|
|
THE AMAZING FACTS OF UNITED STATES VS INDIANAPOLIS BAPTIST TEMPLE AS TO HOW THE CASE RELATES TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN AMERICA
by Dr. Greg J. Dixon
Even though the original complaint of United States v Indianapolis Baptist Temple was only filed on April 13, 1998, in the Federal District Court in Indianapolis, Indiana, it seems that volumes has already been written on this subject pro and con, mostly con. However, hardly anyone has taken the time to actually read what the courts beginning with Chief Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the District Court, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. attorney in argument before the Seventh Circuit actually said in their own words. In that this is the first time in the history of the U.S. that a court decision has ever been rendered pertaining to a New Testament Church, it is no doubt one of the most important First Amendment cases in the annals of our nation. All of the case law on the First Amendment in the past involved tax-exempt legal entities such as corporations, unincorporated associations, etc. In time, the results of this decision will affect all churches in the land even though most are oblivious to this fact. It will also be quite obvious to the objective reader that this case is not about taxes, which the government wanted everyone to believe, but about the control of the churches and pulpits of our country by using the Internal Revenue Service and other governmental agencies to keep the pastors on a short leash so that the conspirators can move our nation forward into the One World Government Anti-Christ system without awaking the masses.
In a letter to his constituency dated January 12, 1994, Randall A. Terry, who at the time was the national leader of Operation Rescue, wrote the following; “History shows that this is not a new ploy by governments although it seems to continually be quite effective. At the beginning of Adolph Hitler’s reign of terror, he sized up the German clergy in the following statement: ‘Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense! Never again. That tale is finished. No one will listen to it again. But we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.’ If Hitler was alive today he could make the same accusation against thousands of American churches and clergy. Huge numbers of our pastors and our leaders are in the position of betraying their God by silence for money or position, or out of fear of government reprisal. But the corruption and cowardice in the American churches’ leadership is much more subtle than that in the German clergy… Just how have we been bought? By our 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit status that the vast majority of American churches and ministries are incorporated under.” With these words of introduction, let us now take a closer look at U.S. v Indianapolis Baptist Temple.
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis CAUSE NO. IP 98-0498-C-B/S
Judge Sarah Evans Barker
January 19, June 26, 1999
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Unanimous decision by Judges Coffey, Evans, and Williams. Williams wrote the opinion same Cause No. as above
August 17, 2000
Certiorari Denied in the Supreme Court of the United States
February 16, 2001
* Judge Barker declares and is sustained by the Seventh Circuit that Jesus Christ Cannot be the Sole and Exclusive Head of His Church therefore Outlawing the New Testament Church in the U.S. by Establishing a State Church Totally Controlled by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Government conceded and Judge Barker agreed that the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a major doctrine of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple. She said, “One of it’s principal tenants is that Jesus Christ is the sole and exclusive head of the church.” The Seventh Circuit expanded on this statement by stating, “The members of Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT) believe it to be a sin for their church to pay taxes.” On the basis of these statements, by ruling against IBT, the courts have legally removed Jesus Christ from being the exclusive Head of the church that He purchased with His own blood and founded while on earth. The courts have now said that not only is Jesus Christ to be removed from all public institutions but He cannot exist even in His own New Testament assembly. The practical application of this decision is simply that no church in America that believes in the doctrine of the sole and exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ over His church can operate legally and neither does it have protection under the federal or state constitutions. The courts are also confirming the position of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) since 1978 that a church must have a “distinct legal existence”, which means that a church must be organized as a trust, corporation, or an unincorporated association (religious society) or be considered fraudulent or illegal which obviously has very serious implications.
This admission by the government, and confirmed by the court, proves that this is not a secular tax issue but a religious issue involving the federal government into the internal affairs of a local church.
And then Barker reinforced this position with these words: “IBT even suggests that it is neither a corporation nor an unincorporated religious society. Rather, it is a New Testament Church and nothing more. This position fails to recognize the legal nature of IBT, which the record establishes to be that of an unincorporated religious society.”
In essence the judge is saying that the pastors and congregation of IBT are suffering from dementia. We are delusional. We think we are the Lord’s church, but we really are not. This seems to be the same experience that Paul the Apostle had when he gave his defense before King Agrippa and Festus the Governor shouted out with a loud voice, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” But Paul replied, “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness…” Further, the court records will show that Attorney Al Cunningham introduced volumes of evidence that declared that IBT was a New Testament Baptist church and not a corporation, unincorporated association or any other type of legal entity which had waived its constitutional guarantees, but, alas, all arguments fell on deaf ears. The record will also show that the courts had already determined the outcome of this case before it had ever been litigated.
