A Premise to Sue the WBTS

by tula 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tula

  "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling,1992.

  So why hasn't anybody done anything to further this?

  Three of the most significant cases regarding ex-cult members and their families pursuing remedies in tort for damages have been decided in California in the last two years. These cases show that the legal arguments for restricting cult activities are having an impact on the courts.

  For the first time a major court, without having to face the "brainwashing" issue as a cause of action, has accepted the premise that religious indoctrination can cause potential converts to lose the free exercise of their will and, in consequence, can sue for damages. [35] This represents a major coup for future plaintiffs in similar actions, particularly in light of the court's analysis of the First Amendment issues and its reliance on the work of Lifton, Delgado, Schein and Singer in making important distinctions within that analysis.

  http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/van_hoey_sara_cults_in_court.htm
• 

  Tatiana

  hmmmm...good point.
• 

  jst2laws

  How CAN this be furthered?

  It is talking about the limitations of government, not the limitations of religion.

  As for religion, nearly all "convey a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs"

  Steve
• 

  Gopher

  Robert Lee was a principal at a middle school, who wanted a prayer said at the 1989 graduation ceremony there. Weismans were parents who objected, using the "establishment" clause of the constitution.

  The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Weismans. The school is funded by the government, and as Blackmun said, if you introduce a religious act into it, you are favoring one over others.

  We're a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. You cannot have one religion calling the shots.

  I don't believe that this ruling would connect with WTS activities, however.
• 

  Uzzah

  One suit that has great potential of succeeding (in my not so humble opinion) would be the judicial punishment of a baptized minor.

  A minor cannot agree to a legal contract (such as membership) and therefore cannot be held liable for forfeiture or punishment. A minor who is disfellowshipped could have legal standing against the elders and Society.

  My thoughts only.
• 

  Gopher

  Uzzah,

  That might work, especially if one or both parents of that DF'd minor were non-JW. And the DF'd one would have to be mentally "out" of the religion and ready to help take it on.

  The JW's would still shun that person, but the WTS would suffer a legal and financial setback. Then maybe the WTS wouldn't be so eager to baptize 9-year-olds after a case like that.
• 

  tula

  Jst2laws...boy am I glad to see you are still around and lurking! Glad this post called you out of the woodwork. I know you have been through the laws forward and backward and many ordeals. I read all your postings a good while back. You are quite the warrior. Hope you'll check back as I may be adding questions to this thread. Thanks.

  for Uzzah:

  Suits based on disclosure of confidential information.
  Recently a church member brought suit claiming that his pastor had revealed confidential information about him when announcing disciplinary action against him for divisiveness. The court ruled against the man because it could establish that he had consented to subject himself to discipline at the time he became a church member. Nonetheless, a church can expose itself to charges of invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress by making public information that should be kept private.

  What I do wonder is this:

  By engaging in the attempt of "thought reform" and in so doing, counseling minors, could this not be considered practicing psychology without license or adequate training? Would this not be child endangerment from a psychological standpoint?

  I am also looking for any research studies that can verify that their tactics and their methods inflict extreme emotional distress and psychological duress and can and have lead to a number of mental illnesses by inflicting such harm.
• 

  changeling

  Good point Uzza. I've seen way too many minors suffer the stigma and ostracism of being DF'd.

  To be alienated when they need love and fellowship the most. It's emotional torture. Abuse, plain and simple.

  The witness obsession with "keeping the cong. clean" has messed up many a young person's life.

  changeling
• 

  tula

  Harms associated with cultic groups have been addressed through various forms of self-help, conservatorship, habeas corpus proceedings, consumer protection legislation, and litigation. First Amendment concerns loom large in such remedies. This paper reviews three important instances of litigation: Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology. These and other cases indicate that self-proclaimed religious organizations are heading towards a time of greater accountability. Juries tend to be sympathetic toward plaintiffs, though courts seem unwilling to enforce judgments so large they threaten a group's existence.

  It's not just the JWs and the problem is bigger than you think!!!

  The cult problem, however, is ongoing and ever-growing, and remains a threat to America's young people. One anti-cult organization estimates that there are more than 2,500 cults and other "destructive totalist" organizations now active in the United States, and these groups control approximately six million members. [2]

  Combating the cults presents its own problems. Those seeking to hold cults accountable for their actions against individual members inevitably clash with the cults' assertion of their fundamental right to religious liberty. The courts have tackled these competing interests in several recent cases with results that may give hope to critics of cult groups. But the battles are far from over.

  Psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton describes eight basic characteristics of brainwashing in his study of Chinese totalitarian control: "Milieu Control, Mystical Manipulation, Demand for Purity, Cult of Confession, Sacred Science, Loading of Language, Doctrine Over Person, and Dispensing of Existence. [9] These elements are accepted by cult experts as being applicable to modern cults, and the Lifton model of brainwashing is currently used by attorneys pursuing cults in formulating statements of fact and educating the court. [10]

  The newer programs attack a person's self-image, sense of reality and of existence, making the individual feel personally defective. "Alter the self or perish" is the motto. [13] Once fundamental coping mechanisms are tampered with or stripped away, psychosis can result.
• 

  Rosalee

  jst2laws:

  Hi Steve ... we used to have some good conversations 'a while back' when I posted under another name. I appreciate your stand and wonder if you still feel the same way. Ever hear from Joel? Always felt maybe you were throwing the baby out with the bath water. Anyway good to 'see' you again ...

  Take care ... Rose ;)