The Words of the Henry Family
|
|
The Words of the Henry Family |
Sun
Myung Moon May 5, 2011
In Father's court case the lawyers are busier and more determined than ever, preparing to bring the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country.
Despite a powerful dissenting opinion by Judge James Oakes, on September 13, 1983, a 3-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Father and Mr. Kamiyama. On October 28, 1983 our petition for rehearing of the case was denied without a written opinion.
What comes next, therefore, is that on January 26, Father and Mr. Kamiyama will jointly file a request to appeal the Second Circuit decision to the United States Supreme Court; this request is called a petition for certiorari. Getting into the Supreme Court is not guaranteed, but we are certain of the support of many significant religious and civil liberties groups who share our concern and outrage over the decision, particularly since the result in Father's case will have a substantial effect on them and their own religious activities. On February 26, 1984, many of these groups will be filing amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs explaining why they think the Court should grant our petition for certioriari. If the government decides to oppose our petition, they must also file their reply papers on February 26. We can only estimate very roughly that the Supreme Court might announce its decision on whether or not it will take the case sometime around June or July, 1984.
Once our appeal is accepted, religious and civil liberties groups will have another opportunity to submit amicus briefs, this time on the merits of the case.
Realistically speaking, it is unlikely that the case will be argued before the Supreme Court before October, 1984, and in that case we couldn't expect a decision before February or March, 1985.
Although we never gave up hope and the determination that our petition for rehearing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would be granted, it is well known that the Second Circuit regularly refuses to rehear even the most nationally significant cases -- not because it regards the cases as unimportant, but because their very importance suggests that the Supreme Court will want to hear them.
In Father's case, this is underscored by the fact that the Second Circuit majority opinion stayed the mandate of Father's and Mr. Kamiyama's conviction pending the exhaustion of further appeals. This means that the Second Circuit specifically instructed that neither Father nor Mr. Kamiyama would have to begin to serve any jail sentence until after the Supreme Court's final determination. Staying a mandate is almost never done, as it was here, by the court's own initiative.
Although there are a number of important issues in Father's case which have attracted outspoken concern from civil rights organizations and religious denominations across the nation, spanning every political and theological perspective, at least two major issues stand out as being of exceptional interest to the United States Supreme Court.
First, of tremendous interest and concern especially to the religious community, is the issue of the constitutional protection of religion, and, in particular, the rights of churches to manage their own assets, to determine for themselves how property is to be held and how church resources are to be used.
It is very important to understand that Father does not claim that he is exempt from the duty to pay federal income taxes, or that the Constitution somehow forbids all prosecution or investigation of a religious leader. The issue is, rather, whether or not the courts and the government can ignore a church's sincerely held belief concerning who owns property and the income it generates -- the leader or the church. Although the government charged that the interest earned on money in a bank account placed in Father's name was Father's personal income, that money was really church property which Father was holding and using in trust for our movement. This way of holding church money is perfectly legitimate and other clergymen -- up until now -- have been unchallenged in doing it. But, based on the result in the case, it is obvious that the government and the courts were allowed to usurp our church's beliefs and practices in obtaining the conviction of Father.
Father's appeal raises a second issue of particular concern to the civil rights groups. Even though Father objected and the trial judge said that a non-jury trial would be "fairer," the government was permitted to insist that Father be tried before an undoubtedly hostile jury. Although traditionally a jury is supposed to serve as a shield to protect an unpopular defendant from the government, in this case that very function was inverted, making the jury a weapon of intolerance.
The government's candid and explicit reason for insisting on a jury was that Father had publicly criticized the motives behind the prosecution. In this court case, Father's lawyers are not claiming that there is an absolute right to have a trial by a judge rather than a trial by a jury. Rather, their claim is that the government may not be permitted to punish a criminal defendant simply because he has criticized their motivations and behavior. For the government to deny Father a privilege which he would otherwise have enjoyed except for his speech seriously abridges freedom of speech and denies due process of law.
In summary, the two key questions the case presents for the Supreme Court are:
1.) Can the courts refuse to follow otherwise applicable First Amendment Religion Clause principles and ignore or penalize the sincerely held religious doctrines and beliefs of a church?
2.) Can a jury, which has the historical function of protecting defendants against punishment by oppressive government administrations, be converted into a weapon of intolerance to be used against an unpopular defendant?
The Supreme Court certainly should he concerned about these vital issues. In fact, as the leaders of major religious and civil rights organizations have publicly stated, Father's appeal has become the most prominent and widely heralded constitutional case in decades, if not of all times. Historically, the erosion of fundamental rights usually begins with attacks on the rights of those groups which are unfamiliar, disfavored or even hated by the mainstream of society. Inevitably, the creeping invasion of fundamental freedoms progresses to the more established organizations. As we all know, Father has never been afraid to be a pioneer, and his whole life he has been a victim of misunderstanding and bigotry. However it is becoming more evident every day that as the American people are educated to the serious threats to religious freedom that are resulting from this prosecution, they are becoming increasingly alarmed and supportive of Father. Our role as members of the Unification Church, therefore, is to make every possible effort to go out and speak to the American people about Father's case. Finally we have a golden opportunity to truly awaken the country to the truth about Father.
Please, pray for the judges, but Father's lawyers have requested that we do not write to any of the Supreme Court Justices or the Court, or try in any way to communicate with or influence them. Such attempts to influence the judges may be deemed improper and have exactly the opposite effect on their decision. Please write to your Senators or Congressmen, but not the Supreme Court.
