Monday, May 23, 2011

Who Will Care for Your Pets After the Rapture?

By Mike Dorf

With doomsday having come and gone (phew!), it's worth reflecting on a phenomenon that sparked increased interest in recent weeks, as anticipation of the apocalypse turned the thoughts of apocalypse-minded folk to the post-Rapture world: Who will care for their pets who will be left behind?  The answer, given by websites that specialize in such matters, such as this one, is: We non-Christians--a term used by the Rapture-minded to include atheists, agnostics, adherents to non-Christian faiths, and adherents to Christian sects that don't believe in the Rapture, i.e., the overwhelming majority of people now living on Earth.

You're probably thinking: Why would a merciful God rapture His obedient human servants but leave their obedient non-human animal servants behind?  And isn't the post-Rapture world supposed to be, well, post-apocalyptic, thus rendering pet care well-nigh impossible? According to the FAQ section of the website linked above, the answer to the second question is no: To be sure, there will be "massive confusion" post-Rapture, but the Google servers will likely survive!  Anyway, these are theological questions beyond my pay grade. Here I want to raise some legal questions about Rapture insurance for pets.

Let's begin with a question of criminal law: Could the proprietors of a Rapture pet insurance plan be prosecuted for fraud?  The leading Supreme Court case, United States v. Ballard, decided in 1944, appears to make the answer turn on the sincerity of the beliefs of the proprietors.  At the very least, Ballard forbids prosecution for fraud of those who sincerely believe in the truth of the religious claims they make.  That principle applies here.  In every jurisdiction with which I'm familiar, fraud is not a strict liability offense; it requires mens rea--the intent to take something of value in exchange for something dishonestly represented.  Rapture-believing Christians who sell Rapture pet insurance are taking something of value, but they are doing so honestly.

In Ballard, Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Frankfurter, would have gone further to say that even insincere peddlers of religious information, goods, and services should be protected because of the difficulty of separating inquiries into sincerity and inquiries into truth.  (Jackson made very effective use of observations by William James about the nature of religious belief.)

I can illustrate the problem that concerned Justice Jackson with a hypothetical variant on Rapture pet insurance.  Suppose two otherwise identical Rapture pet insurance organizations.  One is run by Rapture-believing Ned; the other is run by heathen Homer.  Each charges a $10 registration fee.  Is it possible that Homer but not Ned is guilty of fraud when the only difference between them is their respective religious beliefs?

We might not have to rely on proof of sincerity of belief if there are behavioral differences between Ned and Homer.  Ned, believing the Rapture is real, will take steps to enlist pet-loving non-Christians to gather and care for the pets in the event of the Rapture.  Homer, believing there will be no Rapture, might simply pocket the money.  If that were so, a prosecution of Homer but not Ned would not raise the issue that worried Justice Jackson.

Still, we can also imagine cases in which Ned and Homer behave identically in the pre-Rapture world.  Suppose the Rapture insurance contracts used by both Ned and Homer provide that registration fees can be used to pay current administrative costs, with the balance going into escrow; should the pet die before the Rapture, the balance is returned to the registrant.  Ned and Homer run their respective businesses as sole proprietorships, paying costs and paying themselves a reasonable salary for administering the site.  Or they both organize as non-profits, with each drawing the same salary as director.  Now it would literally be true that the only difference between Ned and Homer is their respective intents as mediated by their respective religious beliefs. In such circumstances, we have three choices:

1) Ned can't be prosecuted for fraud because of the sincerity of his beliefs, but Homer can.

2) Prosecute neither.  Ned can't be prosecuted for the reason just given, and it would be unfair to Homer to prosecute him because he holds different beliefs.

3) Prosecute them both because the Rapture is nonsense.

I assume 3) is off the table.  People can be prosecuted for making some false factual claims that have religious content.  E.g., a grocer who knowingly sold a pork sausage labeled as "kosher" or "hallal." However, the prosecution in such a case would be based on the fact that the sausage is falsely labeled, not that the state requires sausages to be kosher or halal or takes a position on the value of observing Jewish or Muslim dietary law.  The same grocer could be prosecuted for the same offense if he labeled the sausage "vegan."

So there's nothing necessarily wrong with secular courts enforcing general anti-fraud provisions that merely implicate religious views.  The core difficulty identified in Ballard arises when a secular court takes a position on religious matters.  A church that charges $25 for the minister to say a special prayer commits no offense if the minister in fact says the special prayer, and commits an offense if she does not.  But the church cannot be subject to any legal penalty on the ground that prayers lack efficacy.  (There may be implications for the church's non-profit status if it is literally selling indulgences.  Let's assume that these purchases are structured as donations in a way that is legally permissible.)

The hard question, therefore, is between options 1 and 2, i..e., whether Homer can and should be prosecuted even though Ned cannot be.  I'm inclined to prefer option 2 on grounds of equality and administrability as well as the reasons discussed by Justice Jackson in Ballard.  To be clear, the issue would not be one of religious liberty for Homer or even for Ned.  Post-Employment Division v. Smith, there is no Free Exercise right to exemption from a general anti-fraud law.  But the Ballard rule--that courts do not inquire into the truth or falsity of religious doctrines--survives Smith. 

