An Issue of Control:
Conflict between the Church in Island Pond
and State Government
DEDICATION
Dedicated to the public servants, past, present, and future,
who follow their conscience and obey the rule of law, which protects
the inalienable rights of individuals to pursue God –
Law reflects but in no sense determines the moral worth of a
society. The values of a reasonably just society will reflect
themselves in a reasonably just law. The better the society, the
less law there will be. In Heaven there will be no law, and the
lion will lie down with the lamb. The values of an unjust society
will reflect themselves in an unjust law. The worse the society,
the more law there will be. In Hell there will be nothing but
law, and due process will be meticulously observed.
[The Ages of American Law, Grant Gilmore,
(Yale University Press, 1977), p.110,
quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
The Common Law, (Howe ed. 1963).]
I. INTRODUCTION
At this worldwide conference on the future of sociology, it is
appropriate to consider what kind of social order will facilitate
world peace, as we face the 21st Century. Having served as lawyer
for individuals and the group called the Messianic Communities
or Twelve Tribes Communities, I have something to say about the
future, where I believe we are headed and why. I say these things
in the context of being a member of the Community Church in Island
Pond, Vermont, having faced numerous legal battles in the courts,
plagued by the attacks of the anti-cult movement
whose exaggerations and misrepresentations seem to never die,
despite the fact their false claims are found to be without substance
and without credible evidence.
I speak here from first-hand knowledge of these events and from
the perspective of being part of a new social order that is beginning
to emerge in small communities throughout the world, as members
adhere to the Word of God in their actions, as well as their beliefs.
Given the constraints of time and space, I will give only a few
vivid examples to make my point, but there is a wealth of information
to document the truth of what I am about to tell you. It is repeated
many times over.
What is happening in the society of the world today reflects
the truth of the prophecy foretold in Daniel chapter two in the
Bible, wherein he described the present world order as a huge
statue collapsing and being replaced by a "Stone Kingdom"
that would fill the whole earth. What is significant about this
for our purposes here is that in the 2500 years since the vision,
what was foretold, has occurred. Historically, we are now in the
final phase of the dream. In looking toward the future of society,
it is critical to consider the laws which govern its people. As
the world shrinks due to technological advancement in this information
age, citizens of the world will increasingly be ruled by universal
laws, or at least universal approaches to law making. Consider
the formation of the European Union.
What role does social science have when its subject, the present
world order, is collapsing? There will be increasing social and
legal pressure to conform to forsake basic rights and freedoms
for the sake of social order and crime control. Remember, for
example, when President Clinton, in the hours and days immediately
after the Oklahoma City bombing, asked American citizens to simply
"forego" their 4th Amendment rights "not to be
searched or have property seized unreasonably." The rationale
was that it would be worth it "to catch the guy." People
agreed willingly.
It is a dangerous approach for a free society to open the door
toward violating the fundamental rights of individuals for the
sake of a popular cause or an expedient purpose. The State of
Vermont justified forsaking the rights of the families of the
Church in Island Pond in 1984 when it feared child abuse.
Increasing lack of respect for authority virtually eliminates
social restraints. Basic rules of human behavior that have held
society together for centuries are rapidly eroding. Alienation
and lack of adequate human relationships are ever increasing.
In an effort to maintain social control, governments will increasingly
be tempted to violate the rights of dissenters and those who are
different. The pressure to conform will be enormous. Many will
surrender to this control, just to survive or to make life a little
easier.
To thwart this collapse of the world's social order will require
an alliance, combining the strength and endurance of social democracy
as a government, with the brittleness
of ecumenism, to forge a stability that offers peace where there
is no peace. People will sacrifice their rights to have their
basic needs met and will pretend that there is unity in diversity,
where there is no unity at all.
You will hear today how these things are already beginning to
happen and how we know they are true. Since 1972, in the 25 Communities
where we live throughout the world, we have encountered many state
and local governments who challenge our right and our ability
to live in obedience to the word of God.
Right now, in this paper, I will document for you who we are
as a people, as demonstrated by exploring the current social reality
of conflicts we face with the government in court and why, and
also, how we respond.
II. THE 1984 RAID ON THE CHURCH IN ISLAND POND, VERMONT
On the morning of June 22, 1984, in the sleepy rural village
of Island Pond, Vermont, nestled in the Green Mountains just south
of the Canadian border, the powers of state government descended
upon the 350 believers who lived there as a church community,
in an effort to be satisfied that the children who resided within
were not being severely abused.
Ninety Vermont State troopers in bulletproof vests and fifty
social workers, armed with virtually unlimited police power, raided
19 homes in the pre-dawn hour demanding the names of the children
and the children themselves. They waved papers, as if they had
a flag of victory demonstrating the State's conquest over the
religious beliefs of the individuals involved.
A local judge had signed a search warrant to legitimize the round-up
of the unsuspecting children, so the zeal of the social workers
became unleashed to confidently intrude into the lives of these
little ones as if they were doing them a great favor, rescuing
them from the abusive clutches of their fanatical parents. 112
children were unlawfully seized that morning because of the religious
beliefs of their parents.
June 22, 1984, was a Friday – a long, but glorious day for
the families involved. After being transported, in custody, to
the courthouse in Newport, Vermont, some 20 miles away, each family
awaited their turn to appear before a judge who would decide if
they would be separated or kept together. Happily for the parents,
Judge Frank Mahady was a man who respected the State Constitution
of Vermont as well as the U.S. Constitution and who did not judge
by the barometer of public opinion. As he properly called the
lawyers from the State Attorney General's Office to provide evidence
of abuse to justify the seizure of each child, the State of Vermont
was left with nothing to say, except to speak against the faith
of those brought to court, with greater and greater intensity.
Court continued late into the night, calling each child by name.
Each one was sent home with his parents, as there was no basis
to keep even one for examination by the state's battery of doctors,
social workers and psychiatrists who sat to no avail nearly an
hour away at a ski resort, waiting to perform their scrutinizing
rituals. At around 9 p.m. Judge Mahady had to decide what to do
with the large group of children, approximately 60, whose parents
did not give their names, despite the coercion of law enforcement's
threatening tactics. After hearing the arguments, he released
them all to return home with their parents. He gave the opportunity
for any parent who had something to say, to speak. Many passionately
told the story of their day and spoke of their deep gratitude
for a judge who ruled justly.
By 11 p.m. a bus of tired, but rejoicing, families headed home
to Island Pond, singing the praises of their God and giving thanks
for the judge whose humble response was, "I'm only doing
my job."
III. ANTI-CULT, ANTI-RELIGION INFLUENCE IN SPECIFIC CASES (1978-1998)
The two judges most intimately involved with the facts and the
law in the Raid case, In Re: C.C. (standing for "Certain
Children"), found that it was unlawful, unconstitutional
and regrettably authorized "under pressure," based upon
bad information compiled by government officials who trusted and
relied upon anti-cult information and tactics. Even the judge
who signed the search warrant agreed.
In the past fifteen years since the pre-Raid gathering of information,
these same lies and misrepresentations have been relied upon repeatedly
by government agencies and in courtrooms.
It is an appropriate and socially significant question today
to ask, "Why?" The preservation of religious freedom
may well depend on how much attention we pay to this question
and how we respond to the answer.
The answer is clear. Religious freedom is jeopardized when governments
rely upon the mere subjective opinions of anti-religious zealots
as true and act upon them. The anti-cult activists claim to be
experts in matters of faith and convince government officials
that they are trustworthy. It is essential that governments remain
neutral in matters of religion.
This section of the paper will trace selected cases over a 20-year
history of conflict in the courts to make the point. A great social
problem occurs when the law is not upheld, either by agents of
government (failing to uphold evidentiary standards) or agents
of religious prejudice (failing to uphold religious freedom and
toleration of different beliefs than theirs).
In the case of the 1984 Raid against the Church in Island Pond,
the public servants, with all the power of state law enforcement
behind them, did not uphold the law themselves. Listen.