When I went pioneering in the summer of 1980, one of the conditions I made was to read out loud from the 6-hour lecture each day. I remember the exact spot where I was standing, reading about Noah's course, when suddenly I had what to me was a most profound realization. I was reading the sentence talking about making the foundation of substance: "To do this, the second son Ham, had to become inseparable in heart with his father, Noah, who established the foundation of faith and became the central figure of God's providence. However, Ham failed to be completely one in heart with Noah and [by his shame] showed a lack of faith in his father, Noah who was in the position to be completely separated from Satan."
Suddenly, I caught a glimpse of what that meant in terms of my relationship with True Parents. When I had first met the Family, I loved the Principle, but I could only accept Father as the Messiah on an intellectual level. I felt, well, if the Principle is true, then Reverend Moon must be the Messiah, but that was something very difficult for me to face up to. Even unconsciously, I was very much influenced by the negative media and the rumors and commentary all around me.
One day in our prayer room in Washington, D.C., I realized for the first time that I did indeed love Father. I realized then how it was possible for God to have created the universe out of nothing. And I knew that I was a co-creator with God because from nothing, no love, had somehow come a love. With these things as background in my life of faith, reading about Ham I felt so much repentance because I knew only too well how I had judged and suspected our True Parents of all kinds of things.
Recently I read a very moving story which was apparently printed in an underground magazine in Poland, about a 10-year old boy named Marek. The story went:
I did not know that they had taken, my father away. I was asleep with my brother and I did not hear a thing. Nothing at all. But my brother must have heard something because he was crying and mummy was trying to calm him down. He is very small. He can barely talk.
Next day our neighbor burst into tears when she saw me. She said that my dad was in prison for Solidarity.
At first I was ashamed that my father was in prison because no one in our family has ever been in prison and I remember that when the father of one of our classmates was put in prison for stealing the other boys laughed at him and called him the 'son of a thief.'
At school the teacher gave me some sausage and some money. She said that the money was for us and the sausage was for my father. 1 told her that my father was not in prison but was travelling. And I started to cry. The teacher told me that I should not be ashamed because it is not my father who is guilty, but the men who put him in prison.
Reading that excerpt brought back to me my realization about Ham and Noah, but it also reminded me of recent insights I had had about Father's court case. Unfortunately I am sure that there are very few among us who haven't at one point or another felt shame that these charges were brought against our Father and leader. It is not easy for us to be unwavering in our faith and love. But what I hope and pray is that we can never lose sight of the fact that "it is not my father who is guilty, but the men who put him in prison." I really want to become mature in my understanding of how True Parents have been victimized and how much they have endured.
I've tried to think about what could possibly stop the Supreme Court from accepting Father's appeal. The legal issues are all here, the reasons are all there for them to enthusiastically tackle this case. But I must admit, there is one thing that might stop them: a lack of courage more powerful than their righteousness and more powerful than their desire to see justice vindicated.
But how can I accuse them if I myself, who supposedly love our True Parents and am confident of their innocence, and base my entire life on their message and understanding of heart, am afraid to declare my own conviction? I remember how Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesus, and reluctantly see the possibility that that could happen again unless we are able to show the example of courageousness and righteousness. There is nothing wrong with our beliefs that we could let ourselves be ostracized in a land that permits freedom of belief an.: is actively encouraging pluralism. From my own experience I have learned that what the people of this nation need -- no matter who they are or what their position is -- is education. Once they are taught or shown, most can easily understand. Even if they cannot agree, they can at least accept.
While Father's court case may be the external focus of our movement now, the internal focus is the IOWC and the frontline mission. Even if it did happen that Father goes to prison, the most important thing in terms of our long-range vision is that we do not give up, but that we continue to educate the people, and bring them back to the awareness of the love of God.
I remember my prayer in a moment of inspiration when the news came out in the New York Post "US Moves to Boot Rev. Moon." I remember telling God that I was an American citizen and that no one could kick me out of this country, even if they managed to somehow create a justification to kick Father out. And so I told God that as long as it was His will, I would stay here to fight, as it is my right. I only wish that somehow we could go beyond our words and really give comfort to God and True Parents, that through our deeds they can be assured of our prosperity.
I am so grateful when I hear the incredible stories of the dedication and sacrifice of our brothers and sisters on the IOWC and frontline missions. This emergency time period is really not so long in the historical sense, but the chance is the last for this nation for a long time to come if it is lost. Though the times are very difficult and it may seem we are being blocked and tested in every small thing we do each day, it has often given me great peace and strength to remember the words to the holy song "My Cross": "I give my life to go this way, no one can turn me back... No matter what in fighting on, we'll win eternal joy." As sons and daughters of God, if we purpose it, we will do it.
1.) Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
2.) Justice William J.
Brennan
3.) Justice Thurgood Marshall
4.) Justice Byron R.
White
5.) Justice Lewis Powell
6.) Justice William
Rehnquist
7.) Justice John Paul Stevens
8.) Justice Harry A.
Blackmun
9.) Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
I must tell you that I am innocent. I have committed no crime. I have nothing to hide. My life has been an open book. I am not afraid of the trial. On the contrary, I welcome it because I know that through this judicial process justice will be done and the truth will prevail. I shall vindicate not only myself but the millions of people around the world who are suffering because of this unfair government prosecution.
I have respect and confidence in the United States judicial system.
My conscience is clear. God is my vindicator. However, I forgive my adversaries if God finds them to be guilty instead of me.
I would not be standing here today if my skin were white and my religion were Presbyterian. I am here today only because my skin is yellow and my religion is Unification Church.
My dear brethren and my dear friends, today we prepare to meet a new challenge. Let us make this day a day of unity -- a day of new commitment. Let us pledge again to fight against all evil and injustice.