them a bad name and also thought of as insane.
purps
tula

There is a scripture that says you should not tempt God.
I think it would apply in the case of snake handling.
Open mind

I wonder what "Snakes" thinks about all this?

purplesofa

Did you know that you have two Freedoms granted by the First Amendment regarding Religion?

Pilgrims were called Separatists back in England because they wanted independence from the established Church of England.

In 1620, they sailed the stormy Atlantic for 63 days on the tiny Mayflower, seeking freedom of religion in the New World.

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right , and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

Your rights to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof means:

	The Freedom of Religion is an inalienable right.

	The First Amendment provides for the Freedom of Religion for all Americans.

	The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion.

	The government will remain neutral.

So, go ahead and pray - or don’t. Go to church - or sleep in.

tula

However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.
Because religious issues were under the jurisdiction of the states, the Supreme Court heard very few cases concerning religion before the 1940’s. The one major decision concerning religious practice arose from a federal territory, and concerned the issue of polygamy. In Reynolds v. United States, the court found that a federal law against polygamy, which had been challenged by a Mormon defendant, was constitutional. Polygamy was outlawed in the United States.
Murray v. Curlett (1963) in which the court held that it is unconstitutional to force a child to participate in Bible reading or prayer.
The Free Exercise Clause of the constitution has generally been interpreted by the court to mean that people may believe anything but that actions and rituals may be limited by law if the government has a compelling interest. Laws passed which are aimed at a particular religion are unconstitutional. Here are some of the court decisions regarding free exercise:

United States v. Ballard (1944) in which the court ruled that religious teachings could not be prosecuted for fraud.
THIS RELATES TO "CULTS" AND THE LAWS
One major attack on religious freedom which should be noted is the attempt by enemies of new religious movements to label all such groups as “cults,” and to pass various laws to deprive members of new religious movements of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the so-called “anti-cult movement” went into business kidnapping members of groups such as Hari Krishna, Unification Church and Children of God in order to “deprogram” them. Gradually, they expanded their faith-breaking efforts to include charismatics, Pentecostals, and a wide variety of other groups. In fact, “deprogrammers” made their services available to any disgruntled persons who objected to a relative's conversion to any faith.

After the mass suicide of many of the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana, members of the “anti-cult” network sought to legitimize their efforts through the passage of national and state legislation. Senator Bob Dole held several Senate hearings on cults. Fortunately, civil liberty organizations, the American Baptist Church, the National Council of Churches and several new religious movements, came forward to oppose this effort. The senators recognized that the proponents of deprogramming were themselves a motley, disreputable crew and the hearings produced no legislation.

As numerous religious leaders denounced the efforts of “anti-cultists” to promote religious bigotry and subvert the First Amendment, and “deprogrammers” were inceasingly convicted of kidnapping and other crimes, the "anti-cult" movement changed their tactics. They began courting state legislatures seeking to pass legislation enabling judges to declare converts to new religions mentally incompetent and place them under the conservatorship of a disgruntled relative. The conservator could then hire a deprogrammer to break their faith. As the term deprogramming became increasingly disreputable, the "anti-cultists" changed the name to “exit counseling.” This effort to pass conservatorships was denounced not only by new religions but also by an array of ministers from small churches who could easily discern the threat to their ministries. At one committee hearing in Maryland, when an inner-city minister asked a deprogrammer who would decide what churches were cults, the deprogrammer replied arrogantly, “You pass the law, and we’ll tell you who the cults are.” Even lawmakers who were skeptical of new religions could see that such laws would never pass constitutional muster and the efforts of the "anti-cult" movement declined for several years. Recently, however, there has been a resurrgence of anti-cult activity based upon succusses in Western Europe and Japan. In Western Europe, this movement against religious freedom is generally known as "anti-sect." The sensational news concerning the Solar Temple suicides, Heavan's Gate, Waco, and Aum Shimrikyo have created a climate in which several of the governments of French and German speaking countries have delegated commissions to study "dangerous sects." The Belgian and French Commissions have finished their reports which name a number of religions and religious organizations such as the Baptists, the YWCA, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Salvation Army, and numerous new religions as "dangerous sects."Now a similar movement is beginning to appear in the United States. The legislature of Maryland on April 13, 1998 approved a resolution, HJ22, calling for the creation of a task force to study "cult" activity on college campuses. The resolution passed largely because the language did not name any group that they intended to study. Proponents of the bill insisted that they favor religious freedom and do not want to study religious groups but "dangerous psycho-groups."
According to Massimo Invigne of CESNUR in Turin, Italy, this is the same strategy that the anti-cultists have followed in Italy. The anti-cult apology is generally:
1. We favor religious freedom, but "cults and "sects' are not religions. When pressed to define what is a cult and what is a religion, anti-cultists reply:
2. People join a religion voluntarily, but they are induced to join a cult through psychological manipulation (ie."brainwashing"). When confronted with skepticism from scholars who have refuted the accusations of "brainwashing and psychological manipulation, the anti-cultists state that:
3. Scholars can't be trusted. The way to determine if a group is a cult is to ask the people who have left the organization. When challenged that studies have shown that many more people who leave such groups state that they were not manipulated as those who state they were and that the majority of those who leave these organizations are indifferent, the anti-cultists then assure legislators that:
4. The are organizations (meaning themselves) who specialize in these matters and they can help determine who are reliable witnesses (meaning those ex-members who are working with them).
In Maryland, the resolution moved through the legislature very quietly midst a maze of more publicized bills. Groups which generally testify to protect religious freedom were not aware of the existence of the measure until the end of the session after the bill had been approved by committee and was going to the Senate for a final vote. The bill was read on the floor of the Senate as a proposal to study "cultural activities" in both its second and third readings and passed. The majority of senators who were talked to during the last few days of the session said that they hadn't heard of the bill and thus had no idea of what they were voting for.
Unfortunately, one indirect result of the "anti-cult" movements efforts in the United States was the two-year imprisonment of Reverend Moon, the founder of the Unification Church. In 1976, Sen. Dole sent a memo to the IRS requesting an investigation of Rev. Moon and the Unification Church. After investigating church finances for three years, Justice Department lawyers recommended on three occasions that there was no basis for a suit against Rev. Moon. Overriding the advice of their own lawyers, a higher official in the Department of Justice ordered the United States District Attorney in New York to file suit. In a highly controversial trial, in which Rev. Moon was denied his request for trial by a qualified judge, and denied the right to choose his interpreter, Rev. Moon was found guilty for a $7,500 tax liability accrued over a period of three years for a church account held as a trust in his name. Investigation by the noted constitutional lawyer Lawrence Tribe, into allegations that the jury was tainted, was squelched by a gag order. Numerous churches, civil rights organizations and state governments filed amici briefs requesting that the Supreme Court review the case, but the court declined to do so. Rev. Moon was forced to serve a two-year sentence in Danbury Federal Penetentiary.

This case presents an ominous example of how complex US tax laws could be misused to attack unpopular faiths or religious leaders.
Under US law, religious and educational organizations are tax-exempt as C(3) nonprofit corporations. Tax-exempt religious organizations may not lobby or engage in political activities.
http://www.religiousfreedom.com/wrpt/USrpt.htm

Handling snakes, A religoius practice outlawed

For snake handlers, going to church can prove deadly

Roanoke.com/April 18, 2004 By Laurence Hammack

Unfair stereotypes

'Voyeuristic danger'

A right to handle snakes?

Share this

Roanoke.com/April 18, 2004
By Laurence Hammack