Three days before all the power of the state engulfed the 112
children in the Community and their families, an 80-year-old retired
Vermont Supreme Court justice, sitting as a juvenile court judge,
clearly ruled that unless the state could produce specific names
of people and specific evidence, the court had no authority to
act. The state's
perpetual response when Community members stood on their constitutionally
protected rights and on their faith was to accuse church members
of being "uncooperative" and refusing to respond to
legal process, which was not the case. When Judge Keyser followed
the Constitution on Tuesday, June 19th, the state simply ignored
the lawfulness of his ruling and chose to go past it, instead
of obeying it and respecting it. He was the judge of their legality
that day and he found the state fell short.
So, with this ruling by Judge Keyser on June 19, 1984, in favor
of the Community parents, why did the state authorities not abide
by it? Why? Because the ones who exercised the authority to decide,
decided they didn't have to. Consciousness of this guilt is self-evident
by one State's Attorney's admission that, "If I had known
that Judge Mahady was on the bench, I would have called off The
Raid."
That is like saying, "If I knew we were going to be judged
by the Constitution, I wouldn't have risked it." And rightly
so. What the court told a team of Attorneys from the Attorney
General's office that they could not do on Tuesday...Judge Mahady
told them again they could not do, and should not have done, on
Friday. They simply relied on their own judgment rather than the
ruling of the court. They took the law into their own hands; they
became a government of men instead of a government of laws and
exalted themselves beyond what was lawfully given to them. That
is the greatest threat to a democratic society.
Background
The years before the Raid were peppered with several attempted
"deprogrammings" of adult members, who returned to the
Community after the unlawful imprisonment they suffered at the
hands of anti-cultists trying to force them to abandon their belief
system in the God who created them.
Shortly after the Raid, in 1986, another family, from Montreal,
was whisked away when their family members hired deprogrammers
to "change their minds" about having joined the Community.
In the midst of this anti-cult mentality, in 1982, three women
from the Community in Island Pond lost custody of their eleven
children, when their non-Community fathers sought custody in Essex
County, Vermont.
The most vocal, Juan Mattatall, was a child molester, who vowed
to "destroy the Community" when his wife would not leave
the Community with him.
He told the world that the Community "splits up families"
and won custody of his five children, making great press on the
front page of The Burlington Free Press.
Once in the custody of their father in Florida, the children spent
a good deal of their childhood in foster care and orphanages,
their father being charged with sexual crimes on children. His
own mother shot him dead in the head in April 1990 in Oveido,
Florida, whereupon the children were finally able to return to
the Community in Island Pond, Vermont, where there was much rejoicing.
During the years between 1982 and 1990, these eleven children
grew and rarely, if ever, saw their parent in the Community, except
for one of the Alexander boys who was able to prevail upon his
father to allow his visits. Nine of these eleven children now
reside in the Messianic Communities, five are married, and all
lament the fact that they were ever taken away.
Attorney General's Office: Influenced
In the wake of these custody cases, Gaylen Kelly and Priscilla
Coates provided lists to the State Attorney General's Office in
Vermont, of defectors who would provide information against the
Church in Island Pond.
They were major activists in the anti-cult movement through their
involvement in the Citizens Freedom Foundation (C.F.F.) and the
Cult Awareness Network (C.A.N.).
A defector named Michael Taylor later confirmed that, after his
deprogramming by Galen Kelly, he attended a meeting in Burlington,
Vermont, where Kelly vowed he had a "fool-proof plan to bust
up the Northeast Kingdom Community Church."
Kelly proceeded to execute it by visits to the State Attorneys
General, who received his scheme, while in the weeks before the
Raid, the Attorney General himself declined an invitation to spend
a day in the Community.
A Vermont State Police officer and director of the Newport Social
Services Office were sent on a mission to travel around the country,
amassing data on the church. The only problem was, that by the
time they left, they were already poisoned by the untruthful agenda
of the anti-cultists, convinced that child abuse and mind control
were commonplace in the Island Pond Community. And so they went,
at taxpayers' expense, and returned with the necessary ammunition
"to get the Church in Island Pond".
The two anti-religious zealots, Kelly and Coates, prevailed upon
the Attorney General's Office and the Governor himself, Richard
Snelling, to adopt as true the unreliable data amassed by the
two state employees, who provided the fodder for local law enforcement
to compile a 32 page affidavit, replete with horror stories of
abuse and
strewn with incredible interpretations of doctrine.
There were no affidavits from current members as to the accuracy
of beliefs actually adhered to or from parents and friends who
regularly visited the community, as is the admitted practice of
anti-cultists.
Many well-intentioned civil servants were duped into believing
that they were doing a good deed to protect innocent children
and, to this day, are none the wiser.
It was a despicable tragedy. Armed with this unreliable and untrustworthy
affidavit, a local prosecutor persuaded to believe that the Community
was evil, convinced a well-meaning judge to sign the search warrant.
Hence, the Raid occurred. The warrant-signing judge later acknowledged
publicly in 1987 that he had been "pressured" to believe
bad information – from prejudiced sources that he should
not have relied upon.
State v. Wiseman and "Essex Seven"
The most "heinous" crime laid against a church leader
was the simple assault charge on Charles Wiseman in 1983. When
push came to shove in the hearings after the Raid, and the State
was called to justify itself after all the children had been sent
home because there was no evidence of any abuse, the State declared
that "all the children were at risk because they lived in
the same Community as Mr. Wiseman."
On Tuesday, June 19, 1984, three days before the Raid, there
was a Status Conference in the Wiseman case, wherein Wiseman renewed
his request to dismiss the case because of extensive – and
it WAS extensive – prejudicial pretrial publicity, while
the state sought a continuance to find its witnesses. In the course
of that hearing, the judge placed a gag order on me (as Wiseman's
lawyer) prohibiting me from talking to the press on any "church"
cases, because he did not like the fact that I was quoted in the
morning paper giving my opinion that the State's pursuit of the
Church in Island Pond was "an illegal fishing expedition."
By Friday, the day of the Raid, that statement proved true. By
August, the whole country, and eventually, the free world, would
have an outstanding legal decision
concluding the very same thing – that members were pursued
because of their common faith, not because of evidence of illegal
acts – a violation of fundamental Constitutional protections.
Nevertheless, on the afternoon of June 19, 1984, the same judge
who imposed the gag order on me, but not on the state's attorney,
sent seven church members to jail because they would not provide
lists of names of all the children they lived with and knew in
Community households in Island Pond.
Each man was denied a lawyer, sent into a courtroom with several
Assistant Attorneys General and a judge, with the door being locked
after they entered. In my eighteen years as a lawyer, I have never
felt so ashamed of the system of justice I participate in as I
did at that moment. One by one, the men went in, spent a few minutes
and were led away in handcuffs, all seven of them.
After several hours in jail, the judge released the seven men,
acknowledging there was no legal basis to hold them.
That day, in spite of sending the seven church leaders to jail,
Honorable Judge F. Ray Keyser, a retired Vermont Supreme Court
Justice and one familiar with Constitutional law, let the State
know that , despite their numerous procedural efforts for over
two months to go forward with a juvenile petition against all
the children in the Church Community, they could not do it. He
ruled, and he made it clear to the state's lawyers, that the court
did not have jurisdiction because the state could not name the
parents and serve them with a copy of the petition about their
child and notice as to why they had to come to court.
This is a basic constitutional requirement called Due Process;
it includes notice and an opportunity to be heard. All state efforts
"to go after the Community" through the courts should
have stopped right here.
Meanwhile, the Wiseman case was eventually dismissed for lack
of a speedy trial on June 13, 1985. The reason the trial was not
"speedy" was because the State declined to call available
witnesses, instead choosing to rely on unsigned depositions of
defectors who recanted their exaggerated accounts, explaining
how they had been pressured by anti-cultists.
The trial judge found the state guilty of prosecutorial misconduct
for their strategy of appealing to delay the case while the witnesses
were ready to testify to the truth. Today, the alleged victim
is a 27 year-old mother of three, who has nothing but friendship
towards her once-alleged "abuser".
1994, Ten Years Later
In 1994, ten years after the Raid, there were two significant
cases: 1) a child custody dispute in Rutland, Vermont,
and 2) a child protection case in Hyannis, Massachusetts. Both
revealed that the initiators in each case, a private father in
one, and a social services' office in the other, had become alarmed
about the welfare of specific children, given the anti-cult tactics
of generating fear based on unspecific, generalized accounts that
are unverifiable, and also distorting and exaggerating specific
accounts beyond the information actually given. This was combined
with ten-year-old allegations still circulating among state social
agencies, and from anti-cultists who refuse to accept the judgment
of court decisions. This material seems to circulate, as if by
magic. The
effect of such tactics is very personal and very harmful to the
families affected. Rather than promote communication and understanding,
it causes hysteria and overreactions, both quite detrimental to
the children involved.
