Do Jehovah's Witnesses Have The "Right" To Practice Their Religion???

by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Sacrificing babies is unlawful in the name of religion but the courts have ruled that
  refusing a blood transfusion is not necessarily illegal.

  But if the government becomes aware that WTS insists that members refuse blood
  for their babies, they will see that WTS asks it's members to sacrifice those babies
  to perpetuate their doctrine.

  Canada took the sextuplets away from the irresponsible beliefs of the parents.
  Government did not rule that the parents were criminal, but it would be wonderful if
  they could rule that WTS doctrine is criminal.

  You are really good at starting fires, Min. I like that.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  "ALL OF IT"" should be made illegal??

  Okay, you got me. "ALL OF IT" could be an overstatement. There's nothing wrong with gathering
  and discussing the Bible. Some of it doesn't need to be illegal.
• 

  found-my-way

  HOWEVER, I think it should be mandatory that any group that is actively trying to recruit others into their group, no matter what that group is (religious or not), should have to provide a written TRUTHFUL statement that covers EXACTLY what they believe, and EXACTLY what they expect from people who join their group.

  Well Said!

  If that was the case, I believe we would not be so bitter about this high control group...

  if the WTBTS was at least HONEST about their tactics and their doctrines, then we can hold the persons joining them accountable. Until that day (when pigs fly?), the organization should be held accountable for their deceit and lies.

  But yes, to stay in topic, JW's do have the right to practice their religion according to the laws of the country they are practicing in.
• 

  undercover

  do you know what tongue in cheek means?

  Ah...OTWO got me...I'm not used to him being sarcastic. He's usually a pretty straight shooter.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  I believe in individual freedom of religion. I dont believe that religious institutions should be given free reign to do whatever. I bellieve the individual should be given the freedoms.
  
  
  Therefore I dont see anything wrong with governments going after "big religion" any more than they go after "big business"
  
  
  If a religion goes against the constitution by forbidding their members the right to vote (a stronghold in our democracy) then they shouldnt be allowed tax breaks or any other perks.
• 

  minimus

  .....but the government IS aware that JWs don't give blood to their babies......SO, your point is quite flawed.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  .....but the government IS aware that JWs don't give blood to their babies......SO, your point is quite flawed.

  What point is flawed. Without looking back at the exact words, I said that it should become
  criminal, and that government needed to become aware of the dangers. The congress as a whole
  is not "aware" of the issues. Each case is taken on for it's own seriousness. No overall ruling
  has come out (in the US and many other countries) as a result of WTS refusing blood to babies.
  Yet public sentiment has taken babies away from their doctrine-practicers. Laws could come out.
  They would have to be written so as not to pinpoint the WTS, but that wouldn't be hard.

  Min, my point is that they don't have the right to do all that they do, but each violation must be
  fought one-by-one until the law changes. JW's are told not to sue their brothers, and they are
  certainly not involved in politics enough to assist in criminalizing anything WTS does.

  I don't really expect that the government will criminalize anything WTS does, but I can hope. I also
  hope that more and more civil lawsuits come up as rank-and-file wake up.
• 

  minimus

  Once again, I understand that it would be wonderful to see basic human rights extended to persons who are in a religion. But I strongly believe that most educated persons realize onr thing about JWs and that is that they won't give even their kids blood if they needed it. To hope or believe that lawyers, judges and lawmakers are completely out of touch with the machinations of the Watchtower is to think that most of these people are ignorant. JWs get away with doing whatever they have gotten away with----not because of a lack of knowledge but because the laws of the land protect them----and they know this. Hence the WT. has some bright legal minds that continue doing what they do because they can.
• 

  Blueblades

  What about, "The Tort of Misrepresentation" that was a hot topic some time back here on this forum? Is it criminal to withhold life saving information, is it criminal to misrepresent information that could save a life or take a life? The Society is being accused of this in the legal sense with the tort of misrepresentation issue.

  As to their right to practice their religion,yes they have as much right as the constitution allows any of us to have freedom of religion. However, let's not forget Jonestown and Waco. What one practices cannot infringe on or cause harm to others

  . Mini, I'm generalizing here without going into specific details such as legal verses religion issues and practices. The misrepresentation on the Blood Transfusion Debacle can be classified as criminal and the courts will decide this, as it causes and has caused the wrongful death of those trusting the Watchtower Society's information (or misinformation ) on this life saving medical procedure.

  Blueblades
• 

  minimus

  Who is misrepresenting the blood position of the Watchtower? The only thing I can say is there's so many confusing rules that a lawyer would be scratching his head too.