ACLU v. Watchtower? Help, advice and suggestions appreciated.

by Fernando 10 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Fernando

  This email was sent to the ACLU today. Hopefully they are able to respond despite high volume of requests.

  ---

  ----- Original Message ----- From: To:[email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 10:17 AM Subject: West Virginia v. Barnette (Religious Freedom) Louise Melling Director Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief The Center for Liberty American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York NY 10004 212-549-2500 Dear Director Melling

  Please can you advise if we have correctly interpreted West Virginia v. Barnette below (1). The section in square brackets is our interpretation.

  We are interested in the implications for dissenters or conscientious objectors within the Jehovah's Witnesses religion who are not free to leave the religion without losing more than most people can imagine. These internal minorities, although possibly numbering into the millions of individuals, do not enjoy the freedom of religion secured and appropriated by the megalomaniac and corrupt Watchtower organisation for itself.

  This is also in hypocritical violation of the freedom of the individual that the Watchtower demands (2) for adherents of OTHER religions to make unhindered personal choices about their personal religious orientation and future without fear of being undermined, discredited, ostracised, vilified, labelled, and slandered as an apostate or heretic by their family and community, and without losing their credibility, jobs, and businesses. The section in square brackets is again our interpretation.

  The exclusivist and supremacist Watchtower is a surreptitious and abusive enemy of hope, connectivity, social inclusivity, freedom and equality and consequently of mental health and consequently of healthy societies.

  The Watchtower is one of the most aggressive and divisive supremacist organisations in society as evidenced by their vitriolic and malicious contempt for those who do not (or no longer) embrace their rampant and supremacist legalism, moralism, ethnocentrism, and Gnosticism.

  The Watchtower is itself a grotesquely exaggerated caricature of all the disturbing and Kafkaesque elements they repeatedly and frequently decry in OTHER Pharisaical religions and religionists.

  If the Watchtower is "the truth" and practice genuine love as they claim, why do they have to use draconian measures to coerce people to stay against their free will? Why do you have to lose your parents, children, family and friends if you no longer agree with the Watchtower? How many other religions do the same?

  I look forward to learning of the ACLU position on the abuse and denial of INDIVIDUAL religious freedom. Kind regards Signed Director Business name

  ---

  1. The first great Supreme Court freedom of religion case was decided in the middle of World War II in West Virginia v. Barnette. In one of the Court's most frequently quoted passages it said: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, [religious or secular,] high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force [any] citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." ( http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-freedom-religion-and-belief )
  2. The Watchtower Society's July 2009 Awake (pages 28 and 29) says in relation to those it seeks to recruit away from their religion: “Since our Creator wants us to search for truth, it cannot be wrong to act on the evidence that we find – even if this means changing our religion” and “No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family [or friends]”.

  ---

  Any help, advice or suggestions appreciated...
• 

  Band on the Run

  I've worked for the ACLU at the national and local level. It would be a miracle if they would do more than refer to you another organization. I referred letters all day for a while. Your email is very impressive. The ACLU does not take individual cases. They have a politcal/legal agenda and they pick cases very carefully. The ACLU loves representing the poor, downtrodden and politcally marginal. They will not want to become involved in internal religious matters.

  This is the best written defense of individuals needing First Amendment protection from large religion that I have read. Europe has a different view. Religions are seen as positive in this country. My specialty involves the Establishment Clause, which is usually referred to as separation of church and state. The advent of Catholic conservative justices has drastically changed jurisprudence since the Warren Court. Public funds are regularly used to fund religious missions. Notre Dame students receive govt. scholarships to teach in Catholic school. It chills my blood.

  There are two basic views of the Establishment Clause. Separatist is the position carved by the Warren Court. School prayer was banned. The Catholic justices make up the Accomodationst wing, which actually encourages mingling of church and state, except in extreme cases.

  I would not give up hope if the ACLU is not responsive. The public needs to read such well-written arguments. Const'l law would have to change drastically in the U.S. for this to work. Civil rights cases take decades. Jim Crow was not dismantled over night.

  A few months ago I would have thought this email was total bunk. Reading posts here has changed my position somewhat. If I can be changed, perhaps others can too. It is not a valid legal argument but it is a start. Media is the best place to argue this position. Recently, I've written about ways to respect the First Amendment and its current interpretation but taking political action to detour around legal concepts. Public hearings, etc. would go a long way to changing the climate. Neutral laws not targeting any specific religion are but protecting people from cults might work. You are paddling upstream but someone should.

  Maybe I will be wrong about the ACLU.
• 

  Fernando

  Many thanks. Much appreciated. Invaluable insider insight. And thank you too for the kind, encouraging and affirming words and validation - being human we all need this from time to time just to keep going.

  Any further suggestions including possible referrals as to "media" and "public hearings" will again be valued and useful. I am not in the legal or media professions.

  Best wishes.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Media and marketing are not my forte. Someplace I have a campaign camp book that gives illustrations of letters to the editor, etc. You probably wnat to start on local shows and build from there. Many magazines accept articles from readers. Harping about the First Amendment is not productive. I would argue something along the lines that robust democracies with long traditions of religious freedom acknowledge that individuals need protection from religoin as much as religion needs protection the state. Cults embrace high mind control techniques, regardless of religious affiliation. The Moonies had a long run making their point. Scinetology is another one. Religious doctrine does not define a cult.

  It will be a voice crying out in the wilderness but someone must lead the way.I will read my materials in the next few days and try to scan them. Abolitionists were treated as fruit loops in the beginning but they picked up steam.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  I think more letters such as the above need to go to many many more organizations, bravo

  My only critique is that is comes accross bitter. In particular i think these parts are too emotional and refer to the Watchtower in terms that mean little to others. It reads as an angry rant of a disgruntled ex member. When addressing entities that we hope will take up our cause it is better to use more legalistic terminology, drawing attention to where the Watchtower has broken laws rather than its own strange and unique rules.