In the Rutland case, a couple, already divorced, spent six months
in a highly publicized court case, before coming to resolve about
their six children. A previous agreement gave custody of the two
teenage boys to the father, while the mother had custody of their
four daughters, aged 4- 12. Having received alarming phone calls
and unsolicited literature, the father refused to return the girls
after a weekend visit. Instead he filed an abuse petition in the
Family Court and a request for custody. After hearing and by agreement,
the abuse petition was dismissed.
After a court-appointed expert, a psychologist, conducted a thorough
(70-page) evaluation
of the entire family, he found that the Community was a "safe"
place to raise children and that their child-rearing teachings
were "developmentally sound." He recommended joint custody
and contacts that did not in any way interfere with the mother's
freedom of religion. Four years later, in 1998, all four girls,
now ages 8- 16 reside in the Community with their mother, with
the consent of their father, who is a frequent and welcome visitor.
In fact, the father has relocated to be closer to the Community.
In Hyannis, Massachusetts, nine children there came under the
scrutiny of social services when a worker produced an altered
affidavit, based on statements other than the truth. Both parents
of one of these children were themselves children who were taken
in the Island Pond Raid ten years earlier. The parents and children
faced court proceedings for six months, enduring court-ordered
evaluations and government intrusions without cause. In the end,
the Chief Family Court Judge in Massachusetts dismissed all the
cases for "lack of evidence."
It is worthy to note that several of the court-appointed lawyers
for the children and parents gave favorable reports to the court
after visits with their clients at their Community homes. It is
also worth mentioning that, at the initiation of the proceedings,
when I spoke with the social services lawyer that "things
were not what they might seem to be", her over-confident
and condescending response was "They did it wrong in Vermont,
but we'll do it right this time!" Ten years after the Raid,
social service agencies were still circulating the same unreliable
information, without accountability or responsibility. While presumably
done to advance "the best interests of the children"
involved, in reality, such intrusion only brought instability
and turmoil to their lives.
An observation I have made over the past fifteen years of my
acquaintance with the Community is this: if people take the time
to know or investigate the Community first-hand, there is a positive
response or report; if people rely on hearsay accounts of former
members, especially those who have been deprogrammed, influenced
by anti-cultism, or on the material generated by anti-cult organizations,
the response is fear and horror.
The Messianic Communities now exist on four continents, focused
largely in New England and Western Europe, but also can be found
in Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina. With Communities
emerging in France, Spain, Germany, and England, the degree of
religious protection afforded to non-mainstream religions in the
European Community is a major sociological concern, as proclaimed
by Drs. Massimo Introvigne and Gordon Melton sounding the alarm
in Washington, D.C. last December, 1997. They see reason to fear
for religious freedom on the continent as many current denominations
are labeled as "cults", thereby falling in dangerous
disfavor with governments and promoting unnecessary fear in the
hearts and minds of the public, giving rise to government oppression.
The future of social diversity depends upon freedom of religion
being protected.
One such example of irresponsible social interaction ("dangerous
bad-mouthing") occurred when the father of a child whose
mother is in one of our Communities in Germany contacted Infosecte
Montreal for information. He was sent a detailed three page letter
by Michael Kropveld, concluding that the man should have grave
concerns that his daughter was "in danger" in the hands
of the Community. When Kropveld was confronted with this letter
and the documentation that proved his conclusions were biased,
not objective; erroneous, untrustworthy, prejudiced and not based
upon first-hand knowledge, he was defensive and denied accountability.
Happily, the father, upon his own personal visits, has come to
amicable arrangements with the mother of their daughter, and no
longer has fear about the Community.
Perhaps the best example that shows the cost to individuals when
governments are not careful to protect religious liberty and guard
against religious discrimination, is the story of Edward and Michael
Dawson, a father and son. The father became a believer in a Messianic
Community in Nova Scotia in 1986, three years after Michael was
born in Montreal. Next is the account of his story, as a vivid
example of how a Community member was drawn into conflict with
the government, what he did, and why he did it.
IV. THE QUEEN v. DAWSON AND ITS TEN YEAR HISTORY
Isaac Dawson is victorious after ten years of legal battling
in the province of Nova Scotia. Government officials in that province
discriminated against his religion when it came to who had authority
over the life of his son Michael, whom he had sole legal custody
of since age 3. The painful part is that Michael, now 15, is not
here with him. I will tell you Michael's current status.
Because of the province's unnecessary interference with Michael,
caused by unwarranted fear of Dawson's faith, Michael remains
with his mother in Montreal. Consequently, he is not properly
cared for, is truant, and had been taken temporarily into social
services' protective custody. The social worker recently reported
Michael's living conditions as "filthy and unsanitary"
with no food in the apartment and drugs and beer bottles in Michael's
room. His mother is an alcoholic under psychiatric care, although
negligent with her medication. Although Michael went with the
police willingly into custody, he witnessed his mother "foaming
at the mouth," in an alcoholic rage, biting one of the policemen.
Michael was returned to her home and the case closed, concluding
that "Michael's security and development are not compromised."
When Michael was three years old his parents split up, both wanting
custody of him. Isaac had just became a member of the Community
and he surrendered Michael's care to his mother in Montreal in
order to avoid a court battle, because neither thought that would
be best for Michael. Within a few months his mother was not able
to cope and she placed Michael with Isaac's sister and her husband
for several months, never retrieving him. When Isaac became aware
of the situation he traveled to the eastern townships of Quebec
to get Michael. He and Michael's mother executed a custody agreement
wherein she agreed to give sole custody to Isaac, as long as she
could visit at Michael's residence. Both believed it was best
for Michael to be raised by his father, who was ready, willing,
and able to undertake the responsibility of parenting him. She
already knew that Dawson was in a church Community at Clark's
Harbor, Nova Scotia and had visited several times. It was December
1986.
Family & Children's Services of Kings' County v. Edward
Dawson (1988)
Michael was thrilled to be back with his father and that summer
they moved to the Myrtle Tree Farm Community in the Annapolis
Valley, Nova Scotia, where a new church Community was starting
up. One day in September a car drove quickly down the long driveway.
It was social workers looking for Isaac and demanding to take
Michael for an examination. Social services had received a complaint
from a woman visiting the Myrtle Tree Farm who was affected by
the cult scare, wanted her sister to leave the community there,
and opposed spanking in her personal life. Isaac complied, after
being assured that if there was nothing wrong, that would be the
end of it. The doctor found no signs of physical or mental abuse
and Michael returned home with his father. En route, Isaac volunteered
that he believed in spanking when necessary, whereupon the social
workers tried to convince him otherwise.
Several days later he received papers to appear in court with
Michael. He was served with an affidavit signed by the doctor
who made several charges against his faith, but most were not
even related to Michael. At court, the social workers were adamant
about investigating Michael further. Isaac objected strenuously
and said there was no basis for any further involvement. One social
worker testified that "spanking was not allowed in the province
of Nova Scotia." The court ordered a psychosocial assessment
of Michael and social worker visits with Michael, with the judge
saying she needed "a window on Michael's life."
Within a week, when the workers arrived expecting to visit Michael,
his father would not allow Michael to be alone with them. They
were indignant. He told them he was appealing the court's order.
Within two days, on the evening of Sept. 24, 1987, the social
workers arrived with R.C.M.P. officers to take Michael into custody.
They said they had a warrant, but could not produce it. Isaac
could not consent to the unlawful seizure of his son. They ripped
the terrified four-year-old from his father's arms and hurriedly
loaded him into the back seat of a police cruiser and took off
with lights flashing, assuring Isaac that he could see his son
the next day. But when Isaac went to the social services' office
the next day with homemade bread and yogurt to which Michael was
accustomed, along with cards made by his friends, the workers
would deliver none of it, much less allow Isaac contact with Michael.
