Basic HTML Version
NEWS SUMMARY, April 16, 1979
Page 2
of God) which included the demand for a free-wheeling search of any and
all records of God's Church.
Section 9505 applies to charitable trusts, but does not mention churches.
The Attorney General contends that churches are "charitable trusts," but
it is the contention of the taxpayers' lawsuit that IF 9505 is applied
so as to include churches, the section is unconstitutional and in violation
of the first amendment.
God's Church, as are many other churches in California, is incorporated
as a "non-profit corporation'' in order to carry on its business affairs
and to enjoy the appropriate tax-exempt status of a church. It has
always complied with the applicable non-profit corporation laws of Calif
ornia. The taxpayer's attorney pointed out to the court that profit
making corporations -- and churches that have never been incorporated -
do not experience such excessive scrutiny, and that there is no reason
to assume that incorporated churches need more watching than other entities.
The attorney for the taxpayers called the court's attention to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision regarding Lemon vs. Kurstman. In this 1971 case
a parochial school welcomed the prospect of state aid. The church
related school was willing to meet the state's condition for receiving
the much needed funds which was a subject-to-audit rule. Even though the
church school was willing, the Supreme Court said, "No, this arrangement
will mean excessive entanglement between government and religion." The
Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional and that the state
should not be examining the parochial school's financial records to
determine which expenditures were religious and which were secular.
The judge asked if the members bringing this lawsuit were really trying
to protect their Church. The attorney replied, "Yes, and themselves."
Members have rights of privacy to protect. For example, there would be
no privacy protection of their correspondence with the Church concerning
spiritual matters if they were exposed to the state's examination and
confiscation of anything they wanted.
Judge Foster denied the taxpayer's request for a preliminary injunction,
indicating that he did not want to interfere in court proceedings of
another department. He felt that the Church had not stressed this matter
in its own proceedings thus far and indicated that is where he would like
to see it addressed. It is yet to be determined by the taxpayer's attorney
just what further action can and should be taken regarding their original
suit.
ANOTHER CHURCH RAIDED IN CALIFORNIA
Another church in Southern California was raided by the Attorney General's
office! Thursday morning, April 5th, a search warrant was served on
Morningland Church of the Ascended Christ in Long Beach. State agents,
accompanied by 14 uniformed Long Beach police officers, entered the church
and began going through its financial records, seizing any and all that
they chose. The original allegation by the State was that the Church had
made an "illegal political contribution," and so they were looking for
the evidence to support this claim.
Meanwhile, the same day across town, other state investigators literally
ransacked the offices of the attorney who represented this church,