by quellycatface 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I was reading an old article in a British newspaper about some JW's (in Portsmouth) who had called the police regarding the wording in the 2011 WT, that if someone had DA'd, left etc... re; questioning the WT teachings then they were "mentally diseased." They said this was "inciting religous hatred". Has this been mentioned again anywhere in the JW literature???
Does anyone know what happened with this or any similar situations. The wording, indeed is very provocative.
quelly,
They are a big conglomerate with legal suits backing them. The only good these things do is for the inviduals, they feel empowered that a newspaper is listening to them. I would love a newspaper to report my story, some of us need to speak up others just want to walk away we are all different.
Kate xx
Hi Kate,
I am still angry about things. I don't know how they could get away with that kind of stuff. It's also a kick in the guts for people who suffer with mental health problems (caused by the WT). Surely, it's not politically correct to write like this nowawdays??
p.s how about going on Oprah??
No we can't.
JW's are an insignificant and obscure religion no one cares about it unless some cheesy jokes about door knocking.
Only former members can fully understand what the JW world means.
People can even say thats nothing wrong about JW, they are "nice" people.
JW's are more underground than those Gideons who distribute bibles in hotels, hospitals and schools.
Who cares about Gideons and their work ? Asking that we can have an idea about what people think about JW's.
Call an attorney and ask what a civil lawsuits will cost. There are better ways to deal with the Wt., and all religions for that matter- education.
We won't see the complete demise of religion in our lifetime but maybe in our grandchildrens lifetime.
It's too bad you can't sue them for ambient abuse.
It is called Freedom of Religion. As much as I hate the WT, I believe in Freedom of Relgion even more strongly. The First Amendment has two parts concerning religion. They are called the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Free Exercise is easier to understand. It is virtually absolute in the United States. Religion members have a right to freely exercise their religion. I don't believe "mentally diseased" is hate speech. They have an American right to promote their religions' views.
The only exception is for certain criminal laws. Criminal laws that have no intent to discriminate against a religion and have uniform applicabiltity may be used against a religion. Two recent examples come to my mind. Some Southwest Native Americans sued to use peyote in tribal religous ceremonies. Peyote is a on a list of highly prohibited substances by the United States government. The court record indicated that this tribe had used peyote for thousands of years. The Supreme Court ruled tough lucky Indian tribe. I would have ruled differently. The Court was split between conservatives and liberals.
For many decades now polygamy was the example. Legal scholars believed the Court was purposely deciding not to decide a current case of polygamy. The last case was so many decades ago and so many fields of law have dramatically changed. No one could imagine the Court ruling against Mormons. Well, a district court case decided that polygamy laws violated Free Exercise this past week. The case was brought by the husband in that Sister Wives show on reality TV. The Supreme Court may be unable to side step this issue any more. It will be a surprise if polgamy laws are upheld.
The second part of the First Amendments bans establishments of religion. This section was left vague. Many parts of the Const'n were not fleshed out. It is impossible to ascertain all the components of an establishment. Since most colonies were settled by colonist fleeing Engalnd's established church, the Church of England, is it clear that an English type of establishment was forbidden. There was almost no litigation in this area until after the Civil War. When Thomas Jefferson, who was busy in France during the Constitutional Convention, was running for President some Danbury, Ct. Baptists asked his views. They were his private views. He described the Establishment Clause was a wall separating church and state. The government could not become involved in a religion. Most people know Jefferson's description rather than the Establishment Clause. Judges will not determine whether a creed is right or wrong. There are several tests for this Clause. The Supreme Court acknowledged that it cases are not consistent. Lower courts decide these cases frequently. An American court would refuse to rule on "mentally diseased." This is a religous notion that is inappropriate for the judiciary to adjudicate.
I am not too sure if I have got this correct, Cantleave will maybe confirm, but I believe the Crown Prosecution Service looked at this on Hampshire Police's behalf, and concluded a prosecution for "hate speech" or similar would fail, due to the exact wording in the W.T article not fulfilling the criteria set out in law.
I think though that the very thought of possible action on this somewhere is why the Revised NWT has removed those words from the verses in question. I doubt the Writing Boys will use the expression ever again either.
So well done, those that did the work on this !
Quelly - When we made that Police report we were told unless we could prove that the wording in the Watchtower was directly attribitable to an act of violence there was nothing we could do.
Angus
Interesting the big difference that there is between attitudes here in the U.K and in the U.S
Here, Freedom of Worship is not seen as a blank cheque for Religion to ride rough-shod over Human Rights. Human Rights trump religious rights.
I think too that, though it has been a good thing in the main that the U.S Courts always defer to the Constitution, and so do the Lawmakers, I think it probably needs to be defined and perhaps updated, as BOR hints in her post.
Whatever the intentions and motives of those who drew up the Constitution were, they were only men, and men of their time.
In the 21st century I believe Human Rights to be of more importance than relgious sensibilities. I still think the U.K has some way to go, Religion is still too privileged here, though they do have to obey the Law.
I think too that the W.T were lucky in this instance here, they were skating very close to law breaking, not just the hate speech one, but just got away with it.
A pity they were not prosecuted for something, because they have still managed to embed the concept in the minds of JW's ,despite retracting the words.