Four court hearings were held where nothing happened, except further
delays. Forty-four long days passed without any communication
allowed between father and son. The government, via social services,
had somehow usurped total control of little Michael's life. His
father was treated like an unwelcome and unentitled intruder.
The social workers did not like or trust his religion and the
judge totally followed the social workers. It was a paralyzing
and deadly reality. Many parents know the helpless feeling.
On November 6, 1987, a County Court judge saw the injustice of
what was happening, called social service to their proof, and
having none, he ordered Michael returned to his father that day.
Social services and their staff were outraged and took an immediate
appeal to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, seeking to prevent
Michael from going home. They did not succeed and Isaac picked
him up that night from the foster parents, whom social services
had put up in a first rate hotel, so as to be hidden from Dawson.
The court's ruling exposed their tactics.
Upon seeing Michael after the 44-day separation, he was not the
same child. He was pale, quiet, and fearful with dark circles
under his eyes.
His mother, poisoned by a lot of misinformation with incredible
momentum behind it, aligned with social services and both engaged
in all-out war, based entirely on the alleged beliefs of Isaac
Dawson's faith. Throughout these hearings, Isaac was never able
to even be heard, that the supposed "facts" were malicious
misrepresentations. They should not even have been admitted in
court, much less relied upon.
After several weeks of hearings in Family Court, in January 1988,
Isaac spent 28 days in jail for not revealing the whereabouts
of his son for more social service visits. The judge found him
in contempt for so doing, but the Nova Scotia Supreme Court overturned
the contempt finding when they released Isaac from jail on Feb.
5, 1988, ruling that the Family Court had lost jurisdiction in
mid-October when they failed to make "inquiry" as to
the well-being of the boy, having failed to give the father a
fair hearing despite his repeated pleas for one.
The Nova Scotia high court rebuked the social service agency and
commented that the only feasible reason they could have seized
the boy was because his father took issue with social service
policy. The court found this to be "hardly credible."
The court acknowledged the father's practice of "kind, but
firm" physical discipline that was sanctioned by his faith.
It is fair to say the decision rocked the social service community.
It turned out that the Nova Scotia social services had a file
compiled from social services in Vermont, full of inflammatory
news accounts and magazine articles defaming Dawson's faith. The
fact that the Vermont Raid had been illegal did nothing to prevent
the social workers from relying on the same bad information three
years later. Instead, they waited for the opportunity to seize
upon a Community child to investigate. Under cross examination,
the doctor revealed that, in fact, he had not written the affidavit
substantiating Michael's need for protection, but rather that
he had "just trusted the social worker and signed it,"
after reading an inflammatory magazine article she had given him,
acquired from Vermont.
Four years (1988-1992) went by with Isaac and Michael recovering
from the ordeal and his mother hardly ever exercising her right
to visit, although she did come on occasion.
In the meantime, Isaac for the next several years was fully engaged
in the consultation process that resulted from his case, as the
province embarked to write a new child protection law that focused
on keeping families together. The new law went into effect in
September 1991.
Among the most important aspects of a fair law to Isaac Dawson
is the right of a parent and child to an opportunity to be heard
early on when there is a problem. He became well acquainted with
a citizen's right not to be deprived of a liberty without adherence
to fundamental principles of justice.
This included at a basic level, notice of a hearing and an opportunity
to be heard.
The Queen v. Edward Frank Dawson (1995,1996,1997):
Not Guilty of Abduction
On a warm spring day, the afternoon of March 13, 1992, the unbelievable
happened. Isaac and Michael were again outside at the Myrtle Tree
Farm and a cruiser pulled up driven by an R.C.M.P. officer who
served papers on Isaac that there had already been a court hearing
about Michael the previous Tuesday and his mother was arriving
any minute to take him for a three day visit! After four and a
half years that Michael had not been alone with his mother or
apart from his father, this could not be happening without him
having a chance to speak in court about what would be best for
Michael, could it? Within minutes, Michael's mother and her lawyer
tore down the driveway expecting to take Michael before Isaac
even had a chance to review the court papers.
Upon review of the documents, there was no mention that her visit
had to be unsupervised, so Isaac advised her she could remain
at the farm with Michael or he would accompany them anywhere she
wanted to go. She refused and left. Isaac called the R.C.M.P.
and the mother's lawyer to plead with Michael's mother to consider
Michael and the fear he had to be separated from his father, without
any notice or chance to be prepared. She did not return. She was
seeking custody of Michael and the papers revealed she was squarely
coming against Isaac's faith, once again.
He knew of her association with anti-cult activists and he knew
their violent and deceptive tactics.
Isaac, still having custody of Michael, left the Myrtle Tree
Farm and did not go to the next court hearing. Within several
weeks, Michael's mother and her lawyer saw to it that Dawson was
charged with abduction, unbeknownst to Dawson. Nearly two years
later, he was arrested in California. Despite waiving extradition
immediately, it took him nearly two months to obtain release from
jail in Nova Scotia. In the meantime, Michael was again ripped
from his father's side.
This time he was eleven and it was his father who was put into
the cruiser. Michael was immediately put into the hands of his
mother who had obtained a temporary order based on the arrest
warrant on Isaac. When the court familiar with the case declined
to hear her petitions because it no longer had jurisdiction, she
found another court who was unaware of the history of the case.
They have resided in Montreal since.
In September 1994, Isaac went to a judge trial and was acquitted
of abduction because he had been the custodial parent of Michael
all along. As is permissible in Canada when there is a "not
guilty" verdict, the Crown appealed and sought a second trial
on the abduction charge! The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia "reluctantly"
agreed to another trial, in a split decision with a powerful dissent.
Dawson took an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada
where in November, 1996, in another split decision (5-2), the
Court upheld a new trial, leaving it to the trial court to determine
the significance of the agreement between Michael's parents.
In the dissent, Mme. J. McLachlin commented that the majority's
decision was "not worthy of the history or the Constitution
of Canada" because it forced the accused to prove his innocence,
rather than uphold the duty of the Crown to prove his guilt. Honourable
Justice Sopinka agreed with her.
In a two week retrial at which Dawson represented himself and
his son Michael testified, not only was Dawson found "not
guilty" by a jury of 8 men and 4 women, but the judge found
in a pre-trial ruling that he had been discriminated against because
of his religion back at the March 1992, ex parte hearing about
Michael. He was referring to the March 10, 1992, hearing in Family
Court from which Dawson was excluded based upon his religious
belief. At
that hearing Michael's mother and her lawyer called an anti-cult
witness, a so-called expert, who really knew nothing reliable
of Dawson's faith. The tape of the hearing revealed the Family
Court's judge being influenced by the lies. His response to the
anti-cultist was "emotionally, I agree with you."
Dawson was left uninvited to the hearing about his son whom he
had custody of. Decisions were made without Dawson having any
notice or opportunity to speak. Out of this hearing came an unlawful
order and the soon-to-be-filed abduction charge.
At his father's 1997 trial, a calm but sure fourteen-year-old
Michael Dawson testified how he had become "terrified"
of police visits after his first seizure at four years old. He
spoke how the social workers took him from psychiatrist to psychiatrist
questioning him about his father's faith, "everything from
what we believed to what we ate." He told of how he tried
to run from foster care to get back to his father.
In the meantime, at fifteen, Michael's life has been relegated
to the streets of Montreal where he largely gets by on his own.
During the four years that Michael has been in the care of his
mother, she has done anything and everything to interfere with
Michael's relationship with his father, whose faith she does not
agree with.
While the criminal charges were pending, Dawson was subjected
to rigid court conditions, further interfering with the relationship
between Michael and him. In the meantime, Michael was a young
teenage boy needing his father.
Recently, Michael was taken into temporary social services custody
for shoplifting and the police are aware of him, seeing him as
a boy on the edge of serious trouble. The anti-cultists who were
there to throw stones at Dawson's faith in 1987 and 1992, when
Michael was four and nine, to the extent of influencing government
officials to exert their awesome power to control families, are
not there to be accountable or to pick up the pieces. Having been
the target of religious prejudice in Canada, Isaac Dawson is well
qualified to speak about the need for social workers and governments
to learn what authority they do have and what authority they do
not have, and the danger when the line is crossed.
Isaac Dawson is especially able to address the reality of what
can happen when government servants trust those who are not trustworthy.