And, following Justices Jackson and Frankfurter in Ballard, I would at least tentatively go further.  Under the Jackson approach, we should give con men and women greater freedom to make (what they believe to be) false representations about some religious matters than about non-religious matters.  That's an unfortunate byproduct of implementing the principle that secular courts cannot make judgments about the truth or falsity of religious claims, but the alternative would be worse. Moreover, as Justice Jackson himself eloquently wrote, this is only the tip of the iceberg.  I'll close with his remarkable and, as always, eloquent, language.  Justice Jackson wrote in his Ballard dissent: 
The chief wrong which false prophets do to their following is not financial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but individual payments are not ruinous. I doubt if the vigilance of the law is equal to making money stick by over-credulous people. But the real harm is on the mental and spiritual plane. There are those who hunger and thirst after higher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in mental confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and confusion follow. The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they get. But that is precisely the thing the Constitution put beyond the reach of the prosecutor, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.


michael a. livingston said...

But Michael, how do you know that the Rapture didn't take place and you were simply left behind? Or that the people who proclaimed the Rapture were themselves insufficiently virtuous to qualify? I really don't see how it is possible to refute this either way.

Derek said...

In the real life Rapture case the insurees presumably didn't rely on the insurers' representation that the Rapture was coming -- they already had the belief.

Isn't there an intuitive difference between *causing* someone to have a false belief in order to make a profit, and taking advantage of someone's already present false belief in order to make a profit?

Imagine if, for example, Harold Camping had his own pet insurance company and we discovered he was a closet atheist who had a lot of bills due on May 22. Would you still think criminal prosecution for fraud was a bad idea? A court wouldn't have to make any tricky judgment calls about the truth or falsity of any religious propositions. After all, May 21 has come and gone and there was no Rapture. If you could also prove that Camping was an atheist who made the whole May 21 thing up for his own gain, why not prosecute? Or is the idea that we need a bright line rule to stop the slippery slope?

Re: the comment above. I think those of us left behind post-Rapture were meant to know it by virtue of the cataclysmic events that would unfold. For instance, there was supposed to be a worldwide earthquake beginning at 6pm followed by several months of hell on Earth which would culminate in the end of time. Since nothing like that happened, we know we were Raputure-less.

Michael C. Dorf said...

1) In response to Derek, I think you have put your finger on a hard issue: Promises of concrete benefits that don't pan out. But even there, I'm troubled by a sincerity test. E.g., Agnostic is persuaded to go to Faith Healer rather than take antibiotics; Faith Healer promises cure; Agnostic dies. I agree that it feels worse where Faith Healer induced the belief in the first place, but even in that case, there are difficulties with saying that Faith Healer is okay so long as she really believes, while faking Faith Healer is not. Still, cases like this are what made me endorse the Jackson view only tentatively.

2)As to the reality of the weekend's Rapture, Andy Borowitz has an interesting theory at

CJColucci said...

You probably know about it, but there is a NY case, Pando v. Fernandez, in which F contracted with P to pray to a certain saint to ensure a winning lottery ticket, with P getting a percentage. The ticket paid off, but F wouldn't pay P, who, for purposes of the motions, was assumed to have performed the relevant prayer. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that it would be impossible to prove the efficacy of the prayer, but the Appellate Division reversed, saying that whether the prayer was efficacious or not was immaterial, as long as P actually performed the contracted-for prayer.

michael a. livingston said...

@MCD Intrade still has the Republicans at 35-40 percent (vs. 5 percent for DSK acquittal and 0 yet for Hamas recognizes Israel). And when I bet my house the odds will improve somewhat . . .

TeraGold said...

These guys are experts when it comes to agriculture in the WOW Goldto sell to other players of different amounts of money. Therefore, if you want some World Of Warcraft Gold, you know, who you turn to gold producersIt is well known that Tera Gold credits by obtaining the services of the team .

Unknown said...

kelamin pria keluar nanah cara mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah kelamin keluar nanah alat kelamin keluar cairan nanah cara mengobati kelamin keluar nanah obat penyakit sipilis

Unknown said...

pengobatan hebal wasir cara mengobati ambeien secara herbal obat wasir ampuh wasir pada wanita cara mengobati wasir cara mengobati penyakit wasir tanpa obat wasir denature

Unknown said...

pengobatan hebal wasir cara mengobati ambeien secara herbal obat wasir ampuh wasir pada wanita cara mengobati wasir cara mengobati penyakit wasir tanpa obat wasir denature

Unknown said...

obat wasir obat wasir luar obat wasir atau ambeien alami obat ambeien atau wasir herbal herbal wasir ampuh obat wasir obat wasir ampuh obat wasir untuk ibu hamil obat wasir

Unknown said...

pengobatan penyakit herpes kelamin cara mengobati herpes kelamin obat kanker obat kanker payudara

Unknown said...

Obat kencing Nanah De Nature Obat Herbal obat Kutil Kelamincara mengobati penyakit wasir obat wasir herbal denature obat wasir ambeien herpes kelamin denature