A Wise Statement Seldom Heeded

The Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this matter, but in 1944, it came close to doing so. Dealing specifically with a case of a child of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Court held:The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.... Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

A Reluctance to Enforce the Law

The Los Angeles Law Review, in 1984, looked into a number of faith-healing cases. Reporter Catherine Laughran found that in a large number of manslaughter or criminal neglect cases resulting from failed faith-healing attempts, the convictions had been reversed often on grounds unrelated to the original charge itself. Laughran said:This may reflect an unstated judicial policy of sympathy for the plight of parents who are caught between the law of the land and the firm belief that their way of healing is the right one and the one most beneficial to their children’s welfare.

I will comment that a large part of that “firm belief” results from exposure to the theatrics of Popoff, Robertson, Grant, and others who use psychological and technical trickery to produce the illusion that they are bringing healing to the afflicted. Uninformed witnesses cannot avoid concluding that healing by faith has been demonstrated to them. That trickery, along with the insistence of the various ministries that they need not or dare not submit appropriate evidence to establish what they preach, and the reluctance of law enforcement authorities to place the welfare of innocent victims above bad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, has created a dangerous and insidious legal situation that needs attention from the Supreme Court of this land.

Other Legal Concerns

The field of faith-healing presents all sorts of legal challenges. For example, California law requires that money solicited for any specific purpose must be applied to that purpose. But, said Ira McCorriston, former controller for the Peter Popoff Evangelical Association, his boss did not do this. Concerning special appeals Popoff made for one of his harebrained schemes, McCorriston said:The people would send their money in for [the Russian Bibles project] but the money would just go into the daily deposit.

Is there criminal activity involved here? Unless lying, cheating, and swindling are illegal, maybe not. I am not a legal expert. But Popoff, in two recent services, spoke to his audience about the terrible doctors who were asking them to put “chemicals” in their bodies. “Dr. Jesus doesn’t use any chemicals!” he screamed. And he told them to come forward and throw their medications up on the stage. They did. When I examined those substances, I found—among other medications—nitroglycerin tablets, insulin, and digitalis compounds. These are substances without which those people might well die. But Peter Popoff won’t be around to answer for that unfortunate result. (It is also of interest to note that in the collection of drugs we recovered in the Houston meeting and two others in California, there were no “illicit” substances whatsoever: No barbiturates, tranquilizers, marijuana, or other “dope” that might have been expected showed up. The crew backstage had lots of opportunity to remove any such items from the sweepings before it all went into the trash cans.) The faith-healers’ victims are taught specific “magical” procedures whereby they may ensure continued protection from evil, and the most effectual of those methods is, as might be expected, giving financial support to the healer. This is often referred to as “seed money,” and promises are made that the sum donated will soon return tenfold or even one-hundredfold. Though such a financial promise might be deemed enforceable by law, the basic problem remains that the government continues to ignore such illegalities and will not prosecute the violators. The penalties for such fraud ($1,000 in some cases) are such that the faith-healers can easily afford to ignore them. The Internal Revenue Service has shown some fleeting interest in almost every one of the healers. The article of law that applies to the controversial religious exemption upon which there has been so much discussion is section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, which says that a corporationorganized and operated exclusively for religious and educational purposes with no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual [shall be exempt from the payment of taxes].

The “inurement” aspect of that phrase is where the Internal Revenue Service might concentrate some attention. I believe that I have shown, in these pages, that faith-healers have been less than careful in their use of funds sent them for specific purposes. After all, they got Al Capone that way, didn’t they?

18

Amen!

We are watching a rough cut of a proposed TV documentary program. The scene is an outdoor gathering. It is 2:15 on the afternoon of February 23, 1986. At the entrance to the Civic Center Auditorium in San Francisco, California, about 2,000 people are gathering to attend a religious meeting held by the Reverend Peter Popoff, Anointed Minister of God, healer, and evangelist. The meeting has been promoted by newspaper and radio advertisements, and on the weekly Popoff television broadcast. The huge marquee above the entrance proclaims the “Miracle Crusade” that is to take place inside. Several TV news crews are present. The independent television interviewer who prepared this tape is following his cameraman around the area, microphone in hand, hoping to obtain comments from those who are about to enter for the services inside. The camera approaches, from behind, a tiny boy who is supported by well-worn crutches. He is reading the marquee. The interviewer speaks. “Excuse me.” The little boy turns, deftly maneuvering himself about on his crutches to face the camera. He is Oriental, neatly dressed and combed, and he appears somewhat startled. The television interviewer speaks again. “What brings you here today? Why did you come?” The boy is a bit bewildered. He smiles shyly, and finally he responds. “I came to see Peter Popoff. We watch him on television.” Now he smiles broadly, obviously excited that he is “on TV.” It is the kind of smile that gets to you. We now see, in a full-length shot, how badly twisted his legs are. It is probably polio that afflicts him. “What will Peter Popoff do for you?” asks the interviewer. “Peter Popoff can make me well,” the child says. “He understands Jesus better than anyone.” There is a pause. The interviewed is having a difficult time. The camera wanders off the subject. “Thank you very much,” the interviewer finally says. The television camera points to the pavement. The screen goes blank.

Following the Peter Popoff spectacle, I saw that little boy outside the Civic Center again, standing perched on his crutches and staring down at the pavement. At the service, the highly touted “healer” had not even come near the kid. As I approached to speak to him, the cameraman followed me, trailing cables. The cameras from the TV news shows had recorded the performance inside but were now nowhere to be seen. The boy looked up as I approached him. His smile was gone, and I saw tears running down his face. His eyes were red from weeping. I began to speak, intending to ask him what he now thought of Popoff and his promises. But I choked up and had to turn away. The cameraman had only one comment. He said, “I can’t do this.” His camera fell to his side, switched off. I will never forget that terrible moment, as the child realized that he had just witnessed a cruel, callous hoax. Hundreds of people at that meeting had believed they would see miracles performed in the name of Almighty God. Some few had been touched by the preacher, but none had been healed. Most had given cash or checks, some in envelopes sent to them by mail before they attended. One way or another, they were all swindled, and the perpetrators were protected simply because no one in state or federal government dares to prosecute them.