Beware of those who spread bad reports based upon the religion
someone follows, claiming to understand their doctrine! For government
agents to make judgments and exert authority over people based
on their religion is a seriously unlawful trend, which needs to
be recognized and seen for what it is, a world-wide threat to
religious freedom, and to a social order that claims to preserve
liberty.
V. ANTI-CULTISM: A DANGEROUS THREAT TO SOCIAL ORDER
Given twenty years of harassment by the anti-cult movement, it
is clear that its most dangerous effect is the fact that it influences
governments to persecute religions that it does not like and government
agents become convinced they are "doing good" in the
process. Government officials become unwittingly duped by the
religious prejudice convincingly purveyed by the anti-cultists.
On the day of the Raid, June 22, 1984, upon pointed questioning
by Judge Mahady as to "just exactly what is the danger of
harm to these children?," State's Attorney Philip White responded
"… it's as if the child is living amongst bacteria and
the bacteria in this case that jeopardizes this child's health
is the teachings and doctrines of the church…"
It is no concern of the State what people believe.
Meanwhile, a man named Jeffrey Amestoy was an assistant Attorney
General at that time. Shortly thereafter, he was quoted to say
of the high-ranking state officials who orchestrated the Raid,
"I know every person who was involved in the decision-making
process and none of them are witch hunters."
And so he thought, given his personal knowledge of the public
servants involved. He, and most of them, were "decent people."
Today, Mr. Amestoy sits as the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme
Court.
In all of the legal conflicts we have encountered over the last
20 years, we see that perhaps the greatest need is for lawyers,
judges, social workers, the media, and believers alike, to have
a genuine and thorough understanding about authority. It seems
most people do not consider very deeply the legitimate authority
of government (i.e. the state) and the legitimate authority of
religion (i.e. the church). There is a lack of understanding where
to draw the line between the two spheres of authority.
It is in this gap, created by a failure in both governments and
religions to recognize the authority of the other, that the anti-cult
movement thrives.
Unless individuals come back to a place of obeying the instinctive
natural law of conscience, both governments and religions will
need an alliance with one another to maintain social order, where
the walls of separation are shaky. This will continue to leave
room for the anti-cult movement to take advantage of both. This
insidious movement tries to convince government that true religious
diversity is unnecessary, and at the same time, to convince religion
that everything outside the mainstream is dangerous.
The anti-cult movement got its initial fuel from the fear evoked
in parents in the '60s, when a whole generation of children began
to rebel against their mainstream values, including institutionalized
religion. At its inception, the anti-cult movement convinced parents
that the reason their children had left the mainstream was because
they were under mind control and desperately needed to be "rescued"
and brought back to their senses. Their method was deprogramming.
Several members of our communities were forced into deprogramming
sessions. Their accounts in Appendix E illustrate how the anti-cult
movement persuaded courts, the media, law enforcement, and social
workers to tread on individual rights, failing to respect the
protections of religious freedom.
In the late '70s the method used by anti-cultists to "bust
cults" was through deprogramming. Several members were violently
seized from the peace of the community only to be harangued, harassed,
threatened, and humiliated for adherence to their chosen religious
belief. The most publicized was that of Kirsten
Nielsen in 1981, who was kidnapped by her parents and associates
of Ted Patrick, the notorious C.A.N. deprogrammer, at the age
of 21, on the day of the wedding of her twin sister. Kirsten is
now 39 and married with five children, all of whom presently live
in one of our communities in Germany. (Appendix E-1)
The anti-cultists used testimony of the "deprogrammed"
Kirsten to publicly smear the community in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
and in Island Pond, Vermont. When Kirsten came back to the community
and exposed the deceitful tactics used against her, the media
was nowhere to be found. Thus, the public perception of us as
a people was seriously tainted and contributed greatly to the
fear and suspicion that surrounded us, especially before the Raid.
If any conscientious members of the media had been educated to
the sensational ploy used in this instance, and checked its sources,
maybe they would have reported more objectively. Now that many
courts have discredited deprogramming as a violation of an individual's
fundamental rights, there should be greater caution exercised
by the media to check its sources when someone speaks out against
a religious group. Sadly, the scholarly knowledge that was available
on this issue was either ignored or cast aside by the federal
law enforcement authorities before the tragedy in Waco in 1993,
where the advice of anti-cultists was given greater weight instead.
However, it was the attempted deprogramming of Rebecca
Westbrooks in 1980 that exposed both law enforcement and the
court's involvement with anti-cult activist Ted Patrick. In this
case, Rebecca's father, who was a county detective, used a falsified
arrest warrant to get his 27-year-old daughter into "protective
custody." The social consequence of this deprogramming is
recounted in Rebecca's own words, written in 1995:
It's been fifteen years since I was taken in an attempt by my
father to have me deprogrammed. Since my arrest by the police
was just a means of getting me into the hands of the deprogrammers,
I thought that the process of prosecution would end that day.
However, I was wrong. They actually had planned to follow through
with the process, take me to court, find me guilty and put me
on probation where I would be under the covering of the state-needing
to get a job, not go outside of Chattanooga, live with my parents,
thus not be able to return to the community. Since the deprogramming
is usually accomplished in three days, they had a trial date set
for me a few days after I was taken. But since I was not deprogrammed
but still held in Alabama, they said I was sick and put another
day for my case. That time I was also still not deprogrammed,
so they said I was undergoing psychiatric treatment in a hospital
and again set a new date for the trial.
But the third time, I had already returned to the community,
so they proceeded with the hearing with me not present. The court
found me guilty and sent a warrant for my arrest to the Vermont
state police. Some brothers from the community had actually gone
to all three hearings and witnessed the lies that were said about
the whole affair. Since I was being falsely accused and sought
after by the police, it was impossible to let my family know where
I was. We hired an attorney in Chattanooga to look into the court
record to try to expose the injustice that had happened to me
in the court. We discovered one court order for a continuance
of my case on which the presiding judge had scribbled a note to
another judge saying, ". . . Doug, this is the case of Detective
Westbrooks' daughter that I told you about. He is having her deprogrammed
in Alabama and she won't be here for the hearing." Upon finding
out this information, one of the leaders in the community went
to one of the judges involved and confronted him with the conspiracy
we had uncovered. Once the judge knew that we really knew what
had happened, he ordered the court record expunged and the records
destroyed.
By this time I was living in one of the communities in Germany.
Once my name was cleared, I was able to communicate with my family
again, and this made me very happy. However, my father's attitude
toward the community never changed. Because of this, I could never
fully be restored to him. Although I was able to tell him on the
phone that I forgave him shortly before his death three years
ago, I never saw him after the deprogramming in Alabama.
Two and a half years ago my mother and two sisters came to Europe
to see me. It was the first time in fourteen years that I had
been in the community that they had ever come to see for themselves
the life that I had. They came a little apprehensive, but it wasn't
long before they saw that all the things they had heard were wrong.
They saw clearly that my husband loves and cares for me, that
the children are happy, healthy and much loved, and that everyone
in the community are normal people and not brain-washed, hypnotized
zombies. My mother said that now she sees what I had been trying
to tell her for fourteen years. My sister said that she now gets
so angry to think of all the lies that she had heard and believed
about us. She sees that the result of believing those lies was
that our once close relationship was broken and undue harm came
both to me and my family. As we took them to the train station
for their return home, they said that they were sorry that my
father had never come to see because if he had, they know it would
have been different with him. I am so thankful for this visit,
that now my family can have peace about my being here. I felt
like I had been fighting a battle for fourteen years and the battle
finally ended.
If the courts had known the heinous nature of deprogramming,
perhaps they would not have gone along with such a scheme that
robbed Rebecca Westbrooks of her rights under the Constitution.
By 1982, the strategy of anti-cultists shifted from accusations
of mind control to accusations of child abuse. C.A.N.'s forerunner,
the Citizens Freedom Foundation, held several meetings in Barton,
Vermont, to "educate" local people about the "dangerous
cult" in Island Pond.
Part of this so-called education was to spread inflammatory statements
about the community and to have these statements reported by the
media. The purpose was to create suspicion and to sway public
opinion against the community. In the wake of Jonestown, the locals
of the Northeast Kingdom in Vermont were easy prey. The media,
led by the Burlington Free Press and The Chronicle in Barton,
Vermont, opted for sensationalism and personal prejudice against
spanking.
