Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was an appeal of the conviction of two leaders of the new religious \"I AM\" Activity movement for fraudulently seeking and collecting donations on the basis of religious claims that the defendants themselves did not believe. The United States Supreme Court held that the question of whether the defendants' claims about their religious experiences were actually true should not have been submitted to a jury. The Court arrived at this conclusion in part because the \"freedom of religious belief... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths.\" However, the Court did not address the issue of whether the sincerity of the defendants' beliefs was a proper question for the jury.Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting, would have gone even farther, suggesting that the entire case should be dismissed for coming too close to being an investigation into the truth of a religious conviction. He would have held unconstitutional a jury determination of whether the defendants' religious beliefs were sincere, as well as whether they were true."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- United_States_v._Ballard abstract "United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was an appeal of the conviction of two leaders of the new religious \"I AM\" Activity movement for fraudulently seeking and collecting donations on the basis of religious claims that the defendants themselves did not believe. The United States Supreme Court held that the question of whether the defendants' claims about their religious experiences were actually true should not have been submitted to a jury. The Court arrived at this conclusion in part because the \"freedom of religious belief... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths.\" However, the Court did not address the issue of whether the sincerity of the defendants' beliefs was a proper question for the jury.Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting, would have gone even farther, suggesting that the entire case should be dismissed for coming too close to being an investigation into the truth of a religious conviction. He would have held unconstitutional a jury determination of whether the defendants' religious beliefs were sincere, as well as whether they were true.".