Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In the interest of protecting religious freedoms, I suggest an investigation into the activities of "deprogramming" organizations; their use of conservatorships and government help in kidnapping adult religionists; and the use of the public schools in promoting "anti-cult" misinformation. Secondly, it should be observed by the committee that if such activities constitute a violation of First Amendment religious liberties,

then steps

should be taken to withdraw such organizations' government sanctioned tax exempt status. (How can the government protect relgious freedom while promoting the attackers of those freedoms?) This may require new legislation that would better clarify the qualification of organizations deserving the tax exempt status with the federal government.

CONCLUSION

We have discussed the issue of "deprogramming" as it relates to government intervention into religious affairs with respect to First Amendment rights. As a society we are increasingly more concerned about the rights of women, the rights of ethnic minorities, and even the rights of animals. I ask this committee to become aware of the rights of minority religions and take the necessary steps to investigate and enact legislation needed to insure this sacred Constitutional right. What is restricted from one may soon be restricted from all. I pledge my support and fullest cooperation to your efforts.

ENDNOTES

1Dear Kelly, "Deprogramming and Religious Liberty." Civil Liberties Review, (July/August 1977) p.28

2Jeremiah S. Gutman, "Cults, Cultist and the First Amendment", from the Frist Amendment Symposium on Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., 1979

3

Anson D. Shupe, "Deprogramming the New Exorcism," Conversion Careers: In and Out of the New Religions, ed, James T. Richardson, Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications, 1978) p. 147

Sharon L. Worthing, "The Use of Legal Process for De-Conversion," Government Intervention in Religious Affairs, ed. Dean M. Kelley, (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982) p. 166

5, David G. Bromley, "Conservatorships and Deprogramming Lega and Political Prospects," The Brainwashing, Deprogramming Controversy: Sociological, Psychological, Legal and Historical Perspectives (New York and Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, forthcoming), p. 21

"Jeremiah S. Gutman, "Legislative Assault on New Religions," The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy, (New York and Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press, forthcoming.)

p. 18

7s. Res. 488, New Jersey Senate, 1982 Sess.

Jeremiah S. Gutman, "Legislative Assault on New Religions,"

william C. Shepherd, "The Prosecutor's Reach: Legal Issues Stemming from the New Religious Movements.", p. 197

10

Study of New Religious Movements by the Government of Denmark, 1983

llwilliam C. Shepherd, "The Prosecutor's Reach:

Stemming from the New Religious Movements.", p. 193

12U.S. Code Title 18, Section 241

13U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1201

Legal Issues

14 Letter from Philip B. Heymann to Adelo Connell regarding "deprogramming", 1-18-79

15 Conversation with FBI investigator and Micheal Gough, husband of deprogramming victim Kim Gough, (August 1982)

16,

Letter from E. Ross Buckley Attorney in Charge Freedom of Information/Privacy Unit March 14, 1977

17J. Gordon Melton and Robert L. Moore, "Deprogramming and the Anti-cult Movement," The Cult Experience, (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1982), p.82

18.

Based on information recieved from the Citizens Freedom Foundation's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. (1982)

TESTIMONY OF

DR. BOB JONES, JR.

ON S. 2568

"THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1984"

BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JUNE 26, 1984

Mr. Chairman, and other members of the Committee, I consider it an honor and privilege for me to attend this public hearing and express a conservative point of view on S. 2568.

The members of this Committee well know what the intent, purpose, and scope of this legislation is; so I will not bore the Committee with a layman's explanation of the Bill.

Although I am Chancellor of Bob Jones University and Chairman of the Board and served as President of the University for some twenty-four years, I come to you today in my role as a Minister of the Gospel for more than fifty years and one who has traveled in almost every state of the Union during the past two years. I come to you as one who has spent time with what the news commentators have referred to as the "silent majority." The conservative working class of America is, I think, the backbone of our great nation.

The average American citizen is frustrated because he finds his life regulated by a central government made up primarily of unnamed, faceless bureaucrats. Federal regulation has grown to such an extent that many citizens find their lives regulated from the cradle to the grave and, yes, now we even regulate people beyond the grave with

the newly adopted regulations governing the financing of burial services. Fifteen, ten, or even five years ago, some would have said that this kind of pervasive regulation of essentially local interests was not warranted and would not be possible in a free country, and yet, we see Congress enacting even more new regulatory laws each year.

I want to limit my comments to two basic points. First, I find an almost cavalier attitude in the Congress and in the Federal Bureaucracy toward the protection of religious freedom in this nation; and second, my layman's understanding of the concept of enumerated powers in the Federal Constitution suggests to me, and I hope suggests to this body, that there is a limit to government's ability to right imagined wrongs; i.e. the end of regulation, though it be laudable, does not justify any means to accomplish that laudable goal.

Not a week goes by without my receiving correspondence or telephone calls from a religious or other conservative organization which is being harassed by IRS or some other Federal bureaucracy. Religious persecution by bureaucracies, particularly by the IRS and various State Departments of Education which scorn the existence of Christian schools, is sweeping America. If this trend continues, freedom of religion as we have known it in this Country will not survive; and I predict that this nation will not survive if we ever get to the point where religious minorities are persecuted in the name of liberty or justice for other groups.

When the Supreme Court ruled in the Bob Jones University case that Constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom was not as important as public policy, the justices violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; but very few Congressmen and Senators demonstrated any interest in passing legislation to protect religious freedom.

The "Liberals," however, looked upon the Grove City decision as a blow to Civil Rights and immediately reacted by introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to further infringe upon religious freedoms. So-called "civil rights," as presently promoted by the "Liberals," involve denial of individual rights and personal freedoms and is in direct violation of the Constitutional guarantees of liberty.

The taxation of churches and other religious institutions, simply because some of their religious beliefs do not conform to nebulous public policy established by bureaucrats, is a dangerous precedent; it is the kind of power which is subject to abuse and is tantamount to the government's establishing a preferred religion. I submit to you that this whole area of government-regulation of religious beliefs which are not, in fact, criminal should be reviewed by this august body. I do not think such regulation is in the overall best interests of our society, and I believe it is blatantly unconstitutional and Soviet-like in its practice.

I would like to see the Senate go on record with legislation which clearly affirms the precedential nature of First Amendment Rights over considerations of Federal public policy. Of course, I am familiar with the doctrine of "compelling State interest," but that phrase is just three words which have varied meanings, depending upon the philosophy of the individual justices or judges. Of course, it has a negative connotation toward conservative organizations when our law is so much based on sociological law rather than logic and the permanency of the Constitution of the United States.

Before I discuss my specific concern about S. 2568, let me just raise one other question for your consideration. Why is it that the IRS is so eager to harass, intimidate, and persecute churches and other conservative organizations with their detailed questioning, with their foot-dragging on approval of tax-exempt status and with their barrage of forms aimed at supervising the activities of conservative organizations? And yet, why is it also that they fail to check or even monitor blatant violations of law by liberal organizations?

Let me just cite one recent example. According to the news media, both the National Education Association and the National Organization for Women publicly endorsed one of the Democrat candidates for President. Of course, I am no attorney, but it is my understanding that there are specific regulations adopted by the IRS that prohibit this kind of political activity by any tax-exempt organization.

« AnteriorContinuar »