In all fairness, people are being hurt by the double standard that is protected under the Constitutional banner " Freedom of Religion". While the intent of this law is to protect the "believer" and to level the playing field for all religions, there is another effect and that is to empower a religion to exercise authority over its membership that violates their civil and human rights. This dilemma has become accute since the advent of psychology and proselytizing techniques have been conformed to what is known about the human mind. Therefore , full disclosure would confront the dilemma in that it would sensitize the potential convert from THE BEGINNING. Additionaly, potential legislation would "encourage" religious organizations to "clean up their acts" while they fiercely lobby against such a bill.
Press Release
by JohnJBB123 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bluesapphire
Suddha... I have been saying this for years. In any business there has to be disclosure for a contract to be valid or it is fraud. It should be the same for religions that proselytize. But how do we accomplish this? Can you elaborate?
-
Siddhashunyata
It can be accomplished with: (1) A local ordinance and, ultimately.....(2) Arguments before the Supreme Court that show : In these times of psycho-techno techniques, it is UNREASONABLE to place full responsibility on potential converts to forsee the effects of a SERIES of doctrinal and procedural AGREEMENTS and to anticipate the punitive effects of changes of conscience and belief.....(3) Request a remedy that enables the court to act within the parameters of "Freedom of Religion" and " Separation of Church and State ". That remedy is " Full Disclosure"............ Regarding the local ordinance: Cases with adverse judgment, Cases where rights were violated and noted but responsibility was placed on the plaintiff and, Cases pending , these are the qualifying reasons for "Full Disclosure". All cases dealing with violation of human and civil rights................Regarding the Supreme Court: Arguments to the court must center around the unreasonableness of requiring the potential convert to inform himself. Considering that many people do not know their Civil and Human Rights nor are they capable of forseeing changes of conscience or estimating the procedures and application of religious rules and tenets to their future actions or belief, nor are they capable of defending against sophisticated psychological techniques, it seems reasonable to conclude that they need help. Full Disclosure offers a reasonable compromise because nothing changes. There is simply disclosure where potential conflicts and Loss of Rights occur. ................. Regarding Full Disclosure: This cannot be argued under the Law of Contracts because the implications are too far reaching respecting "Freedom of Religion" and " Seperation of Church and State ". The Law of Contracts puts control squarely in the hands of the State and neither the state nor the people want that as evinced by the cases lost to the W. T. where human rights are actually violated. At present, the onus is on the potential convert to protect himself, sort of a "caveat emptor" atmosphere. The court must see that this is not reasonable and that a "religion " must operate in an atmosphere of "responsibility" for the entire gamut of what it is "offering".....................Full Disclosure promises to make religion a better servant of man without direct involvement of the state. Think of the effect of Full Disclosure on existing members, potential members and, on the style and character of the religious organization itself. Changes that would take 50 to 100 years would take place practically overnight.
-
JohnJBB123
Siddhashunyata,
How should we proceed with this disclosure plan?
-
Siddhashunyata
Are you saying that you do not have the power to pass a local ordinance requiring Full Disclosure by organizations that meet the qualifying reasons for Full Disclosure? I do not. Nor do I have the resources to pursue the issue to the Supreme Court. Why are we doing this?
-
JohnJBB123
Siddhashunyata,
There is no "I" in team, as they say. I am simply asking for your ideas on this matter. All of us have to unite to do this. We cannot stand alone. You appear to have some knowledge of certain circumstances and policies I do not have. My approach was somewhat different from yours. I simply value your input.
-
Siddhashunyata
John , With respect, what was your approach?
-
JohnJBB123
Siddhashunyata,
My approach was to look into petitioning the UN. If an effective remedy cannot be brought about by the courts of a country, then an organization can petition the UN on behalf of a group of people. Would you consider being on the Human Rights Committee in the human services area of Approaches To Education. I value your input
-
Siddhashunyata
John, thankyou.,very gracious. May I answer you more fully in a few days? ...........Also,may THIS continue to inspire you John , " We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and INVADES THE SPHERE OF INTELLECT AND SPIRIT (caps mine) which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from official control." Justice Robert H. Jackson, June 14, 1943. And one more John,...."No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo
-
JohnJBB123
Siddhashunyata,
I would like to invite you to join our Human Rights Commmittee. I think your advice would benefit us