When religious faith got the right to scam people: United States v. Ballard, 1944
The Ballard pair, leaders of the I AM Movement led sick people to believe they
could supernaturally cure them - for a fee. They were found guilty of fraud.
This led to the jury having had to decide upon the truth or otherwise of the
Ballard religious doctrines or beliefs.
Their criminal conviction was subsequently reversed because it was decided that
people must make up their own minds about religious claims and this was not a
jury's job. Also, it would open the floodgates to religious persecution. And
considering that if a religion claims to be the true one, it claims that the
others might be guilty of fraud, this could lead to a lot of civil unrest and
cripple the legal system.
Chief Justice Stone (with Justices Roberts and Frankfurter) stated wanted the
criminal conviction to remain: "I am not prepared to say that the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of religion affords immunity from criminal prosecution for
the fraudulent procurement of money by false statements as to one's religious
experiences, more than it renders polygamy or libel immune from criminal
prosecution." It was added that the Ballards should have been put on trial for
sincerity "with the instruction that if the jury did not so find, then it should
return a verdict of guilty. On this issue the jury, on ample evidence that
respondents were without belief in the statements which they had made to their
victims, found a verdict of guilty. I think the judgment below should be
reversed and that of the District Court reinstated."
Justice Jackson said, "The Ballard family claimed miraculous communication with
the spirit world and supernatural power to heal the sick. They were brought to
trial for mail fraud on an indictment which charged that their representations
were false and that they 'well knew' they were false. The trial judge, obviously
troubled, ruled that the court could not try whether the statements were untrue,
but could inquire whether the defendants knew them to be untrue; and, if so,
they could be convicted. The chief wrong which false prophets do to their
following is not financial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but
individual payments are not ruinous. I doubt if the vigilance of the law is
equal to making money stick by over-credulous people. But the real harm is on
the mental and spiritual plane. There are those who hunger and thirst after
higher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in
mental confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and
moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and
confusion follow. The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money
the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they
get. But that is precisely the thing the Constitution put beyond the reach of
the prosecutor, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the
press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.
Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into religious
persecution. I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for
making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for
example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when
in fact they are being used for personal purposes. But that is not this case,
which reaches into wholly dangerous ground. When does less than full belief in a
professed credo become actionable fraud if one is soliciting gifts or legacies?
Such inquiries may discomfort orthodox as well as unconventional religious
teachers, for even the most regular of them are sometimes accused of taking
their orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I would dismiss the indictment and have
done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths."
COMMENTS: Justice Stone and Roberts and Frankfurter were correct that freedom of
religion does not allow fake religionists to lie and get money off the gullible.
This practice should get no social tolerance especially when the fraudsters
clearly do not believe their own claims. Jackson points out that religionists
taking money illicitly is the leas of the worries that arise from freedom of
religion. As freedom of religion is very important, it is not up to the state to
stop the frauds for this amounts to the state acting like an Inquisition where
one point of view is imposed on others. Losing freedom of religion would be a
bigger evil than having to put up with religious frauds. And religion is not the
only operation that is susceptible to fraud. Do you want a world where beauty
companies are sued for saying their creams reverse skin ageing when they do not?
Also, if the pope were criminally convicted as a religious fraud for claiming to
be the vicar of Christ on earth, would that make Catholics come to their senses?
Most would not. It is better to instil in them a love of reason and truth and
then they will walk away from the fraud.
Many religious claims have a secular or scientific or pseudo-scientific side as
well as a spiritual side. For example, Catholicism says that Adam was the first
man and our ultimate father. This is a religious statement and a scientific one.
It can be treated as one or the other as well as both.
The problem is that the Church could and indeed should be sued for scientific
fraud. Adam did not exist according to the scientific evidence. It is a fact
that there was no Adam. Suing the Church would not be a violation of the
separation that needs to exist between Church and state nor would it be
religious persecution.
A court of law cannot verify if the communion wafer really is Jesus' flesh or
not. But overlaps between religion and science or history can verified in a
court of law to be either true or false. If a religion rewrites the Bible
claiming it is the real one, it should not get away with it.
A religion should not be sued over controversial historical claims. It needs to
be a clear cut contradiction of the truth. For example, Catholicism should not
be sued for saying that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. There
is no clear evidence for or against. If the Church however started saying that
the historical evidence showed that sex outside marriage always leads to AIDS
that would be a different story.
If a religion sells holy water to cure cancer, those who buy it should have the
legal right to get it convicted of fraud and at least forced to give them their
money back plus compensation.
If a religion of lies or that lacks evidence in its favour compels members to
give it money, the mandatory requirement to cough up should be considered a
fraudulent practice based on deceptive claims.
A lawsuit against a religious leader or Church could be made according to
England’s 2006 Fraud Act, which consists of:
1 “Fraud by false representation” is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case
where a person makes “any representation as to fact or law … express or
implied” which they know to be untrue or misleading.
2 “Fraud by failing to disclose information” is defined by Section 3 of the Act
as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when
they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.
3 “Fraud by abuse of position” is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case
where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the
financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes
cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
How do you sue a religion though especially one that is multi-national? The best
thing to do is to find some official teacher who lies about science or history
and sue her or him as a private individual.
Conclusions
If a religion tells people, "Write your will up so that we will get everything
when you die and you will never get cancer" that is not the same as a religion
saying, "Jesus is the son of God and the Bible is true." People seem to think
that if you convict a religion getting money by fraud that it amounts to opening
the door to a religion being sued for its views on Jesus.
It is true that the courts should not judge a religious belief true or false but
they must be careful that this does not lead to the religious fraud getting away
with it while the man who sells snake oil as a cure for cancer goes to jail.
Also, a religion can be sued for contradicting science. It is speaking as a
scientist then and can be judged as such. A teaching might be both religious and
scientific. Separation between Church and state requires the state to
cross-examine the science side.
And a religion can be sued for saying something is evidence for such a doctrine
when it is not. For example, if the Catholic Church says the Koran teaches that
Pope Francis is infallible that is a clear misuse of evidence. Taking the Church
to court is not about the court judging the religion but about it judging that
what is presented as evidence is not evidence at all.
If it were right to convict a religion for fraud, then the heaviest penalty
belongs to those who are clearly insincere.
The right to encourage people to adopt your religion's teachings or to join your
church needs to be seen as being about freedom of expression not freedom of
religion. The two are often confused which leads to religion getting privileges
that unnecessarily allow it to get power and use and exploit people.
APPENDIX
Justice Robert H. Jackson, stated , "William James, who wrote on these matters
as a scientist, reminds us that it is not theology and ceremonies which keep
religion going. It's vitality is in the religious experiences of many people. If
you ask what these experiences are, they are conversations with the unseen,
voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from
fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set
their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways. If religious liberty
includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it
seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real
ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such
experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all
for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of
consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which
turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his
judges are likely not to understand, and are almost certain not to believe,
him."