Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, July 11, 1980
FROM SACRAMENTO ·:::::::: : ·:: :·:·: · :·:·:·:·:·:·:· :·:·:·:·:· :·: ·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·
'Cult' Now Weapon
Against Religion
.·.·.·.· .·.·.· .. . . .. . .. . . . ..... . ...... ..... . . . . ... . _By Robert Studer
Ill
· ,
A word may be just a word. A
combination of letters that, added
together, have a particular meaning
to those who hear it. But, those
shades of meaning can
be
subtly
changed. It is then that a word can
become more than just a word. It
can become a weapon.
That, in the opinion of church lead
ers throughout the nation, is what 1s
happening to the word "cult." And,
to them, this subtle change is adding
up to a threat to religious freedom in
California and the nation that - m
the opinion of their spokesmen -
threatens to set us back 300 years
and destroy the
very
reason that
man first ned an oppressive Europe
to start out again in the New World.
At issue is a current battle between
the attorney general of California
and the national religious community
over his interpretation of the Califor
nia state law governing charitable
trusts. And at immediate issue is a
bitter controversy between Attorney
General George Deukmejian and the
Worldwide Church of God based m
Pasadena.
Deukmejian, investigatin� the
church in the wake of allegations of
fraud, used a new section of the
state's non-profit corporations code
to seizf' church assets and records,
thereby igniting an alarmed coun�r
attack from religious groups nation
wide who feared an historic breach
in the hallowed wall that separates
church and state.
Deukmejian acted after he had
received complaints from some
members of the Pasadena-based
church that assets of the church
worth millions of dollars appeared to
have been sihponed off to f�
luxurious lifestyles for some of its
top leaders.
In so acting, the attomer general
was utilizing an interpretation of the
charitable trust law which holds that
every charitable organization in Cali
fornia is a publlc trust, that Its assets
are held in trust by its leaders for the
benefit of the general public, and
that
churches and charitable organJ-
zations and thus come under the
purview of the code.
Church leaders nationally, howev
er. brand this interpretation of the
law as "a throwback to the Middle
Ages, and an infringement on the
First Amendment of the U.S. Consti
tution, which could well lead to the
imposition of a state-dictated stan
dard of control of church operations
and religious practices. It is an
aJarming breach in the wall between
church and state."
� Pfeffer, a professor of political
science at Long Island University
and a special counsel to the Ameri
can Jewish Congress, put it this way
in an interview here: "The word
'cu\t' is being equated to some kind
of a leper, and this term is being
widely applied to religious groups in
this country. The point is being made
that such 'cults' do not belong in the
society of civilized religions, that
they are not entitled to deal wfth
them as it sees
fit.
This terminolo
gy," he warned, "is being used to
gain acceptance by a court that such
s�alled cults are not religious at
all.
"If this were to be accept@d," Pfef
fer said, "it could very well mark the
beginning of the end of true religious
freedom. Established religions, the
Catholics, the Protestant, the Jewish
groups - which once were very
much in need of such protections -
today are atcepted to the point
where they seldom need the direct
protection of the First Amendment.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights,
however, is not to r. rotect established
groups which don t need protection.
From the very beginning, these
rights were needed to protect those
groups who need a constitutional
guarantee against government that
considers thernunpopular andunde
sirable."
In Sacramento to testify in behalf
of state legislation that would pla<:e
limits on the right of the state to
probe churches nowmoving through
the Legislatut �. P'efler added:
''When a state ,,-: � national gov-
Page 17
Thursday, July 3, 1980
ernment tries to make laws respect
ing religious practices or religious
beliefs or reJigious expressions,
which distinguish between religious
groups merely on the fact that one is
called a cult and the other a religion,
is acting contrary to
the
Constitution
of the United States."
Pfeffer contradicted a generally
held belief that when
the
U.S. Su
prem4! Court on June 2 without
comment let stand rulings by Califor
nia courts that Deukmejian may
seek documents and interrogate
Worldwide Church of God officials in
his current probe, that it was a victo
ry for the California state govern
ment in the controversy.
"On the contrary,"
he said,
"it
is
the normal practice of the Supreme
Court not to act on any matters
brought before it until all avenues
have been pursued in the lower
courts. That is how it protects itself
from being inundated by legal mat
ters to the point where it could no
longer function. This action by the
court is not a prejudice against the
position of the churches in this mat
ter. Indeed, I am confident that
should the matter finally end up
before the high court it will be re
solved in behalf of religious freedom
in this nation."
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 1493, by
Sen. George Petris, D-Oakland, in
behalf of which Pfeffer, Dean M.
Kelley, executive for religious liberty
for the National Council of Churches,
and others had flown to Sacramento,
was passed out of the Assembly Judi
ciary Committee on an 8-0 vote.
"You don't mortgage liberties as
part of the bargain when government
seeks to protect the people against
fraud and abuse," Petris told the
committee.
His blll would amend a current
law, which took effect in January,
which allows
the
state Department of
Justice to investigate groups regis
tered as tax�xempt religious corpo
rations on the mere suspicion of
fraudulent use of church property
and donations.
Reprinted by Permission of Copley News Service