Should religious claims be tried in court?

by sleepy 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sleepy

  Most people of the western world believe that the freedom to speak and express your opinion is a fundemental "right" of humans.
  But how far can free speech go?

  What if I owned a cigarette firm, and I wanted to say on the packet, "somking is very benifical for you"
  Am I using my right to free speech, or am I misleading other people?
  Who decides what is free speech and what is bigotry or lies?
  Well we rely on the governments of our respective countries, which we vote in, which have authority to say through the law and justice system what is true and what is false on the basis of scientific evidence.
  And of cource ,cigarette companies have been sued for misleading comments, when they knew smoking is harmful but didn't make it known.

  But what about religious claims?
  Should the fact that the governing body knows of doubts regarding 607 and 1914,and witholding that information be considered dishonest?
  These claims effect people lives as much as somking , should we have a system where we could evaluate the claims of religions .Dishonest statments from religious groups could be expossed in court and the guilty party punished.
  Should we be willing to let our free speech be checked by courts , in order to weed out those who are dihonest or too lazy to check out the facts?
  Or put another way , should our governments do more in controlling religions.
• 

  Ranchette

  When a religion violates human rights I think they should be fair game in the courts.

  edited to answer your question should our governments do more in controlling religions?

  I don't want to see govs in control of religion but I would like to see govs hold religions accountable for their actions.

  Ranchette
  
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Sleepy:

  In the USA, freedom of speech has never meant being protected when abusing that right. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is punishable in most states. Joking about hijacking while waiting to board a flight is a federal crime, a serious felony, even more so since Sept. 11. Slandering someone with lies a civil offense, for which there is case law precedent available to Plaintiffs.

  The tobacco companies were not put out of business, but they are regulated, and for the last 35 years have had to post the standard "Surgeon General" warning as a disclosure on each pack of cigarettes. Freedom of Speech means freedom to speak the truth, political ideas, and act responsibly.

  Freedom of Religion: Is doubly protected, by the freedom of speech, and freedom to practice one's religion. That said, however, I believe that the time has come to force religions to publish, as minium, "Disclosures" about their history, doctrine, policies, procedures, practices, and case law that they have won and lost; such that new potential converts are afforded clear and uninhibited access to the pro and con information so that they can make an "Informed" decision ... then if they want to join some group like the JWs ... they can be my guest.
• 

  alamb

  A number of cases which have gone as far as the Supreme Court have cited that religion cannot be sanctioned in any way under the civil right to freedom of religion.
  However, the practices of such can be ruled against if they are proven harmful.
  Give me a minute, I'll find some.
• 

  ISP

  I think the courts have enough crap in them without debating the 607 stuff.etc. Where do you draw the line? I take the view that the Jesus 'gospel' was basically invented and put together in the second century. It is all a hoax. If people want to believe in Jesus stuff...thats upto them.

  ISP
• 

  chappy

  I agree with Ranchette. They should be held accountable for their actions. There are many subjective areas where claims made by religions (they "talk with God" etc.) where the courts should stay away. People need to use their common sense.

  chappy
• 

  Francois

  The long and short of this argument is the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."

  Any questions about the meaning of "NO"?

  Francois
• 

  alamb

  I may be the exception, but I have a signed court order:

  "The Court must insist that the children will not be exposed to any shunning of their mother, whether by the congregation of elders or any other person or body......this Court has found the children's relationship with their mother has been severely damaged by the practice of shunning as has occurred in the presence of these children. The Court finds that the harm from shunning in this case, given the other manipulations and harmful conduct these children have been subjeted to, would continue to create emotional and psychological damages which would impede the bonding with their mother. It will not be tolerated further in this case so long as it interferes with the children's bonding with their mother....In summary, shunning must cease immediately because these children have already been harmed by the practice. Though the Jehovah's Witness Church has the right to shun certain individuals, in this case, the practice has damaged small children."

  How's that for first amendment? The judge ruled the practice was damaging to my relationship with my children, and that was that.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Is not the Catholic Church being held accountable at this time for pedophile priests? No one is infringing on their religious beliefs or rights, but they are being held accountable.

  Likewise, if a doctrine or practice of the JWs is causing harm to many, it should also be scrutinized and they too should be held accountable. A law need not be passed, but everyone is entitled to their day in court.

  To sue over no holidays would be ridiculous, but to sue over harrassment and possibly causing suicides because of archaic and mean spirited practices, is another story, in my opinion.

  Like I said once before, Tobacco companies don't put the cigarette in your mouth or light it, but they are held responsible for what manufactire. If the JWs manufacture discontent and their practice of shunning is causing harm, they too should be held accountable.

  If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
• 

  alamb

  Courtesy of Rick Ross:

  In Bentley v. Bentley, a case very similar to LeDoux "Affirmed a visitation modification prohibiting the non-custodial father from teaching his children the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses and taking them to the sect's religious functions." Because they were being raised as Catholics by the custodial mother, the judge concluded they would be "emotionally strained and torn" as a result of the conflict (Mangrum, 1991, p.483).

  In the case of Mendez versus Mendez, Judge Philip W. Knight admitted that, "Religion was a very strong determining factor" in his 1985 decision awarding custody to Ignacio Mendez, the non-Witness parent, instead of Rita Mendez, the mother and Witness parent. In this case, the judge ruled that he did not want the daughter, Rebecca, to grow up "Confused and possibly hurt by the tug between the faiths of the mother and father, concluding that it is best to have one set of beliefs reigning in her life." Also important in the case was the Jehovah's Witness prohibition against blood transfusion. The judge felt these beliefs were so detrimental that he ordered the Witness mother not to expose their child to any teaching contrary to Catholicism, nor is she allowed to permit anyone else to do so.

  A March 18, 1993 Wisconsin 4th District Court of Appeals ruling upheld a court ruling that prevented the non-custodial parent from imposing his religious views on his children. The father, Robert Langue, now must visit his three daughters, ages 6, 9 and 11, only if supervised by a social worker to insure that he does not try in impose his "religious views on the children."

  A November 1993 Canadian Supreme court ruling in Young versus Young upheld the court's right to prohibit a non-custodial parent form indoctrinating and even proselytizing his child in the Watchover theology and lifestyle (See Canadian Press Report in Spectator, Jan 26, 1993 - see also Plouffe versus Plouffe)

  In LeDoux the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on appeal a district court divorce decree that ordered the non-custodial father, a Jehovah's Witness, "to refrain from exposing or permitting any other person to expose his minor children to any religious practices or teachings inconsistent with the Catholic religion." In a concurring opinion, Judge Grant emphasized the possible breadth of the decision by opining: "I do not see how one parent with one set of religious beliefs can raise their minor children with full training and instruction in each parent's beliefs without reducing their minor children to a totally confused, psychologically disastrous state" (at 487, 452 N. W. 2d) (Grant, J., concurring, joined by Hastings, C.J., and Boslaugh, J.)

  Many judges are leery of bringing the issue of religion into the courtroom, and will often not openly assign custody on the basis of religion. Some prefer that it not even be discussed in their court. It must be stressed that the actual concern is not religious doctrine but the lifestyle that the Watchtower requires, and especially the disastrous psychological consequences of this lifestyle