The next step was to use a willing apostate with a personal vendetta
to launch a legal attack for custody in the courts. The C.F.F.
found their man in apostate Juan Mattatall. In the three custody
battles launched in the early 1980s through the influence of C.F.F.,
the community members found their religious beliefs being viewed
as criminal instead of being protected by the courts. In the Mattatall
case, the religious beliefs of the mother, who was in the community,
was a weightier "crime" than the proven pedophilia of
the father.
Similarly, in the case of Isaac Dawson, on day one in court,
September 17, 1987, a social worker testified that "spanking
is not permitted in the province of Nova Scotia," a statement
on which the Family Court judge erroneously relied to justify
the unlawful intervention into the lives of Edward and Michael
Dawson. It was not a righteous standard, nor was it even the law,
but the social worker had become convinced, by anti-cult propaganda,
that there was child abuse at the Myrtle Tree Farm where Dawson
and his son lived in their religious community. Given that deceived
belief, the social worker influenced the judge to fear it was
true, and thereby impose the power of the government full-force
into the lives of the Dawsons, without demanding any evidence
first.
Despite the fact that the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found this
conduct unlawful in 1988,
the pursuit of Isaac Dawson on account of his faith continued
until 1997. This was religious persecution and it took the courts
of Canada ten years to recognize it.
Literally, the date of Michael's testimony exonerating his father,
November 5, 1997, was ten years after the date when Judge Donald
Hall ordered Michael returned to his father, November 6, 1987,
after his first unlawful seizure. Another moment of true justice
in that trial occurred when, during the course of Dawson's presentation
of evidence to the jury, he called the former social services
director to the stand. He testified that the reason his workers
kept pursuing Michael despite the fact that they had no evidence
of abuse, was because "we weren't convinced there was no
abuse!"
At this point, the Crown Attorney himself stood up, banged on
the table and shouted, "Alright! Alright! There was no abuse
at the Myrtle Tree Farm!"
A point well-made after ten years of religious persecution…
But what about the involvement of anti-cultists in countries
where the separation of church and state is not mandated by their
Constitutions? Perhaps in these countries the alliance between
church and state will cause the protection of religious liberty
for others to be minimized or jeopardized entirely, given that
countries like Germany and France are so entrenched in their national
religious roots (Lutheranism and Catholicism). The dynamic relationship
between the state and religious influences in Europe, given the
confederation among numerous countries with differing religions,
will dominate the social and political landscape for the next
50 years. Ecumenism will flourish as the European Union matures.
Minority religions will be in serious jeopardy unless social awareness
of their legitimacy is recognized politically.
We see, for example, how it is more difficult to rely on the
fact that freedom of religion will be protected in Europe. While
in the U.S., our communities have found the freedom to home-school
our children, according to our religious belief and practice,
our parents in Germany are being pursued by the government on
this issue. In Germany the government has never allowed home-schooling.
The educational authorities in Germany can find nothing wrong
with our life or our children, except that the narrowly drafted
education law makes no provision for parents to accept legal responsibility
in this area. In this instance, we find the state not knowing
the legitimate sphere of authority that parents have to educate
their children according to their religious beliefs. It is an
inalienable right, meaning it is God-given and no government has
the authority to usurp it. This is a present conflict. However,
Messianic Community parents have an amicable and working relationship
with the German educational officials, who have visited their
homes, observed and tested the children, and found no problem,
except for the limits of the existing law. Therefore, this presents
a legal problem, not a social one, but it will become a social
problem if no accommodation is made for the believers.
We are also presently faced with the report of an anti-cultist,
Michael Kropveld, director of InfoSect Montreal, having surfaced
in the hands of a member of the German Parliament to build a case
against us, when our reputation with education officials is favorable
and communicative. This report is based largely on misrepresentations
from pre-Raid days. We have documented for him the errors and
the data that undermines his negative conclusions about us. Government
officials using this unreliable information is a problem that
demands social accountability because many community parents'
and childrens' safety and security are in jeopardy. The unfounded
suspicion generated from the use of this misinformation in Germany
has led to unnecessary intrusion into the lives of a dozen community
families by social workers. It could cause these innocent parents
to be punished as criminals or for "social problems"
created by living out their religious beliefs by training their
own children at home.
Quite contrary to the claim of anti-cultists that we seek religious
exemption as a justification to commit crimes,
what we seek is not to be accused of crimes merely because of
our religious beliefs. It understandably creates quite the public
uproar when anti-cultists claim that a particular group uses "religion"
as an escape valve to condone what is really criminal activity
(child abuse, abduction, truancy). From there, the public is rightly
fomented to call for "government action to get those criminals!"
Government officials, being human, and often political creatures,
are often not above responding to public pressure.
In the Wiseman, Dawson and In Re: C.C. cases cited herein, members
of the Church in Island Pond were accused of crimes because of
their religious affiliation, rather than because of evidence.
This is reflected in the judicial decisions. In each of those
cases, when the State was called to their proof in court, they
did not prevail because they had no evidence. The reason they
had no evidence of crimes is because there had been no crimes
committed. The only "crime" committed was the fact people
were presumed guilty by their association with the Church in Island
Pond, whom the State government decided they didn't like the religious
beliefs of, as interpreted to them by the distorted perspective
of anti-cultists. I want to be abundantly clear here that often
the government officials are unaware how they are being used by
the anti-cult agenda. Many do not intentionally practice religious
discrimination, as Mr. Amestoy, quoted above at page 22, so aptly
put it. But religious discrimination exists nevertheless, whether
it is intentional or unwitting. This is the very reason that government
officials must be educated, so as not to become the tools of an
anti-religious lobby and thereby being inadvertent participants
in the erosion of the sacred wall of separation between Church
and State.
The stated agenda of C.A.N. (Cult Awareness Network) points out
this fact. Their activities have been researched and documented
as follows: 1) Deprogram ex-members; 2) Co-ordinate ex-members
meeting with the media to stir up public opinion;
3) After sufficient fear is instilled in the general public, arrange
for ex-members to give affidavits to social workers to begin court
proceedings; 4) Use courts to get judgments against the group
that will eventually destroy them; 5) Use the exaggerated and
untrue information to further promote their agenda which in turn
causes more people to seek their very expensive services; 6) This
information is used to raise funds from an unsuspecting public.
As described herein, all of these methods have been used in an
effort to destroy the Messianic Communities.
I would like to interject a word of caution here, to lawmakers
and lobbyists alike, to those who form public opinion and influence
social policy. Social order would be well served to make laws
that addressed the actions of people, and not their beliefs. New
laws to combat cults are not needed. Enforcement of existing laws
against individuals, regardless of their religious association
or beliefs, should be vigilant when there is credible, reliable,
first-hand evidence that a person is likely to be guilty of a
crime. It is bad business for governments to conclude that people
either are guilty, or might be guilty, of crimes based upon what
their religious beliefs are. Unbelievable as this might sound,
this rationale was the basis for the seizure of the 112 children
from the Church Community in Island Pond on June 22, 1984.
No government has the rightful authority to control the religious
beliefs of its subjects. Conversely, no religion has the right
to control the government and force belief by coercion. From this
foundation, a right understanding of the spheres of authority
for church and state can be discerned and distinguished. It is
the purpose of civil government to reward those who do good and
punish those who do evil. This serves the social purpose of maintaining
order so that people can enjoy basic freedoms – life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the purpose of governments
to control thoughts. The purpose of religion is to grope for God
and to seek Him, without compulsion and according to the dictates
of one's own conscience, free from government pressure or direction.
This is the essence of the wall of separation between Church and
State, on which the U.S. Constitution is premised.
But if laws are made that do not protect fundamental rights and
freedoms, or if they are made under the persuasion of any particular
state religion or ecumenical consensus, then discrimination, oppression,
and outright persecution will result. History has taught us this
sad but true reality.
The invidious nature of the anti-cult movement, however, is to
destroy the delicate balance by breaking down the boundaries of
rightful authority separating government and religion. Their tactic
is to deceive governments to believe that certain religious groups
are a social menace because of what they believe. That accomplished,
the stage is set to pursue individual members on a selective basis,
because of their "dangerous" faith, without reliable
evidence that criminal activity has even happened. This is the
essence of the legal prohibition of "guilt by association."