It will be shown later that what Judge Barker relied on to make these statements is not supported by the facts. The record will also show that the Seventh Circuit confirmed that IBT legally disassociated itself from the old corporation in 1983 and then severed itself from being an unincorporated association or religious society in 1986, a full year before the IRS assessed the property belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ and held in trust by the congregation of IBT through their pastor, Greg A. Dixon, pursuant to a Trust agreement executed in April 20, 1986, which was approved by a unanimous vote of the congregation.
* The Courts in this Case Have Declared that Government is God in the U.S. Even Over His Own Blood Bought Church
The way the courts ruled in U.S. v IBT has established Government as god over our nation. In that every god has a program to be financed, god-government is using the courts to compel men to bring taxes to the altar of government
as their offering of incense. No one is to be excluded, and even the Lord’s church is required to be a tax collector and taxpayer in this nefarious enterprise.
Judge Barker continues with her decision by saying, “IBT first seeks refuge in the First Amendment, maintaining that the federal tax system violates the First Amendment’s free exercise and establishment clause by (1) forcing IBT to pay taxes, in contravention of their basic religious convictions, and (2) giving preference to religions whose doctrine is not offended by the federal tax system. Unfortunately for IBT, the United States Supreme Court does not share its creative interpretations of the First Amendment, making resolution of this issue rather straightforward.” To support her position she sites the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Lee. He was a member of the Old Order Amish and admittedly an employer. Judge Barker continued, “In reaching its conclusion, the Court recognized that compulsory participation in the social security system may ‘interfere with the free exercise rights of religious groups.’ The Court also recognized, however, that the state may justify such an infringement by demonstrating that the infringement is essential to the accomplishment of an overriding governmental interest and that the ‘broad public interest in maintaining certain sound tax systems is such an interest.’” Then after noting the importance of and strong similarity between the income tax and social security tax systems, the Court concluded that “the broad public interest in the maintenance of these systems was of such a high order that religious belief…provides no constitutional basis for resisting them. Thus, at least with respect to the payment of income taxes and social security taxes, the Court has determined that the balance between the private interest in religious freedom and the government interest in tax collection and maintenance of a functioning tax system must be struck in favor of the
governmental interest.”
In the first place, Lee was a private employer not a “religious group." Further more US v IBT is not a tax case; it is a First Commandment and First Amendment case. The issue is simple. Can the U.S. government coerce a N.T. church to violate the first commandment that says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me?” Black’s Law dictionary says clearly that a higher authority can only tax a lesser. The Lord’s church is not under the authority of government but rather under the authority of the Kingdom of the Heavens (Matt. 28:18-20). The Supreme Court has also ruled on several occasions that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” For IBT to collect and pay the tax, it would violate the central doctrine of IBT, which is the exclusive headship of Christ over His church. It is the same situation that the disciples of the apostolic age encountered when their answer to the authorities, who wanted them to take a license to preach was, “…we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Following is the way that the Seventh Circuit dealt with this problem. “IBT alleges that complying with the federal employment tax laws would require it to recognize the sovereignty of the federal government over the church, something that would be inconsistent with its belief in the exclusive sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the church. In IBT’s view, the Free Exercise Clause grants it a right to act in accordance with its beliefs, notwithstanding contrary to federal law.” Judge Barker had said basically the same thing.
There is a very subtle difficulty here. First IBT never argued that they should be exempted from federal tax laws based on the Free Exercise Clause. IBT argued that the law does not and cannot apply to a church that is not a legal entity such as one that is organized as a public charity under Title 26 section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that have waived their first amendment guarantees. IBT never suggested at any time that the First Amendment granted any rights but rather protected our rights. Rights come from God, not government. The way that the courts circumvented this argument was to assign IBT a legal character that is totally false.
Then the Seventh Circuit drops the bombshell by saying, “The Free Exercise Clause absolutely protects the freedom to believe and profess whatever religious doctrines one desires. It also provides considerable, (though not absolute protection for the ability to practice through the performance or non-performance of certain actions) one’s religion. Significantly, however, neutral laws of general application that burden religious practices do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause.” Here we have it from their own mouths. We no longer have inalienable rights given to us by God and guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. But how many Americans know this or really even care?
The statement by U.S. Attorney Robert Metzger in oral argument before the Seventh Circuit gives further evidence that this is not a tax case but rather one of control. Twice he said that an uncontrolled church is untenable in society today. This philosophy of government taking the place of the God of the Bible over America had been developed in the courts over a period of years. It took a giant leap forward in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v United States in the early eighties. In their ruling against BJU, the court literally gave the IRS total control over every person and institution in America. Here is what they said proving that the highest court in the land has in fact made government god over America:
“In an area as complex as the tax system, the agency Congress vests with administrative responsibility must be able to exercise its authority to meet changing conditions and new problems.”