  I hope i have not offended you, and i dont mean to tell you how to raise your cause. The things you said need to be said, just i would have used a different set of words i guess!

  the megalomaniac and corrupt Watchtower organisation for itself.

  hypocritical

  without fear of being undermined, discredited, ostracised, vilified, labelled, and slandered as an apostate or heretic by their family and community, and without losing their credibility, jobs, and businesses.

  The exclusivist and supremacist Watchtower is a surreptitious and abusive enemy of hope, connectivity, social inclusivity, freedom and equality and consequently of mental health and consequently of healthy societies.

  The Watchtower is one of the most aggressive and divisive supremacist organisations in society as evidenced by their vitriolic and malicious contempt for those who do not (or no longer) embrace their rampant and supremacist legalism, moralism, ethnocentrism, and Gnosticism.

  The Watchtower is itself a grotesquely exaggerated caricature of all the disturbing and Kafkaesque elements they repeatedly and frequently decry in OTHER Pharisaical religions and religionists.

  If the Watchtower is "the truth" and practice genuine love as they claim, why do they have to use draconian measures to coerce people to stay against their free will?

  OZ
• 

  Terry

  I would think your argument is more nearly valid if you are a born in than if you are a convert.

  Why? A born-in has never made a conscious evaluation from a neutral perspective.

  A convert intellectually agrees to the boiler-plate policy upfront.

  The dodge concerning having an orthodoxy prescribed by a high or petty official is that the source authority is divine and that the official is merely the "messenger" of said source. An "organization" that has no restrictions, parameters, exclusionary boundries, etc. isn't really organized at all.

  It is a balancing act (with emphasis on the word "act") for the religious leaders.

  They will arrogate authority until it is time to own up to blowback for ill-conceived policies at which time they revert to suddenly becoming only human.

  Worship and orthodoxy are really defined in terms of free will, voluntary intellectual agreement.

  A church, congregation or house of worship provides benefits as community of like-minded volunteers.

  The odd-man-out who cannot continue the contract (but wishes to continue to receive benefits of association) creates an abrasive discord that no other sort of organized group could or would tolerate.

  The courts will abstain on the basis of jurisdiction.
• 

  Fernando

  @Aussie Oz. Thanks for the different perspective. No offense taken. On reflection I can actually see what you are saying. And certainly those who are not as familiar as us with the Watchtower can easily get caught up in the emotional rant part and dismiss the entire matter as just one rather disgruntled ex member and thereby totally miss the point. Communication and reaching the hearts of a broader audience is an art that gets better by taking all feedback on board. Much appreciated. Maybe if a few persons wrote a similar letter from their own perspective we would be able to cover all bases in terms of communication styles and possibly even synthesize into one universal letter with the broadest possible target audience.

  @Terry. Thank you for articulating so well what we all have experienced but sometimes struggle to explain. A great description of the state of play and the inherent catch-22s. The costs to society of this kind of duplicity, irrationality and insanity on so many fronts and levels continue to mount. The same issues are for example stealthily playing out in HealthCare as evidenced by the Economic big picture numbers. Either we see it in time to set matters straight or we go the way so many before us in history have - over the edge of the precipice.

  @Band on the Run. "I would argue something along the lines that robust democracies with long traditions of religious freedom acknowledge that individuals need protection from religoin as much as religion needs protection the state". Sure sounds like a rational and reasonable outcome to pursue and appeal for.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Maybe if a few persons wrote a similar letter from their own perspective we would be able to cover all bases in terms of communication styles and possibly even synthesize into one universal letter with the broadest possible target audience. Hi Fernando...how's this sound then? oz Dear Director Melling

  Please can you advise if we have correctly interpreted West Virginia v. Barnette below (1). The section in square brackets is our interpretation.

  We are interested in the implications for members within the Jehovah's Witnesses religion as the majority are not free to leave the religion without losing more than most people can imagine. These internal minorities, although possibly numbering into the millions of individuals, are denied the freedom of religion secured and appropriated by the Watchtower organisation for itself.

  This is in violation of the freedom of the individual and is a double standard, as the Watchtower openly calls (2) for adherents of other religions to be free to choose their religion and to even leave it without fear of being discredited, ostracised, labelled, and shunned as a heretic by their family and community, while among Jehovah's Witnesses those who seek to exercize the above freedom lose their family, friends, social network and some even jobs, and businesses. The section in square brackets is again our interpretation.

  There is much evidence that the Watchtower is an organization that abuses its own members rights to freedom of religion, hope, connectivity, social inclusivity, and equality and consequently severely effects the mental health of those who disagree with its teachings. By extension, it is also a danger to the health of future converts.

  The Watchtower has a record of being one of the most divisive organisations in society as evidenced by their shunning policy displaying contempt for those who do not (or no longer) embrace their particular brand of faith.

  We would like the ACLU to question why the Watchtower uses draconian measures to coerce people to stay against their free will. Investigation is needed as to why members are told to shun parents, children, family and friends if they no longer agree with the Watchtower Society's teachings. Other religions that practice this are already under scrutiny in many countries.

  I look forward to learning of the ACLU position on the abuse and denial of INDIVIDUAL religious freedom. Kind regards Signed Director Business name
• 

  Fernando

  Aussie Oz - Thank you very much for that. Much better and more credible. Best wishes.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  You are welcome Fernando, happy to have helped in some way.

  Oz

  ps, i do think that a great many organizations need to recieve letters such as the above