Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00286)

MKR:

>Thanks for the information. More background information we have, better off
>and each one of us can do the research for ourselves and come to our own
>conclusions without taking anyone else's words.
>
>mkr
>
>>In 1940, the federal courts indicted Edna Ballard and her son, Donald
>>Ballard, and many I AM leaders on 19 counts of fraud. This litigation
>>and scandal, widely publicized at the time, caused massive defections.

--------

The following is an excerpt from an article by Robert Ellwood
entitled "Making New Religions: The Mighty 'I AM'". It deals with
the charges against the group, which were recently mentioned on
theos-talk. (This article appeared in a journal several years
back, I don't have the name and date of it handy at the moment.)

-- Eldon

> Then in July 1940 came a happening which Bryan could only insert
> in his work as a last-minute Publisher's Note. Edna Ballard, her
> son Donald, and a score of other prominent leaders of I AM were
> indicted for mail fraud. In essence, the charge was that they
> had devised the I AM religion knowing that it was a fabrication,
> and then used it as a means of garnering large sums by soliciting
> and receiving donations through the mails. The wife of a United
> States Senator from North Dakota testified that she had spent
> considerable amounts attending I AM classes hoping to cure her
> husband's blindness, without success. Many similar accusations
> were submitted. Counterbalancing testimonies on the part of many
> others were offered of the immense value of I AM. This was the
> case which was to end in the United States Supreme Court in a
> landmark decision.
>
> It was first tried in the US District Court for Southern
> California. There Edna and Donald Ballard were convicted of
> using the mails to defraud. In his instructions to the jury, the
> judge had said that the case could not be decided on the truth or
> falsity of the Ballards' religious beliefs, but only on whether
> they did 'honestly and in good faith believe those things'. If
> they did, he said, they should be acquitted; if they did not,
> they were obviously guilty of fraud. The jury evidently believed
> the latter.
>
> The Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the conviction on
> the grounds that the judge's instructions were in error. It
> ruled that, to establish fraud in this case, the jury would have
> to take into account the truth or falsity of the religious
> doctrine or beliefs to show that at least some of its
> representations were patently false.

>
> The case finally reached the US Supreme Court in 1944. Mr
> Justice Douglas, a stalwart liberal, gave the majority opinion on
> April 24th of that year. It ruled that the Circuit Court was in
> error in requiring that the truth or falsity of the religious
> doctrines or beliefs be determined, for that power is not granted
> to any court or legislature by the US Constitution The Court's
> majority opinion proclaims:
>
> Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe
> what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of
> their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences
> which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to
> others. The religious views espoused by respondents may seem
> incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those
> doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding
> their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the
> religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake
> that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment
> does not select any Two dissents were presented One, by Mr Chief
> Justice Stone, in concurrence with two other Justices, contended
> that freedom of religion was not at issue but that, when fraud is
> charged, the facts must be ascertained thus the District Court
> had acted correctly. The other, by MT Justice Jackson, another
> liberal, went beyond Justice Douglas to argue that not only can
> the courts not deteine the truth or falsity of any religious
> claims, they also cannot determine anyone's sincerity or
> insincerity in holding them, citing William James and other
> psychologists of religion on the subjective complexities of faith
> and unfaith. This too is an area beyond the cognizance of the
> law, and beyond simplistic issues of fraud. 'There appear to be
> persons let us hope not many' Justice Jackson wrote, 'who find
> refreshment and courage in the teachings of the I AM cult. If
> the members of the sect get comfort from the celestial guidance
> of their "Saint Germain," however doubtful it seems to me, it is
> hard to say that they do not get what they pay for...
> Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into
> religious persecution.'
>
> Justice Jackson thus contended that the whole indictment should
> be dismissed and 'have done with this business of judicially
> examining other people's faiths'. Justice Douglas' opinion,
> however, carried, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court
> with instructions to proceed in accordance with the majority
> opinion and to consider further issues originally raised by the
> Ballards and not previously considered by the Circuit Court.
>
> Upon remandment the Circuit Court affirmed the original judgment
> of conviction of the trial court. The conviction was again
> reversed by the Supreme Court on December 9th, 1946, but on the
> basis of additional issues raised in the record. The majority
> opinion, once more delivered by Justice Douglas, cited the point
> also of civil liberties importance - that women had been
> systematically excluded from the convicting jury. This was,
> Justice Douglas argued, unconstitutional.
>
> Justice Jackson concurred, but on the different grounds of his
> earlier dissent, that the questions of religious truth and
> sincerity of belief at the heart of the case were beyond the
> jurisdiction of any court. Justice Stone and others dissented,
> saying that the jury selection process was neither illegal nor
> sufficient to reverse the case. They did, however, make a point
> of adding that if this case were to come before the high court a
> third time, the freedom of religion issue, presumably in the form
> consistently raised by Justice Jackson, would have to be faced
> fully. One now gets a feeling that others of the court are
> beginning to lean his way, and senses a hint to the prosecution
> in the lower courts that it might find better ways to occupy its
> time than in dragging this case out interminably with still
> further trials.
>
> The matter was dropped, though the movement was denied use of the
> mails until 1954. ...