In America, there is a famous quote from a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion that states, "In our jurisprudence, guilt is personal."
To do otherwise is to fail to promote the toleration of diversity
and respect for differences so necessary in a free society.
Discerning the boundaries between religious freedom and the limits
of government control is not always easy. Since 1990, at least,
the United States Supreme Court has been groping to carve out
a right standard to protect religious freedom while not favoring
religion, while at the same time, leaving governments room to
govern in their rightful sphere of authority. In that year, they
decided in Oregon v. Smith that infringement of the religious
freedom of two American Indians who smoked peyote (as part of
their religious worship) was irrelevant in the context that they
were denied unemployment benefits when they lost their jobs as
drug counselors for violating Oregon's drug laws. Religious scholars
were alarmed and outraged at the court's "disregard"
of religious free exercise.
However, I believe the decision was a right and righteous one
and a good one to exemplify my point about rightful spheres of
authority. The state of Oregon has rightful authority to enact
laws regarding drug use, unemployment benefits, and to make qualifications
for its drug counselors. Enforcement of those laws did not violate
the Indians' free exercise rights. Reality was the Indians did
not qualify for the drug counselor jobs because of their free
exercise of their religious beliefs. So they should have gotten
different jobs because of their faith, and not blame the state,
expecting them to pay unemployment benefits. The state was in
its rightful sphere of authority and the Indians were not hindered
in the free exercise of their faith. The fact is the Indians wanted
the free exercise of their faith and government benefits at the
same time. This type of thinking is commonplace among sectarian
complaints against the government for "violating their religion."
However, it is important to note that the Constitution does not
say religious liberty will not have any social cost.
This case is a useful example because, in response to this Court
decision, religious lobbyists prevailed upon Congress to pass
a law called "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act" of
1993, which reinstated the standard in effect before the Oregon
v. Smith decision. However, in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court found
this law to be unconstitutional and invalidated it.
The tension and battle continues on.
We can only hope that the First Amendment jurisprudence, which
the U.S. Supreme Court fashions during the next several decades,
is vigilant to maintain the delicate balance between church and
state so that the wall separating them remains. As a people we
are grateful for the public servants who exercise due care in
upholding the Constitution in the execution of their duties. We
rely upon them and appreciate the judges we have encountered so
far who were faithful to rule justly, despite the ungodly influence
of the anti-cultists to advance religious prejudice. Honor to
Honorable Frank Mahady, Honorable F. Ray Keyser, Mme. Justice
McLachlin, Justice Sopinka, Honourable Justice Malachi Jones,
Hon. J. Davison, and even Judge Wolchik, who had the integrity
to admit that he made a bad mistake.
VI. OUR RESPONSE TO CONFLICT WITH GOVERNMENTS
Immediately after the Raid on the Church in Island Pond by the
State of Vermont in 1984, there were predominantly two responses:
1) Praise for the Judge that upheld the Constitution – by calling
the interference "the worst state-sanctioned violation of children
since Herod" and by protecting the reputation of the State,
by failing to condone and uphold the actions of several despotic
and reactionary officials, who caused many Vermonters to fear that
their leaders were reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and
2) Lingering doubt as to whether or not the children in the Island
Pond Community Church really were abused, given the fact that
the faith of their parents embraced the teachings of the Bible
regarding corporal punishment.
Both of these impressions have stood the test of time over the
past fifteen years. Therefore, despite the public approval of
Judge Mahady's decision soundly criticizing the State's "grossly
unconstitutional scheme," members of the group continue to
live under the cloud of the public's impression that "well,
maybe the children are abused."
By1994 if not before, the well being of the children became evident
to the public.
Ten years after the Raid, we held an Anniversary Celebration where
we invited all the State's players to come meet the children that
had been seized, now aged 10-28 years old, so that they could
see for themselves.
We included the State troopers, social workers, court clerks and
officers, judges, high-ranking state government officials. Not
one came, except one reporter and several academics who were researching
us. It was
a great time, a weekend of festivities, including the children
sharing the recollections of that fateful day and proclaiming
the faith of their fathers.
This gathering occurred about one year after the Waco tragedy
in April 1993, where 86 people lost their lives, mostly Branch
Davidians, including numerous children whom the Attorney General
of the United States, Janet Reno, claimed she "did it to
protect." The day after the Waco inferno, as I read an editorial
in the New York Times, I was gripped by the fact that there were
many similarities between the government's actions at Waco and
the tactics of the government nine years earlier at Island Pond.
Although the Island Ponders have a different belief system, one
that does not condone violence ("If you live by the sword,
you will die by the sword".) and one that respects and honors
governmental authority, comparing the governmental approaches
in the two raids against religious minorities, it was evident
that there was a distinct and familiar parallel. The violent,
military approach to exercise control over a small religious group
was more than a mere coincidence.
We began to look deeper behind the mere knowledge we had that
the Attorney General's office in Vermont had consulted before
the Raid with Galen Kelly and Priscilla Coates, two noted deprogrammers
and active anti-cultists. For our own purposes we prepared papers
researching the history of how the Raid happened.
Another example of how we respond to conflict with state government
is to approach them and negotiate, as we did in Vermont in 1990,
where several members had been charged with truancy for twelve
years. We worked together with the Department of Education to
propose an amendment to legislation that would allow us to educate
our children according to our conscience and our sincerely held
religious beliefs. The staff there treated us with respect and
dignity. They were willing to listen to what we had to say and
they did listen. The law in Vermont now accommodates us and it
doesn't hurt anybody else. The state has determined a way to know
that our children are being educated without violating our faith.
The Commissioner of Education there, Richard Mills, came and saw.
He spent a day going through our classes and watching our children
learn and recreate. He served us and he served the State of Vermont.
We wholeheartedly appreciate him and his staff people who annually
visit our communities; for their care, their attitude and their
approach.
Simultaneously, the Vermont Supreme Court recognized the sincerity
and integrity of our beliefs and our practices based on those
beliefs. Also in 1990, in a truancy case involving a couple from
the Church in Island Pond, the Vermont high court acknowledged
their commitment to safeguarding such cherished Constitutional
guarantees, and to respecting the delicacy of the balance when
in conflict with competing state interests such as education.
We honor and respect such authority that honors and respects the
citizens it judges. We are thankful for rulers such as these.
The most difficult people to approach are the anti-cultists themselves
whom, by and large, we have found to be unaccountable and unwilling
to listen. They seem vested in not wanting to hear the truth,
since it undermines their theory. Social workers are the second
most difficult group to communicate with, as most seem to believe
they already know the truth, without having met even one group
member. Most often they have received their viewpoint from the
anti-cultists. There have been some exceptions. We continue to
hope this will change and we hope that what we have said here
will help bring that change about.
We lead open lives and answer people's questions about us. We
strive to maintain peaceful relationships with local and state
governments in the places where we live. Periodically, we publish
Freepapers and pamphlets about who we are and what we believe,
sometimes focused on a particular social issue. In 1993, we put
out a pamphlet called "What
We Can Learn from the Tragedy at Waco," wherein we explained
that we lead open, visible lives near neighbors, that we welcome
visitors, that we do not practice violence, and also that we are
not anti-government. Recently we had an open forum for local townspeople
in a small New York town in the Hudson Valley where we are getting
established. Nearly 100 people came, full of questions and of
support, for what they had experienced in knowing us so far. We
make ourselves available to speak to any interested group or individual
who wants to know what we're all about. We would welcome the opportunity
to speak with any interested party in government.
As individual members have been brought before the courts over
the years, in cases ranging from custody conflicts to criminal
charges, each decides where he takes his stand in obedience to
his conscience and his faith, according to the Word of God which
is our guidepost. As a people, we call nations to obey their Constitutions,
calling them to reward those who do good and punish those who
do evil. Every day, we strive to lead tranquil and quiet lives,
while gathering to pray twice a day wherever we have a Community,
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension, interceding
for leaders to rule wisely and righteously. In the end, we entrust
everything into the hands of our God, who protects us or corrects
us, according to His will.
VII. FUTURE WORLD ORDER: PROPHESIED IN A STATUE
The Statue
We know that the Bible is not the stuff that the social sciences
are made of, but nevertheless, for historical purposes, there
is a particular part of scripture worth noting for our purposes
today, as we look toward the future of the world's social order.
