by berrygerry 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Legal cases are not based on feelings, they are based on statutes
and code. I believe putting any child through the terrifying experience of
being judged by adult males sitting in a room alone with them is
child abuse and emotional abuse of the worst sort.
Its also emotional abuse to keep the child isolated from participating
in a normal social life at school, or discouraging by guilt, any aspirations
they might have to go on to college and choose a career path.
Its a cult.
Yeah, you would never get away with something like that in the U.S., and for very good reason. What you propose would essentially demolish the seperation between Church and State and tangle secular courts up in arguments of religious doctrine. And that is a very dangous and slippery slope.
The U.S. Supreme Court, incidentally, has already ruled on similar cases, stating:
"It would be of a vain consent...if anyone aggrieved by one of [an ecclesiastical institution's] decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essense of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance...[As ecclesiastical institutions] are the best judges of what constitutes an offence against the Word of God and...of matters of faith, discipline and doctrine; and civil courts, if they should be so unwise to attempt to supervise their judgments...would only involve themselves in a sea of uncertainty and doubt." -- Watson v. Jones (1871)
As a Libertarian, I would also argue that Courts of Law should have no jurisdiction in cases where no rights have been violated or no property has been damaged. I simply see no coersion or force involved in a situation where an elder simply asks a publisher to attend a meeting and the publisher's legal guardians consent.
I also see no violation of rights should the elders choose to disfellowship the publisher, as the Right to Association is negative, not positive, meaning that you can associate (or not associate) with whomever you want, but you cannot force or obligate anyone else to associate with you. If the congregations choose not to associate with somebody, then that their right, whether you agree with it or not. The shunned person's rights are not violated nor can they be.
