Should religious claims be tried in court?

by sleepy 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Elsewhere

  American courts take freedom of religion very far. Bottom line, the courts cannot interfere with the inner workings of a religion or religious organization. The only time a court can step in is if a secular law is broken: Tax evasion, improper permits while constructing something, fire codes, murder, child molestation, etc...

  The courts view "ecclesiastical law" to be internal to the religion and untouchable by the secular courts. Their reasoning is that you voluntarily subject yourself to the "ecclesiastical laws and courts" of a religion. They say that if you don’t like the laws, then leave.

  They have a valid point, but I must admit that it fails to take into consideration religions that are very controlling and divisive (JWs).

  Freedom is great, and I would not want to give it up, but it does have its price.

  Hell, if you don't like the JWs, legally form your own religion... just get a lawyer and have him file the proper paperwork and Bam! You're a messiah! It’s that easy, and the courts cannot touch your teachings. Ain’t America great?!

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  Elsewhere

  alamb,

  YOU GO GIRL!!!

  "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
  Believe in yourself, not mythology.
  <x ><
• 

  Valis

  I think they should be resolved in Judge Judy's court room...she wouldn't put up w/any excuses...

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  Ranchette

  Freedom of religion is a great thing but there should be limits.

  What do I mean by this?

  If freedom of religion starts running over or incringing on any other
  Constitutional right or rights then that freedom has gone too far.

  Something is terribly wrong when we fight to uphold one of our rights and allow just that one right to run amuck and destroy and disrespect all the others!

  Does anyone understand this?

  I'm not talking about arguing bible doctrine in the courts.

  Ranchette
  
• 

  chezza

  Wow alamb,
  Good for you, just a question though how did they respond to the court order? My children live half with me half with their father and they still go to the meetings with their dad, although my own family shun me they go out of their way to let my kids know they dont have to talk to me because jehovah doesnt like it, and they even told my kids that i am dead in jehovahs eyes. Wish i had this court order.
• 

  bluesapphire

  ((((alamb)))) BRAVO!!

  How did you get such a document? You are today's hero!
• 

  bluesapphire

  The courts view "ecclesiastical law" to be internal to the religion and untouchable by the secular courts. Their reasoning is that you voluntarily subject yourself to the "ecclesiastical laws and courts" of a religion. They say that if you don’t like the laws, then leave.

  They have a valid point, but I must admit that it fails to take into consideration religions that are very controlling and divisive (JWs).

  People voluntarily subject themselves to a belief system. But a religion still needs to be upfront and honest about itself or it is fraudulent. I think we need to focus more on the fraud aspect. For example, who here was told that if they changed their mind about their beliefs they would lose their family and friends?

  They white-wash their past and outright lie about their teachings to their bible studies. I remember being told I was free to leave at any time when I was studying. How untrue is that? I am not free to leave. If I were, I could ask for my publisher cards to be burned here and now. But they keep them "indefinitely" which means they keep their hold on me!
• 

  AlanF

  Ecclesiastical law, like everything else, has limits in its application under American law. Clearly, a religious law that called for child sacrifice or executing violators would be going too far. The courts understand this and at any given time, what is allowed and disallowed under the First Amendment is a product of many years of specific court decisions that interpret it. The deliberate breaking up of families by evil outfits like the Watchtower is presently allowed, but court decisions could easily change that.

  AlanF
• 

  alamb

  Well, it takes about 4 years and costs about $27,000. Just kidding. That's what is cost me.

  My ex did a dandy job of alienating the kids from me. He would call at night and pray for them to be protected in our home. I showed the court that he was using religion to alienate them from me. He would phone and tell us they were not allowed to celebrate holidays (I was a JW for 34 years, I should remember by now, you think?)

  The order states that if the kids see me shunned, he is not a proper parent, and they come back to live with me. He swore in court that shunning doesn't destroy families but is a loving provision. I put out a call on the net for statements of those who say otherwise and got a load. From 3 countries and they are still coming. I took that back to the judge which was over the legal limit for evidence but it worked. The judge is deciding what to do now.

  A city overseer even came and testified that there is no Custody Packet put out by the society or even an Organization book. That is called perjury. Any my ex used perjury when he allowed him to testify falsely as he was an elder and knew the truth. I am going to prosecute and Bill is going to put the video of the CO lying on his site.

  Also, I am taking the affidavits and filing a civil rights complaint on behalf of parents/grandparents with the ACLU. Unbaptized children aren't to be taught to shun as they aren't members.
  "As regards the alleged involvement of children, the [WatchTower Bible and tract Society] submits that children cannot become members of the association but only participate, together with their parents, in the religious activities of the community."
  {Sworn testimony submitted by the Society in evidence before the European Human Rights Commission Jul 3 1997}

  If anyone needs help I will contact you personally. Just ask me. I have a whole arsenal of this stuff ready to go. Someone help me with a website!
• 

  SEAKEN2001

  Hi Sleepy,

  This is an extremely difficult question and one of the most important questions if we are to find our way through this period in our lives. I'm not sure there is a good answer but there is some good sentiment and possibly some good precedent for at least allowing the discussion of religion to take place in the courts.

  I don't think the religious claims themselves can affectively be put on trial. How do you prove that God is not talking to someone? How do you prove that all the members of a religion believe the same thing and interpret the teachings of that religion in the same manner? However, it is significantly easier to prove that a particular teaching or belief has had a certain effect on an individual. For that reason I think it is fair, on a case by case basis, to examine the claims and teachings and make a determination as to the effect of those claims on the individual. Given enough similar cases there may be grounds for questioning the religions effects overall on it's membership and offering a general opinion that may serve as a warning to all onlookers.

  Perhaps a trial by public opinion will be more affective than passing laws in an attempt to protect people from harm. In order to influence popular opinion about the claims of a religion a number of cases will need to become popular. That is a very difficult thing to accomplish on purpose. But there is the possibility that it will take place by accident. For instance, the attention now given to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church about celibacy and their overall policy on how to handle sex-abuse cases. There is not by necessity a direct connection between these two internal policies but the public opinion is strongly in that direction and the Catholics are now being forced to address these issues in the public arena. But I dare say there was a much better chance of that happening with the Catholic religion than it will ever be for the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. As much as we all want to deny it, the JW's just do not have a big pressence in the public eye. It will take considerably more legal attention and many more cases before the public even notices what is going on. Unless the leaders decide to take everyone on a field trip to South America and serve poisened punch there is not much chance of a fervor of public opinion against the claims of the WTS and how they affect it's membership.

  So, should the claims be tried in court? Maybe not. But the results certainly can. If any attention to the religious claims can be given when trying a case in the courts with current law then perhaps there will eventually be enough reason for the legal system to take a closer look at the relgion's claims themselves. If we think there is a connection between the religious claims of the JW's and certain crimes we should work to prove the connection. But it will have to be on a case by case basis. Even with this attention the Catholics are getting most people are aware that these cases must be judged individually. But they are willing to at least consider that something the church is doing is a contributing factor. That will end up working in the favor of those who may otherwise have been swept under the rug and ignored as mere complainers and murmerers. Hopefully, the JW's will be held in similar light if the media and courts move to expose the cases of pedophila also plaguing the WTS. Only time will tell.

  Sean