consti part 11: unusual religious beliefs and practices & academic freedom
It is true that activities of individuals, even whenreligiously based, are often subject to regulationby the States in the exercise of police power butreligiously grounded conduct is protected by theFree Exercise Clause of the 1
A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion.
Some degree of education is necessary toprepare citizens to participate effectively andintelligently in our open political system if we areto preserve freedom and independence. However,the evidence adduced by the Amish in this caseis persuasively to the effect that an additionalone or two years of formal high school for Amishchildren in place of their long-establishedprogram of informal vocational education woulddo little to serve those interests. Separatedagrarian community is the keystone of theAmish faith. That they would become burden tosociety should they leave the community and join the mainstream world with educationalshortcomings is highly speculative.4. The State's claim that it is empowered, asparens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents cannot be sustainedagainst a free exercise claim of the naturerevealed by this record, for the Amish haveintroduced convincing evidence thataccommodating their religious objections byforgoing one or two additional years of compulsory education will not impair thephysical or mental health of the child, or resultin an inability to be self-supporting or todischarge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materiallydetract from the welfare of society. The dissent argues that a child who expresses adesire to attend public high school in conflict with the wishes of his parents should not beprevented from doing so. There is no reason forthe Court to consider that point since it is notan issue in the case. The State has at no pointtried this case on the theory that respondents were preventing their children from attendingschool against their expressed desires. Parentshave a right to direct the religious up-bringing of their children which may be subject to limitation] if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, orhave a potential for significant social burdens.But in this case, the Amish have introducedpersuasive evidence undermining the argumentsthe State has advanced to support its claims interms of the welfare of the child and society as a whole. we cannot accept a parens patriae claimof such all-encompassing scope and with suchsweeping potential for broad and unforeseeableapplication as that urged by the State.(overinclusive)
Respondents, Edna W. Ballard and DonaldBallard were convicted of using and conspiringto use the mails to defraud.
The indictment was in twelve counts. It chargeda scheme to defraud by organizing andpromoting the I Am movement through the useof the mails. The charge was that certaindesignated corporations were formed, literaturedistributed and sold, funds solicited, andmemberships in the I Am movement sought 'bymeans of false and fraudulent representations,pretenses and promises'
That the words of 'ascended masters'and the words of the alleged divineentity, Saint Germain, would betransmitted to mankind through themedium of the said Guy W. Ballard,Edna W. Ballard, and Donald Ballardthrough their high spiritual attainmentand righteous conduct.
That the respondent were able to curehundreds of people of diseases classifiedeither curable or incurable.
Each of them, well knew that all of saidaforementioned representations were false anduntrue and were made with the intention on thepart of the defendants, and each of them, tocheat, wrong, and defraud persons intended tobe defrauded, and to obtain from personsintended to be defrauded by the defendants,money, property, and other things of value andto convert the same to the use and the benefit of the defendants, and each of them.
There was a demurrer and a motion toquash each of which asserted among otherthings that the indictment attacked the religiousbeliefs of respondents and sought to restrict thefree exercise of their religion in violation of theConstitution of the United States.
Did not want to rule on the truthor validity of the religious claims made by therespondents but rather limited the scope of thecase to this issue: “
WON these defendantshonestly and in good faith believe thosethings? If they did, they should be acquitted.I cannot make it any clearer than that”
'If these defendants did not believe thosethings, they did not believe that Jesus
consti 2 all stars2