Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, August 15, 1980
Page 8
this by Garner Ted Armstrong, when in fact I was originator of this, and
took this matter to my attorneys in Saddlebrook, New Jersey, the firm of
Cohn and Lifland?"
Here was Mr. Rader's response:
"I would say to Mr. Tuit, whom I have
never met, that he'd better reread the transcript of the deposition that
he gave in New Jersey last year when he indicated very clearly that he
had been instigated to bring this suit through the efforts of Garner Ted
Armstrong and his son, Mark." No further response was heard from this
caller.
When asked about the traditional concepts of religious freedom on the
Candy Jones show, Mr. Rader explained that the bottomline of all this is
the role that government plays--or ought to play--in our society today,
especially regarding the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He
took the example of the Internal Revenue Service and the power it has to
audit. In spite of this power, the IRS takes a very cautious approach
because of the "preferred position" of churches. The IRS knows it cannot
move in on a church as it might even move in against some other tax exempt
charitable organization or business.
Then Mr. Rader pointed out how most states have followed the same criteria
set forth in the Internal Revenue Code for their examination purposes.
Following these IRS guidelines, states take care to respect the rights
of churches with their first amendment protections. Mr. Rader stressed,
"No one has ever said that under the guise of the First Amendment one
could cloak a crime under the veil of that protection. We have never
said that. No other responsible person would say it. What we have said
is that there is a system of rules and procedures which must be applied
very carefully, very intelligently, very sensitively by any governmental
agency when they are looking into the affairs of the church, because the
First Amendment gives the church a preferred position. That means, for
example, in areas other than the Internal Revenue Service, that if you
attack a church and you come afoul of that First Amendment, you must
prove that what you are doing is constitutional."
So Mr. Rader went on to make the point that the burden of proof is on
the aggressor--in this case the state. He said that now the California
Attorney General is taking the public position that he does not agree
with the way funds are spent by the Church. He has changed his tune and
he now says that money is merely being "misused." But by whose opinion?
Again, he claims it is his right and duty to determine what is "misuse"!
Perhaps the most unusual interview Mr. Rader has had to date was on the
Bill Boggs show. Guests included an atheist, first amendment expert
Dean Kelley of the National Council of Churches, and two IRS representa
tives. The discussion revolved around the separation of church and state,
and tax laws pertaining to churches.
The atheist, a member of American Atheists, stood for complete separation
of church and state. He proposed that this be accomplished by treating
churches the same as other organizations and taxing them accordingly, as
well as applying other governmental regulations. Mr. Rader pointed out
the fallacy of this position, and explained how the State of California
has already gone beyond the pale in claiming to own churches lock, stock