he will go down as a failure who metnnone of his promises.nIn a sense both of these gentlemenndeserve their fate, but it would havenbeen much better if they had beennovercome by superior ideas rather thannby political operatives utterly devoid ofnidea and principle.n— Clyde WilsonnWITCHES AND SATANISTS taxexempt?nWhen we raised the issue innthe September 1988 Chronicles, severalnmembers of the nation’s clericalnlobby scoffed. But in Rhode Island, thenhome of Roger Williams and othernchampions of religious freedom withoutnresponsibility, a witches’ covennknown as Our Lady of the RosesnWiccan Church has apparently metnthe guidelines that determine a legitimatenchurch group.nSandra Murphy, the administrativenhearing officer who oversaw the case,ntold the AP reporter that she did notnthink the decision would set a precedent,nby which she can only havenmeant it was a bad decision. The case,namusing in itself as a comment on thenmind of Rhode Island officialdom, raisesnserious questions about church-statenrelations.nThe conventional view, promotednmost loudly by those who stand to gainnthe most, is that religious bodies somehownstand outside the boundaries ofnjurisprudence. In the name of religiousnfreedom, men and women have a rightnto shelter income or pay no taxes,nrefuse to discharge their military andncivil obligations, and engage in illegalnactivities. Since matters of the spiritntake precedence over matters of thenflesh, it is not up to the state or thenpeople to determine which religionsnthey are willing to tolerate.nAll of this sounds harmless enoughnuntil we come up against the hardncases. The mass-murderer Jim Jonesnwas a religious leader. A little intolerancenwould have saved lives. CharlesnManson’s family is usually described asna “cult” and their murders labeled asn”ritual killings.” Obviously no onenwants to extend the First Amendmentnthat far, but what of the practitioners ofnSanteria and Voodoo who, at the verynleast, violate state and municipal healthncodes by torturing and slaughteringnanimals? For years we have heard thatnsuch practices were bizarre and evennoffensive but deserved protection. Religiousnconservatives and anti-cult groupsnboth made the point that Santeria wasnin itself disgusting and implied a viewnof life that was inherently dangerous.nThis criticism was set down to ethnocentrismnand nativism, a failure tonappreciate how our culture was beingnenriched by Third World immigrants.nWhen bodies began turning up on thenMexican border, the defenders of non-nEuropean culture were given a taste ofnwhat they were defending.nIt is difficult but not impossible for anprudent nation to draw- a line separatingncults from religions. There are nonhard and fast rules, but some of thendistinguishing marks of a cult includennnrecent origin (although Voodoo is asnold as the Prince of Lies himself), ancharismatic leader who exercises nearnabsolute power over the lives of hisnfollowers, and a deliberate seclusionnfrom the ordinary world. Exceptionncan be taken to every one of thesenclauses, and in the end it is up to anpeople to determine just how tolerantnthey are willing to be.nThe natural process of history has anway of sorting things out. Liabilitiesnagainst Catholics were stupid in 19thcenturynEngland, but it made a greatndeal of political sense in the 17thncentury, and while Protestants alwaysnfind restrictions on their celebrationsnand missions deplorable, it is hard notnto sympathize with Catholic rulers whonNOVEMBER 1989/7n