JW Child Labor--Prince v. Massachusetts

by JAVA 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • JAVA
    JAVA

    While doing some research, I came across a United States Supreme Court case the Society lost in 1944 on the topic of child labor. The two paragraphs below are from, Odd Gods, New Religions & the Cult Controversy, edited by James R. Lewis, Prometheus Books, New York, 2001, pp. 78-9.

    "One of the earliest cases involving children in a religious setting was Prince v. Massachusetts (1944). Ms. Prince, a Jehovah's Witness, was the custodian of her nine-year-old niece. She was convicted of violating state child-labor laws for taking her niece with her to sell religious literature. The United States Supreme Court upheld her conviction. It stated that 'the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. . . . [N]either rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.'

    The state has an interest in protecting juveniles under its traditional role as parens patriae (literally, 'parent of the country,' referring to the state's sovereign role as guardian of persons under legal disability). The state's interest is in restricting any conduct that is harmful to the child. 'The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare; . . . this includes, to some extent, matter of conscience and religious conviction.' The court indicated that parents could become martyrs if they wanted to, but they did not have the right to make martyrs of their children and subject them to emotional, psychological, or physical injury. The court left no doubt that if a judge perceives that a religious practice or religious belief may be harmful to a child, the court can and will restrict the religious conduct."

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    JAVA,

    I see that you digging up some old story. I thought Randy Watters and Kent Steinhaug are the only fools who does it. Well, you can't beat them you join them.

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    I see that you digging up some old story. I thought Randy Watters and Kent Steinhaug are the only fools who does it. Well, you can't beat them you join them.

    That's right, Fred, it's better that we should cover up the dirt in the Watchtower's history. That way they can continue to deceive everyone with their lies. You know, like the Proclaimers book.

    Tom
    "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    Madman,

    Why don't you get off the couch and do something postive?

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    There is such a need, in my opinion, for a website just for this. JW and the law.

    There is such a need to counter the assinine claim they make about "getting rights for everybody". Yeah, right.

    In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"

  • Valentine
    Valentine

    Hi Java,
    Excellent find there! And quite applicable to jw children.Thanks!hugs,Tina

  • belbab
    belbab

    Great discovery, Java, it has to be a goldmine. It was posted at 15:52, Fred is trying to hi-jack the thread at 15:55. What took you so long Fred, it took three minutes for you to move your ass.

    So this has to be good, Java, I think you hit a sore spot for the GB.

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    Madman,
    Why don't you get off the couch and do something postive?

    You sound like my ex-wife... [8>]

    What did you have in mind, Fred? Does your kitty litter need changing?

    Tom
    "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    belbab,

    Stop checking my ass out!!!!

  • sunscapes
    sunscapes

    The WTS has got to know that they're in bad company when the ACLU files a brief of amicus curae in support of the WTS appeal to the Supreme Court of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case vs. Stratton, Ohio involving the right for anonymity when going door-to-door.

    Sure, when it benefits THEM, they want anonymity, but hey, when it comes to the sheep, spying of all sorts is fair game.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit