Suing the tower (page 7)

Indo_Dude

JunctionGuy said: "I wasnt sexually abused in the classic sense."

What exactly does that mean? You were sexually abused in a contemporary sense? A non-classical sense? If you were sexually abused by anyone in the WTBS, wouldn't you have a case?

John Doe

This is America-we deserve to have our rights upheld. We deserve to be able to worship-or not worship freely without being followed, harassed, having our businesses affected, being cut off from ourr families. Anyone who thinks it is within the rights of the JW's to treat people with such utter lack of humanity, has forgotten what country they live in. If we don't fight for that, then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Well thought out post. However, I take issue with the quoted part. I find it extremely ironic that you speak of suing to infringe religous rights under the guise of protecting religious rights. Does that not seem ironic to you? I know very well what country I live in. I live in a country that does not force groups or individuals to speak and associate with those whom they don't want to. We have the right to remain silent in the truest sense of the word.

As far as stating opinion, any discussion about what the future will bring is just that, opinion. I've got no problem with you encouraging people to protect their rights, but I caution you with giving them false hope, which, in my opinion, is unethical. I don't think you mean it to be uneithical, but if you knowingly give them hope of something that has no precedent of happening and has little to no legitimate basis for believing it will happen in the future, then you need to very carefully evaluate what you're saying.

Tired of the Hypocrisy

but if you knowingly give them hope of something that has no precedent of happening and has little to no legitimate basis for believing it will happen in the future, then you need to very carefully evaluate what you're saying.

If we all lived our lives with this sort of thinking we would never advance technologically, medically, or emotionally. I don't understand what good it is to hope for things that have precedent. Isn't that stagnation? In order to set precedent don't we have to first begin to HOPE for something without precedent?

milligal

John Doe I'm sorry I cannot figure out the quote and respond function so far. I wanted to respond to your comment about unethical behavior and providing hope against an action happening that is unrealistic. You can end this discussion by responding to me with legal research and good case law indicating that a suit filed against wtbts in each of the states would be rejected. If you cannot prove accross the board that this suit or any suit with relating issues would not be heard, then you have no argument. Once in a Judge's hands, no one can say where it would go.

Secondly, with all due respect to those of you who have posted examples of cases that have not gone through, what I cannot say loudly enough for all to hear is :

Just because one specific reuquest was put through in one state, does not mean the topic is closed or **that this example qualifies as precedence**

A) many side issues off the same topic may be filed successfully

B) diiferent courts have different leanings per the state they represent, you will get different rulings in Texas state courts both civillay and criminally than in New Jersy state courts which are typically more liberal.

Finally, I do not control anyone's response to what they read here. You can read it and take hope, or you can read it and be irritated. My main goal is that you read it and understand that factually and realistically speaking, the US legal system does not operate the way the wtbts does. Anyone can pursue an issue they see as relevant and if they have a good attorney who understand the law, the paperwork, and can argue well, they have as good a chance as anyone at success. I think I speak for many here when I say simply opening the topic for the court system and the public to examine is itself a 'win'.

Junction-Guy

It all boils down the judges and the jury's interpretation of the law.

One court may find a lawsuit to be unconstitutional and another one might not.

This has happened numerous times over the years.

One court would uphold a gun law, another would come along and declare it unconstitutional.

You can substitute the above words "gun law" with voting rights, civil rights, and the same thing has happened.

it is all a matter of how they interpret the constitution.

One state like massachussetts says gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, other states say differently.

It all depends on the political climate of where these rulings are made.

Southern bible belt states tend to back religion, Northern secular states tend to go against religion.

In a hypothetical case against the WT, we would need to find juries and judges that would be most favorable to our cause.

Gerard

church disputes can not be settled by secular courts. And last year the Supreme Court would not even entertain a review of our case.

That is not just an argument. It is the law.

Those entertaining similar fantasies, I encourage you to wake up, save your money and move on.

Junction-Guy

Or work to get their tax exempt status revoked.

Junction-Guy

There is more than one way to skin a cat, or a snake as in this instance. If you don't succeed at first--try,try again.

milligal

I think it's time for me to let this go. I just want to say in one final hurrah-everyone's right to religious freedom is important and can be upheld by law: it would be harder to prove that someone who chose to be a JW THEN got df'd has suffered the same amount of victimization as someone who was raised a JW and later shunned for choosing another way of life. I find it interesting that none of the naysayers so far, have specifically commented on the basis of a law suit defendeding the right to religous freedom of minors in this situation.

Yes, it would cost money, time, effort, energy etc. etc. I think we all agree on this. However, the wtbts is not the messenger of God and somehow devoid of public responsibility for their actions against the civil rights of the American public. I would just ask those with such strong opinions against 'suing the tower' to consider whether this "feeling" (as this is all you've shown me it is) is based upon your prior doctrinization into the cult and not wanting to be called apostate or anything close because of JW relatives....I could be way off on that one.

Thanks for a lively exchange.

Suing the tower

Share this