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
