by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals
I have to like a philosophy-professor who would use the phrase:
"Jehovah Witnesses are often very nice people, certainly well mannered and often dressed spiffily. But their idea on the merits of blood transfusions is really, really perverse
I think that is totally, totally rad!
lol... Auld Soul... You are trying to reason with a guy in the marketing department...
Jeannie
The Supreme Court has never held that religious liberty granted under the First Amendment be absolute: e.g. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) "[L]aws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may interfere with practice." Id. at 166.
This is correct and is the key why this will. Compelling state interests have always superceded as long as meeting state interests does not impinge the free exercise of religion within the bounds of law or establish religion.
The state has compelling interest in punishing deliberate misrepresentation of secular (in this case, medical) facts through any fiduciary role to its citizens, with reckless disregard for the consequences. In this particular case, it may very well have an interest in punishing a religious organization who presumed to provide misrepresented medical facts and purported to provide these facts as basis for informed consent.
AuldSoul
It is true that under the provisions of Yoder, the WTS would attempt to force the state to "prove" that there be "compelling state interests". And I agree that the deaths of thousands of children because of decisions based (at least) in part on intentionally misleading statements of the WTS would likely be considered a "compelling state interest". However, I was attempting to illustrate that the Sherbert test -- especially as broadly defined in Yoder -- would not likely even be considered relevant or material in light of Smith.
Even if this were to prove untenable in the courts, the WTS may sustain significant damage simply because it would be very negative publicity: publicity regarding an emotional issue. (Here we may safely ignore the glowing WTS prose regarding the Witness message 'blanketing the earth' -- fact is, the public knows precious little about Watchtower teachings, with the exception of the dogma regarding blood transfusions.)
It is my considered opinion that the Society has something about which to worry.
I am very much in agreement with your considered opinion.
AuldSoul
Ouldsoul wrote:
"Enigma One, you naivety is touching. There have been six lawyers (that I know of) who have given their opinions in this informal discussion forum. Two have identified themselves as lawyers. A third lawyer identified herself but did not give an opinion, uber-postive or otherwise"
Lawyers are like sharks...most of the time, you don't even know they are swimming right underneath your feet! Keep swimming, Enigma One. Enigma One, I want you to post your thougths after you read the article.
Skeeter1
p.s. Ouldsoul is doing a GREAT job!
While I await my hardcopy of the JCS, I thought I'd review How Can Blood Save Your Life. What does it say/imply about its medical veracity?
At the very start it states, "As you will see, the medical and moral aspects of using blood bear directly on how you can save your most valued possession: LIFE". A few pages later it says, "Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood"
This brochure implies that it gives the facts! After all, isn't this "the Truth" religion. Then, the Society starts to give its medical advice. I can't wait to get this paper as it will show us how much the Society misrepresents the facts.
This brochure was written in the early 1990's. Fractions were around then, and were "accepted" by JWs. But, the medical alternative section does not mention them. The German man doesn't accept them in his blood card...and it shows his medical card But, right near the end of the brochure...the Society admits that JWs accept fractions. Shouldn't this be disclosed in the medical alternative section? Why bury it at the end, folks? Why be contradictory - accepted on one page and excepted on the other?
Auldsoul is right in that misrepresentation does not need to come only from economic transactions. Read Molko v. Unification Church out of the California Supreme Court. It's basic holding is that churches can not make misrepresentations (ESPECIALLY BIG ONES) when it's recruiting folks into a belief set without being held liable. I wonder if this is part of what this journal article hinges on....
I remember when I was indoctrinated, the blood issue was "saved for last...until the [recruit] had developed an appreciation for the Truth." Why was this the case? So, I'd accept what was "presented" to me without question. Once that hurdle was over, it was off to the doorbells...
So, how many more days until I get my copy?
Skeeter1
I do not have a problem with bringing our attention to a news story or a law student's view on WTS policy on blood transfusion. What ticks me off is that it was more than hinted to be 'bigger than Dateline, NBC...'. If this amateurish essay draws media attention, or if it results in a successful ruling against WTS I'll be glad. What's next we're gonna hear? That we 'read into it' and it was our own fault for expecting the end of WBTS? Sounds familiar?
I know it sounds harsh but why not just tell everyone to expect some news but not prefix it with 'big' and let the readers decide if it's really big or not?
"amateurish essay" ? Be careful, your IQ is showing.
AuldSoul wrote:his field of law does not brush against tort law as applied to religion, whereas the student who wrote the piece is specializing in that niche
According to Ms Louderback-Wood's profile at her law firm, she specializes in Business and Taxation Law.
Of course, the reviewers who approved the article are undoubtedly specialists in the field of law and religion. But the author herself is not.