The real issue never changes. They crucified the Lord Jesus because He declared Himself to be King. The early church was persecuted because they declared Jesus Christ as King in the practice of their faith (Acts 17:5-8). The persecutions of the early church under the Roman Caesars was an issue of the Kingship of Christ. The battle cry of the American Revolution was, “No King but Jesus.” And now after 226 years of religious freedom, He cannot even be King of His own church.
* A Case of Mistaken Identity
Just as the religious and secular authorities at the trial of the Lord Jesus Christ bent the rules to assure the out- come that would result in the crucifixion of our Lord, Judge Barker did the same thing in our case. From the beginning, IBT explained in letter after letter to the IRS and then later to the courts that the church was not a legal entity and had not operated as such during the assessment period from 1987-’93. Because of this, IBT had not violated their doctrine on the Lordship of Christ over the local assembly and therefore demanded all of their guarantees under the Indiana and U.S. constitutions. Judge Barker admitted that during the assessment period IBT was not organized as a non-profit corporation, but she claimed that the church was operating as an unincorporated association or religious society under Indiana law. Following are her words concerning this matter:
“Defendant (IBT) obviously is not the corporation that obtained the identification number at issue. That corporation has been dissolved and, in fact, did not exist during the time period when the taxes were assessed – 1987 to 1994. …Although Defendant may not be the same entity assessed by the IRS, we must note that Defendant (IBT) nonetheless could be held liable for the assessed taxes." Judge Barker continues with this gem from her final decision on June 29, 1999. “Defendant is not relieved of its tax liabilities simply because the IRS mistakenly used the corporation’s identification number on Defendant’s (IBT) tax assessment. The record clearly establishes that, despite that error, the assessment at issue was against Defendant and Defendant knew it. No showing has been made that Defendant has been prejudiced in any way by the IRS’s use of the corporation’s identification number. Defendant (IBT) apparently believes it can evade federal tax law by metamorphosing into various different forms of entity. On this, it is sadly mistaken. Although Defendant’s tactics may have resulted in enough confusion to cause the IRS to use an incorrect employer identification number in assessing its tax liabilities, such tactics do not save Defendant from the harsh ramifications it now faces as a result of years of tax evasion. The record is clear that Defendant has failed to pay its tax liabilities and owes the United States $ 5,319,750.27 plus interest and other additions pursuant to law accruing after July 27, 1998. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff’s (U.S.) motion for summary judgment.” Does anyone believe that if IBT had made a procedural error in some way, as she admits the IRS did, that the judge would have excused us? And again she belittles our sincerity by saying that we knew that the assessments were against the church when the evidence shows that they never assessed the church but rather a defunct corporation that had not even existed for many years before the assessments were ever made against IBT. The IRS even used that corporations old Identification Number 35-1037016.
Please note that Judge Barker never cited any Indiana Law that required the Lord’s church to assume a legal identity known as an unincorporated association or religious society. Neither would she admit that IBT operated as a New Testament church according to our faith during the assessment period from 1987-93. Neither did she mention our documents that had been entered into evidence reflecting that IBT had properly extricated itself from the old corporation and the association that it had operated under from 1983-86 because of wrong advice from an attorney. Obviously, she knew that once she admitted this, she would have to rule for the church.
Then Judge Barker continued her tap dance as a federal tax collector as the IRS played the tune. As quoted above, she said that the poor IRS mistakenly assessed the wrong entity and that it made this error because they were confused. The IRS was not confused. They had been notified by the church from the time that the first assessments were made in 1994 that they had assessed the wrong entity, and they had years in which to correct the error, and Judge Barker acknowledges it in these words; “…Defendant…notified the IRS in the Spring of 1994 …that the employer identification number used in the assessment belonged to the corporation.” In fact, every time they sent an assessment to IBT, they used the old corporate tax identification number. We had face-to-face meetings with IRS agents and told them that they were assigning a bogus ID number to the church. Many years before, the State of Indiana assessed employer withholding taxes but correctly sent the assessments to the old corporation, whose name had been changed to Not A Church, Inc. by the Trustees, using that same ID # mentioned above. When we explained to them that the church had no connection to that corporation any longer, they accepted our word and the church never heard from them again. How sad that the IRS and the courts do not have the same integrity.