In the Book of Daniel it is recorded that the King of Babylon
had a dream around 500 B.C. In the dream was an enormous, dazzling
statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was pure
gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs
of iron, feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. He called
for all his wise men and magicians to tell him the dream and to
interpret it.
At that time in history, the Jews had been taken captive and
were slaves under the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. There was
a young Jew named Daniel who because of his knowledge and understanding,
and his connection to the God of Israel, was the only person in
the entire kingdom who could tell the king what his dream was
and then give its interpretation. He explained to the king that
he was the head of gold and that after him would come a kingdom
inferior to his. Next a third kingdom would come and rule over
the whole earth. Finally there would be a fourth world kingdom,
strong as iron (for iron breaks and smashes everything), which
would crush and break all the others.
Whether you believe the Bible or not, history bears out Daniel's
interpretation. Three empires followed Babylon in world domination:
Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Each one was inferior to the one
before it in terms of authority of its ruler. Each ruler had greater
checks and balances on his power. Each government, however, was
tougher and more enduring. Knowing this, it may serve us well
to pay attention to the next part of the dream, which reveals
a future event in history: the emergence of the feet and toes
of iron mixed with clay, and the stone. For Daniel made it clear
that the Stone, whoever it is, would not emerge until the time
when the iron and the clay would mix … as Daniel put it,
"in the days of those kings". It seems prudent and worthy
of pursuit to look for the three today … the iron, the clay,
and the stone, which brings an end to the existing social order
that the statue represents.
The Iron
The iron represents the character of the 4th world empire, whose
political system is based on the democratic principles rooted
in the ancient Roman Empire, one whose substance was tougher and
more enduring than any world empire before it, and brought the
others to ruin. We see the oldest, most developed model of the
iron in the emerging European Community. It has the political,
economic, and cultural strength to become a modern day world empire.
The relationship between this confederation and the ecumenical
movement in Christianity is the most important and profound sociological
dynamic of the next half-century.
Social scientists across the globe would do well to turn their
attention to this dynamic because it is foretold in the 2nd chapter
of Daniel. This prophecy has great weight in light of the fact
that Daniel foretold in the same chapter the four world empires
from Babylon to Rome … an historical fact documented in history
books which trace the development of Western civilization. As
this confederation is developing, there are already the signs
of religious persecution in numerous countries across Europe.
This was documented well by Dr. Massimo Introvigne and Dr. Gordon
Melton in their December 1997, press conference in Washington,
D.C. These signs of intolerance are the beginnings of the shaky
alliance between church and state (religion and government) that
historically has led to oppression, brutality, and mass murder
at the hands of the Roman Catholic church, as well as many of
the sects of the Protestant Reformation (e.g., The Crusades, Inquisition,
58 executions in Geneva under Calvin's influence, Holocaust,
etc.).
At this stage of its development, the European Parliament is
playing an ever-increasing role in defining the place of religious
freedom and the policy of the confederation concerning "new
religious movements". There is a tremendous need for education
and understanding to be given to the Parliament by the academic
community and especially to social scientists, so that the laws
that govern the nations of the European Community will protect
religious freedom and diversity for all.
The academic community must notice that the governments in Europe
are headed toward an alliance with established religions. One
of the most essential aspects of the nature of the iron is that
it needs this alliance with Christianity (the clay) to get established,
and this will happen slowly and very subtly. Without it, the extent
of the lack of moral restraint would result in a society that
is so devoid of social control, that it could not survive. This
"marriage"
between government and religion will eventually give the state
authority to enforce the "accepted" religious doctrines
as defined in ecumenical councils. It will seem good, but the
result will be the quenching, ostracizing or elimination of any
new religions that do not conform to the "right" doctrine.
It will take decades for all of this to unfold in a way where
its true nature can be seen, but it is precisely this dynamic
between government and religion, that now gives fuel to the anti-cult
movement. Anti-cultists work back and forth between government
agencies (especially social services agencies and law enforcement)
and fearful parents in the religious mainstream (by propagandizing
in pulpits) to convince both that new religions are evil and dangerous
and therefore should be eliminated, even at the expense of people's
fundamental rights. It is especially at the expense of peoples'
right to choose who their God is and how they worship. As it happens,
the religious freedoms of those outside the mainstream will become
less and less protected. But most importantly, from the vast diversity
of "new religions," will emerge the Stone – which
is outside the ranks of Christianity, is separate from the iron
and clay, and must be given the room to exist. Remember, it was
the alliance between Rome and the established Jewish religious
leaders that crucified the man, Yahshua, the Son of God. In fact,
it was the established church of his day that called for his death,
while the civil government let it happen. Individuals must have
the freedom to grope for God and to find Him without governments'
interference, deciding what religions are acceptable in their
land and what ones are not.
As we approach the 21st century, the iron represents the reconstitution
of the Roman Empire whose cultural, social, and political influence
has dominated the world for the last 2000 years. But we are now
in the time period represented in the feet and toes of the statue,
made of iron and clay, which, although they try to mix, cannot
adhere to one another, thereby making the foundation of the statue
(world empires) the weakest it has ever been. Therefore, one of
the greatest missions of sociologists into the 21st century is
to be on the alert for religious persecution, sound the alarm,
and defend the separation of church and state, in order to uphold
the rights of religious freedom all over the globe, but especially
on the continent of Europe.
Freedom for all is in jeopardy, when governments listen to those
who claim to be the sole arbiters of orthodoxy and heresy, which
is not the domain of government.
The Clay
The clay is the Ecumenical Movement that is working to establish
a unity among all the diverse sects of Christianity throughout
the world, that will attempt to unite all nations, bringing about
peace on earth. This ecumenical Christian unity is the clay that
mixes with the iron, the emerging political confederation in Europe.
Eventually, the power of ecumenism will influence the political
leaders to assimilate every "fringe" group that can
be drawn in and eliminate groups that do not conform to the parameters
of this alliance.
We see this tendency from the conflicts we as a people have had
with governments over the last 20 years. Let me show you how this
dangerous dynamic actually works, by giving you a few examples
of our experiences.
First, in the pre-Raid days of 1983, a then professor at a Baptist
college in Moncton, New Brunswick, James Beverley, prepared a
publication called "Kingdom Concerns", in which he criticized
our beliefs and practices. He relied heavily on defector Juan
Mattatall as a major source. His "concerns" were widely
circulated around the South Shore of the province of Nova Scotia,
to the extent that people were worked into a frenzy of hysteria
over this "cult" that invaded this parochial fishing
community. The consequence of such work was to make people afraid
of us without cause, suspicious of us with no good reason, physically
violent with us on a few occasions, and to make us have to overcome
the prejudice of being social outcasts.
To Mr. Beverley's credit, once he realized that he had been duped
by defector Juan Mattatall,
he admitted his error, recanting some of his criticisms at an
S.S.S.R. conference in Philadelphia in 1995. Nevertheless, the
faulty brochures still circulate to our detriment.
Second, in 1992, the investigating R.C.M.P. officer in the Isaac
Dawson case, Constable Wendell Murchison, participated in a national
documentary called "Missing Treasures", in which the
Myrtle Tree Farm Community was grossly misrepresented. Dawson's
faith was maligned and the officer relied on information from
unreliable sources, while making Dawson and his fellow believers
out to be criminal. As you have just heard, indeed, it was the
government who engaged in unlawful activity, not Dawson.
The court had denied Dawson fundamental justice in its process
and Dawson was finally acquitted of any wrongdoing.
Third, another continuing source of terrible misinformation about
our communities is Rev. Bob Pardon at the "New England Institute
of Religious Research." While equipped with a professional,
objective-sounding title, Rev. Pardon is actually a one-man operation,
functioning in a one-room office in a church building with one
assistant. What is dangerous about Rev. Pardon is that he amasses
voluminous amounts of data and then uses it to support his subjective
analysis, thereby making him the sole decider between heresy and
orthodoxy. Relatives and friends of community members contact
him (or he contacts them) hoping for help in their ignorance and
confusion, and are often left ill-advised, fearful, and in the
throes of family turmoil as a result of their "help"
Printer-friendly