BOTR: but if you suffered "loss of face" beyond the accepted norm, through wrong action, real monetary loss because of those consequences. loss in the sense of an unjustifiable tarnished reputation, even mental anguish? would that not be a subject the courts there and even in the US would adress? to re-dress?
The civil trial in Japan
by japanesegirl 23 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Band on the Run
No. The First Amendment protects religious activity. Internal WT policy is a religious matter. There are a host of issues in the United States. For one thing, policing this type of behavior would excessively entangle the government in a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The facts would have to be extraordinary. I can't recall one instance reported here where such legal action worked. What would be the measure of damages? The larger community could not care what Jehovah's Witnesses do. I believe religiious groups have every right to define who is a member or not.
I don't know whether Japan has the same constitutional bar. No one here has listed cases in the European Union where such a civil action worked. Change the constitutioan and the result might change.
-
prologos
thank you. Reading the terrible experiences here , makes it clear that the mental anguish is real does it not?. why would torture under the cloak of a tax-exempt non governmental entity be exempting the torturers from liability?.
is it like hockey, foot ball games, boxing matches, that exempts the participents from criminal and or civil liability?
how about the settlement by the NFL for the brain damages of players, that occurred while playing to established rules and officiating?We hope this Japan case at least opens a tiny trickle in the dike that is weakening from more than one cause.
-
ldrnomo
The movement is growing.
-
rawe
Hi Band on the Run,
"I believe religiious groups have every right to define who is a member or not."
I agree. I also think the case of Janice Paul v The Watchtower in 1987 shows how unlikely it would be to win a case. However, when Jehovah's Witnesses announce to the congregation "Name of individual is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" the intent is to slander and cause alienation of affection between the individual and family and friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. They do this by theologically linking the statement with 1 Corinthians 5, wherein a sexual deviant is declared "wicked" by the Bible writer Paul.
Can Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to freedom of religion to be protected from all charges of slander? Thus far apparently so. But I do think, they're well aware, they are close to the line. Three reason I believe this are: (a) They removed the "unbecoming a Christian" phrase from the announcement and (b) around the time of the Paul case they removed disfellowshipping action as possibility for non-baptized associates and (c) they changed the baptism vows to make it more clear one was entering into a contractual membership arrangement with the religion.
Finally I think WT lawyers may at times wonder about another couple possibilities. One is wrongful death, wherein a member in the process of being disfellowshipped commits suicide. Or alternatively, a member in fear of disfellowshipping refuses a life-saving blood transfusion and dies.
As the Candace Conti case appears to illustrate Jehovah's Witnesses want the full protection of the first amendment, full control over the minute details of members lives, yet be free of all responsibility for the negative outcomes of such assertive control.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
Band on the Run
Ive addressed so many posts explainng the impact of the First Amendment in these cases. It isn't only that the First Amendment protects religious activity. The First Amendment is our founding myth. Unlike other countries, our colonies were started by religious diissident persecuted in England. Our culture celebrates religious freedom. It is a value taught in law schools. Constitutional requirements are more important than competing claims that are not const'l.
I don't want the government involved in my church, policing relgious matters. The American legal system routinely addresses competing claims. Not every harm is remedied at law. The elements of a cause of action must be present. Jurisdiction must be present. Civil procedure rules must be followed. TV and film do not do a good job at explaining how law works. Law tends to protect property interests and the status quo.
Most Americans would be appalled if a court dictated what the WT could do. There is a remedy. Walking away and trying your best to have a good life. I wish more people understood the power of religion in America. Europeans have a concept of freedom from religion. We do not.
-
steve2
BTTT
-
cantleave
Welcome - thank you for the information.
-
Londo111
marked
-
LoisLane looking for Superman
If she is posting from Japan, the time right now is 4:30 AM, Thursday morning. So we have to wait a while.
Where I am, it is Wednesday, 11:30 AM.
I do want to see how this Civil Trial turns out.
I am curious if this is about 'saving face'.
LoisLane