Should we be surprised that the courts slandered IBT with the accusation of being tax evaders? They called our Lord even worse than that. Not only was he called a drunkard and winebibber but also Beelzebub the prince of the Devils. He told us that if he was hated, we would be hated also, but most believers today want to be loved and accepted by the world.
Does not this legal sideshow reveal Judge Barker’s true motives? She said that the sincere document of repentance and other documents, which showed the separation from the association on the part of the pastors and congregation of IBT dated April 20, 1986, and that had been entered into evidence, was a sham, and was only done for the purpose of evading tax law. This is sheer slander on the part of the court. This judge, has never visited the services of IBT one single time and yet accuses the pastors and congregation of criminal activity. To interpret the sincere effort of the congregation to find God as a device to cheat the government out of taxes is beyond understanding except for an agenda that is far bigger than IBT and this particular case. The government never mentioned the idea of tax evasion one time in all of their arguments which means that Judge Barker created this tactic on her own to totally discredit the pastors and congregation of IBT.
Judge Barker continues, “The sole issue before us is whether the tax assessment relied upon by the United States was, in fact, made against Defendant (IBT). The United States acknowledges that the Employer Identification Number used to identity the assessed entity on the tax forms incorrectly identified Indianapolis Baptist Temple, Inc. (“the corporation”) as the assessed entity, rather than Defendant IBT (“the society”). And yet she says this after admitting that IBT had severed itself from the old corporate and associational status.
The Seventh Circuit made the same admission but even more clearly with the following factual statement: “IBT was founded in 1950 and operated as a not-for-profit corporation until 1983, when it began operating as a unincorporated religious society. In 1986, IBT renounced its status as an unincorporated religious society, opting instead to define itself as a ‘New Testament Church,’ based on its belief that the exclusive sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the church required it to disassociate itself from secular government authority.”
* The Court Errs in Calling Indianapolis Baptist Temple an Independent Baptist Church
Judge Barker deliberately misrepresented IBT by saying; “IBT is an independent Baptist church, defining itself as a New Testament Church.” In fact, on several occasions, she referred to IBT as an “independent Baptist church.” This is very subtle but very important and obviously done on purpose. At no time did IBT present itself before the court as an "independent Baptist church" because it is not an independent Baptist church; IBT is a New Testament church. The difference is most important because that term as used today refers to Baptist churches that are not affiliated with Baptist denominations such as the American or Southern Baptist Conventions. But this term independent is a misnomer because these same churches that claim to be independent are all organized as “public charities” under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC just as the churches that are affiliated with the Conventions. They are not independent at all but rather totally dependent on government for their existence and sustenance through tax-exemption and tax-deductible gifts. But the reason that Judge Barker kept referring to IBT as an independent Baptist church is because she only had case law for these so-called independent Baptist churches to back her up. Speaking of her ruling on IBT, Judge Barker said; “This view is consistent with the Third Circuit’s decision in Bethel Baptist Church v. United States, (3rd Cir.1987). The reason that there was no case law concerning a New Testament church is because there had never been a ruling against a New Testament church in the history of America. That’s the reason why we told the courts that the IBT case was a case of first impression, but they rejected that argument by saying that IBT had been there before through these other cases pertaining to “independent Baptist churches.”
For several years before the IRS moved on IBT, there had been other cases pertaining to taxes where the churches referred to themselves as “independent Baptist churches." Through their attorneys, they argued that on constitutional grounds they should not have to either collect taxes or pay workers compensation and unemployment compensation taxes. In every case, the courts ruled against them. Also in these cases, these churches were organized as public charities under the IRC and had waived their constitutional guarantees. Also, once they lost, they complied to the order of the court which shows that it was really not a true conviction of the church to begin with. David Gibbs of the Christian Law Association was the attorney in most of the cases. In each of these cases, these churches were incorporated and had waived their constitutional protections. Other cases that Judge Barker sited were Bob Jones University, Inc. and Jimmy Swaggart
Ministries, Inc. Therefore, even though these attorneys have spent millions of dollars given sacrificially from Christian people to preserve religious liberty, in reality they have created bad case law that in the end has now brought persecution to true churches of Christ and in the end has destroyed religious liberty.
* The American Road From Freedom to Slavery
The Lord Jesus said, “While men slept, the enemy sowed tares among the wheat.” The blessing of religious liberty has now been totally lost in America because generations of preachers have been asleep to the machinations of Satan and his emissaries.
