Basic HTML Version
But the struggle did not end with
the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into
the Constitution. Old ideas die hard.
Enormous pressures were put on
Congress and government officials to
formulate this or that religious law.
Petitions and protests carne from
every sector of the country.
It
would
not be easy for the fiedgling nation to
maintain religious liberty.
Very soon various of the state leg–
islatures began to pass religious legis–
lation. Liberty would now have to
be
found at the bar. The courts would
have to defend our constitutional
guarantees of religious freedom.
Courts do not change constitu–
tions, but they do interpret them in
order to apply the principie to specif–
ic disputes involving human rights
and privileges. In general, the higher
courts of the land, usually manned by
judges of keen intellect, judicial
minds and long experience in dealing
with human rights, have upheld the
federal principies of religious liberty
in rendering their decisions.
Stat e Const i tutions
Although the state governments have
tended to lag behind the national
government in their legal expressions
of support for constitutional religious
freedom, due credit must be given to
those which have guaranteed free–
doro of worship in their constitutions.
Ironically, sometimes a state legisla–
ture may even pass laws in contra–
vention to its own constitution. Cali–
fornia is a case in point.
We quote article I, section 4 of
California's constitution: "The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without dis–
crimination or preference, shall for–
ever be guaranteed in this State; and
no person shall be rendered incompe–
tent to be a witness or juror on ac–
count of his opinions on matters of
religious belief; but the liberty of
conscicnce hereby secured shall not
be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness, or justify practices in–
consistent with the peace or safety of
this State."
Yet section 9505 of the state Cor–
porations Code states: "A non-profit
corporation which holds property
subject to any public or charitable
trust is subject a t all times to exami–
nation by the Attorney General, on
behalf of the State, to ascertain the
10
condition of its affairs and to what
extent, if at all, it may fail to comply
with trusts which it has assumed or
may depart from the general pur–
poses for which it is formed. In case
of any such failure or departure the
Attorney General shall institute, in
the name of the State, the proceed–
ings necessary to correct the non–
compliance or departure."
Based entirely on a misinterpreta–
tion of section 9505, the Worldwide
Cburch of God was placed in receiv–
ership by the Los Angeles Superior
Court on January 3, 1979, after the
California attorney general's office
and six ex-church members accused
church officers of misuse of funds.
And although the receivership has
since been lifted, the damages sus–
tained by the church are incalcula–
ble, including an estimated $15 mil–
lion shortfall in cash that otherwise
would have been received in the cur–
rent calendar year.
The drastic decision to impose a
documentary receivership on the
church was finally reached when a
California judge was told that the
church was selling its Big Sandy
campus for $10 million when it was
allegedly worth $30 million. The
church has since shown that the ap–
praised value of the property was
only about $6 million.
The lawsuit itself was filed in a
rather surreptitious manner. The
complaint against the church called
for, among other things, the remova l
of the existing directors of the
church. When the receiver did show
up on church premises, along with
security forces and representatives of
the attorney general 's office, he had
failed to give the church any prior
notice of bis attempt to seize its oper–
ations.
For many years the Worldwide
Church of God has enjoyed a tax–
exempt status as a nonprofit religious
institution. Because of its tax status
and section 9505 of the state Corpo–
rations Code, California contends
that it can now intervene in church
business affairs and still not be in
contravention of the traditional prin–
cipie of separation of church and
state.
Section 9505 of the California
Corporations Code is obviously un–
constitutional to the extent that it
applies to churches organized as non-
profit corporations. It plainly violates
the First and Fourteenth Amend–
ments of the U.S. Constitution and,
ironically, article 1, section 4 of the
California constitution itself.
It
interferes with the free exercise
of religion.
It
constitutes an estab–
lishment of religion to the extent that
it provides authority for the executive
and judicial branches of state govern–
ment to obtain a receiver or other–
wise inspect, control or seize assets
and supervise or review policies of
religious organizations and their
leaders. It deprives churches of the
equal protection of the law, in that it
purports to affect the rights and priv–
ileges of religious organizations set
up as nonprofit corporations and does
not
similarly affect the rights and
privileges of ecclesiastical organiza–
tions that are not nonprofit.
If
section 9505 is not wholly un–
constitutional on its face, it has been
unconstitutionally applied by the ex–
ecutive and judicial branches of the
state of California.
Re llglous Liberty lmperiled
There are numerous other examples
in this situation of the unconstitu–
tional use of state power to affiict
religious institutions and freedom of
worship in direct contravention of the
traditional American principie of
separation of church and state. But
suffice it to say here that the World–
wide Church of God in particular has
sustained enormous damages to its
entire scope of operations at the
hands of the state of California.
The assets of religious bodies can–
not be allowed to become the public
property of any state.
If
the course
that the state of California has em–
barked upon is not stopped in its
tracks, religious liberty and freedom
of
wo~:ship
are decidedly on the wane
in this great country.
1 cannot improve on the words of
Dr.
J .
Gordon Melton of The Insti–
tute for the Study of American Reli–
gion. He wrote: " 1 call upon all com–
mitted to preserving the integrity of
our religious institutions and the
freedom to propagate our beliefs, set
our own priorities, and participate in
the American religious scene, to join
forces at this hour. Raise the hue and
cry. Let a ll know that we will not
stand by and allow our freedoms to
be subverted."
o
The
PLAIN TAUTH June·July 1979