by frankiespeakin 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
What Chaserious said is correct.
In reality (historically) the ACLU has generally sided with the Watchtower when they got involved in freedom of religion issues related to the witnesses.
The government cannot create laws to try to make people be nice to each other.
That's a good point, James. The ACLU always takes the anti-religion stance if you will, when it comes to establishment clause cases, such as school prayer, ten commandments displays, and nativity scenes on gov't property. But when it comes to free exercise cases, they tend to side with minority religious groups, like the WTS. According to one of my former professors who is an expert in the Church and State field, they started takes these types of cases in the 1930's and 40's to combat the charge that they were anti-religion, especially in the Red Scare era where that was connected with being a "commie", and that's how they ended up being such strange bedfellows with Rutherford.
In any event, they certainly wouldn't take a garden varierty shunning case with no other allegations. It isn't really even a free exercise case. It would be brought as a regular state tort law case, which was the posture of the Paul v. Watchtower case over shunning, which was the most high profile WTS litigation over the DF policy. The 1st Amendment doesn't really enter the case except as a defense by the WTS.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wollersheim_v._Church_of_Scientology
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology encouraged Wollersheim to “disconnect” from family members, including his wife and parents. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology has a general policy of encouraging members to “disconnect” from non-Scientologists who oppose Scientology or express reservations about its teachings.
The first question is whether the “disconnect” policy qualifies as a “religious practice” of Scientology. The trial court did not grant summary adjudication on this factual issue. Nonetheless, we find the evidence supported the conclusion disconnect is a “religious practice.” “Disconnect” is similar in purpose and effect to the “shunning” practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites, among others. It also shares some attributes with the remote monasteries common to many other religions. All of these practices serve to isolate members from those, including family members, who might weaken their adherence to the religion. Courts have held these policies qualify as “religious practices” of other religions. (See, e.g., Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875, 879-880; Rasmussen v. Bennett (Mont. 1987) 741 P.2d 755 [church statements condemning plaintiffs' conduct and calling for shunning were privileged under the First Amendment].) We see no justification for treating Scientology's “disconnect” policy differently and thus hold it is a “religious practice.”
We recognize the “shunning” cases have involved claims brought by former church members whom other family members were ordered to shun. The instant case, in contrast, involves a cause of action brought by a former church member ordered to shun the rest of his family not the other way around. In the circumstances of this case this is a distinction without a difference. Here appellant caused Wollersheim to isolate himself from his parents, wife and other family members even though appellant had reason to know it would inflict serious emotional injury on him. The injury to him and to the family was just as severe as if his family had “shunned” him.
We need not and do not reach the question whether the practice of “disconnect” is constitutionally protected religious activity in ordinary circumstances. *899 (Contrast Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875 [religion cannot be held civilly liable to shunned former member because “shunning” is constitutionally protected] with Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, supra, 341 A.2d 105 [religion may be civilly liable to shunned former member because “shunning” must yield to compelling state interest in promoting family relations].) Whether or not the “disconnect” policy is constitutionally protected when practiced in a voluntary context it is not so protected if practiced in the coercive environment appellant imposed on Wollersheim. The reasons are the same as apply to “auditing.” (See pp. 893-898, ante.) Substantial evidence supports the finding Scientology created this coercive environment and Wollersheim continued to submit to the practices of the church such as “disconnect” because of that coercion. Furthermore, the evidence in the instant case is sufficient to support a factual finding appellant imposed the “disconnect” policy on Wollersheim with the knowledge he was psychologically susceptible and therefore would suffer severe emotional injury as a result. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the free exercise clause did not immunize appellants from liability for the “disconnect” policy practiced on respondent.
Frankie,
You seem like a nice guy, but I'm not going to continue with detailed responses because you clearly will think you're right about the law no matter what. I imagine in another dimension, this quality would make you a good regular pioneer. My only question is whether you think that what you copied and pasted from Wikipedia proves that you are correct that the WTS shunning policy is breaking the law? Because it doesn't; in fact it does quite the opposite.
-Chas
C,
I don't think I'm right I'm not even a lawyer I'm just throwing out possiblities and noticeing the general trends of government to hold religions responcible for thier actions.
Can you guys honestly say you think that individual JW's "hate other religions" without throwing out the occasional loony as a tune person int he car group?
Lets be honest about this. The bible ITSELF doesn't paint a very rosey picture for the unbeliever. What is the difference when groups feel the same way about their interpretation of the bible?
There are plenty of religions that believe that JW's are going to hell. Is that any different than what JW's concept of the final day will be? I mean.....not really.
I just don't see this going anywhere.
Fair enough, Frankie. My misunderstanding. I did think the scientology case was interesting. I hadn't read that one before.
Thanks for your comments, Chaserious. NOW -
OK - aside from the legal aspects, aside from what the ACLU might do, aside from constitutional law - aside from all of it:
Does anybody really think that some kind of government intervention could possibly make the Watchtower Society start being nice to disfellowshipped people, ex-members, governments in general, other churches, or the U.N.?
Come on people - we were witnesses. We know what kind of hate these people have generated for everybody and everything except themselves.
There is (in simple practical terms) - NOTHING that the U.S. government can practically do to just somehow legislate them into "being nice".
The littera-trash does in fact reflect hatred for people that would rather mind their own business. They claim that those who no longer wish to remain active or that see blatant inconsistencies within the doctrines as "mentally diseased" and "deserving of death". They disdain those outside the organization. Worldly people, who are merely trying to mind their own business, are classified as "poison", "urine", and "swine" in various publications and talks.
Now, what justification do the witlesses have for this hatred? Are "worldly people" trying to enslave the witlesses, or just expose them for wasting people's lives? So worldly people do not believe in what the witlesses believe in, or worship the same god. Wasn't that the same reason Israel used to justify murdering Canaanites for no reason? Was Canaan an active threat to Israel before those freeloaders showed up? I don't think so--Canaan was simply trying to live and mind its business when Israel showed up to coerce them to worship their Jehovah under death threat. Canaan had just cause to hate Israel, but Israel had no just cause to hate Canaan in this case. Likewise, with all the incessant demands for witlesses to miss out on life, the houndings and fraud against outsiders to join the religion, and bashing those who attempt to leave the cancer, the world has grounds to hate the witlesses (for fraud, threats of first strike offensive force, and making it difficult for people to live outside the religion). On the other hand, the witlesses don't have any valid ground to hate the world to this extent.
"I don't think so--Canaan was simply trying to live and mind its business when Israel showed up to coerce them to worship their Jehovah under death threat. Canaan had just cause to hate Israel, but Israel had no just cause to hate Canaan in this case".
Yes, that judgment by God REALLY got in the way of the sons of Caanan sacrificing cute little children into the fires of Molech didn't it?