The nation began with the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof." But this guarantee of freedom of religion only included churches that recognized Jesus Christ as sole and exclusive Lord. But as Israel wanted a king to be like the other nations, the churches of America wanted another king like the churches of Europe and so they petitioned congress and state legislatures to be able to operate as legal entities. Satan had tricked them into trading rights for privileges and the status of being non-taxable for tax-exemption. So the Supreme Court adjusted their rulings on the First Amendment to accommodate the wishes of the clergy by adopting the “excessive entanglement” position. In other words, the state had to prove an overriding governmental interest. But a few years ago in the Smith case, the Supreme Court adopted the present doctrine and that is simply this: If a law is neutral on its face, generally applicable and does not target religion, then it stands First Amendment muster.
The court argued in the case of IBT that the church did not challenge this doctrine and admitted that the tax laws applied to all including IBT, but the record shows otherwise. IBT argued strenuously that there is no such thing as neutrality. The Lord Jesus said that we can not have two Masters. We argued that this is a religious issue that involves the central doctrine of IBT as to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His church, but the court said that IBT had waived their constitutional guarantees because they are a legal entity, an association not a New Testament church, because there cannot be such a thing as a church that owns Jesus as King in America today. In January of 1978, Jerome Kurtz, Director of the IRS, declared that churches must have a distinct legal existence. With one stroke of the pen, the IRS became King over the churches of America, and any church that says no to this will be marked for total destruction, and the highest court of the land, by refusing to hear this case, has given legal precedent to this doctrine.
* The Absurd Result
There is an axiom in the common law that any law that produces absurd results is automatically nullified on its face. This new neutral and generally applicable doctrine of the Supreme Court that emaciates the First Amendment would have to be unconstitutional on its face because of the ridiculous application of this principle. The Seventh Circuit put it this way:
IBT does not (and, in any event, could not) contest the government’s characterization of the federal employment tax laws as neutral laws of general application. Those laws are not restricted to IBT or even religion-related employers generally, and there is no indication that they were enacted for the purpose of burdening religious practices. Contrast Church of the Lukumi Babalu Auy, Inc. 508 U.S. at 531-45 (concluding that laws forbidding a particular religion’s animal sacrifices were neither neutral nor generally applicable). Accordingly, IBT’s Free Exercise challenge to the federal employment tax laws must be rejected.”
This statement of the 7th Circuit expressing present Supreme Court doctrine on the First Amendment should have the entire Christian community outraged, but to our knowledge we have not heard so much as a whimper or even a whine from the wimpy pulpits of our land. Neither have we heard a squeak from the so-called Christian advocacy law organizations such as Christian Law Association, The Center for Law and Justice, or the Alliance Defense Fund. This case involved a weird pagan religion that was imported to downtown Hialeah, Florida, from the Caribbean. Their religion requires them to pull the heads off of chickens or their god will die. The practice became so outrageous in a metropolitan area like Hialeah that the City Council passed an ordinance against sacrificing chickens within the city limits of Hialeah. Now keep in mind that even the smallest cities in the U.S. today won’t even allow laying hens inside the city limits let alone a hog or milk cow, but here are these heathens sacrificing chickens downtown Hialeah. Well, they are organized as a public charity under the IRC just like all of the “independent Baptist churches” in the country, and, since they have legal standing, they sued the city fathers. It ended up before our wise nine Justices of the Supreme Court to make this Solomonesque like decision. You guessed it; they applied the neutral but generally applicable doctrine which does not target religion and found that the law was not neutral but that it in fact targeted the Babalus. It certainly did; they are the only ones stupid enough to cause a health hazard in the midst of thousands of people by pulling the heads off chickens in the middle of thousands of people including children. Where is the Department of Children’s Affairs (DCF) in Florida? Hunting for all of the missing kids that they have lost, we assume.
Think of it. This new doctrine allows this pagan religion to sacrifice chickens but will not allow the Indianapolis Baptist Temple to practice its faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ over His church. But where is the outrage; there is practically none. Yes, they targeted the Babalus and they also targeted IBT because IBT was the only church of any size who were demanding their God given rights to practice their faith, especially not to be coerced into collecting and paying taxes.
In Conclusion
We leave this study with these final words of wisdom from the three imposters posing as judges that presided over this case in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago:
“…IBT takes issue with the district court’s characterization of it as an unincorporated religious society under Indiana law. IBT contends that it is a “New Testament Church,” not an unincorporated religious society, and that by characterizing it as such an entity, the district court “established” a state church and imposed on IBT a form of worship contrary to its beliefs. The district court did neither of these things. In any event, it does not matter what sort of entity IBT is. Whatever it is, it must comply with the federal employment tax laws. Thus, IBT’s objection to the district court’s objection to the district courts characterization of it is both without merit and beside the point. IBT’s challenges to the application of the federal employment tax laws to it are without merit. Accordingly, we Affirm the judgment of the district court
In the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
|
