Posts by Chaserious

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

you are comparing JWism to mainstream religions whereas I see it as HARMFUL due to the way the WBTS has set itself up as an unquestionable authority ...

JWism is not the only religion that claims to be an unquestionable authority, is it? (And actually, if you go by the letter of what they write, which I'm sure a JW parent would introduce if forced to defend JWism, they explicitly claim not to be infallible). That is kind of the point, it's not a leap of logic to suggest that some people would be (and are) critical of mainstream religions, also. E.g., Islam is a religion of violence and extremism, Catholicism harbors a lot of child molesters (not my views, but suggesting what some argue). Plenty would argue that it's harmful to raise a child around evangelical / born again doctrines that teach that its ultra-conservative views are right and everyone else's are wrong. Maybe these are minority views, but you must recognize that so is yours. There are very few people outside of the ex-JW camp who are willing to broadly label JWism as harmful, but other religions as not harmful. I would be against setting a judge up to decide the rightness/wrongness of any religious doctrine, or to force a parent to raise their child the way s/he thinks is "best" unless the doctrine results in physical or emotional abuse, as legally recognized.

As much as I wouldn't want a child indoctrinated with WTS doctrine, when a family breaks up, it's never going to be ideal. I think looking at the individual parents and what's best for each individual child remains the best approach. As hard as it might be to swallow, it may not be better for the child's interests to be removed from a JW parent if in a given case, that also means being removed from many extended family members and being placed with a parent who is ill-equipped to be a full-time caregiver.

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

I find it interesting you have a realitvely tolerant view of WBTS indoctrination material given your background.

I would say that it's not so much a tolerant view of WTBTS indoctrination as a desire to maintain a broader view of how child custody disputes should be best resolved in society. In trying to avoid tunnel vision by just looking at the consequences for JW parents, wouldn't this level of intrusion require a family judge to review all religious literature related to one parent's religion if the other has a problem with it?

Considering that family judges have a lot of discretion, wouldn't you be worried that some judge might have a bias against Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or some other religious group, and shape the custody order accordingly? I have a neighbor where the mother is a very strict Catholic, and her little girl believes bad people go to hell and homosexuality is evil. Personally, I don't think that's the best way to raise a child, but that doesn't mean I think the government should step in and tell her she can't do it.

Although courts do frequently make specific orders related to raising the child, I don't think they tend to tell parents what they can or cannot teach them, especially when it relates to reference to outside materials, and not activities specific to the parent. I thought that lost in the critique of the judge's decision was the concession that the mother wouldn't take the child in house-to-house ministry. I think that's a worthwhile step, because that can be quite damaging to some kids. Although it seems it was the result of an agreement, and not the judge's order, I believe at least in the U.S., it would be nearly unheard of for the non-JW spouse to be able to get such a concession.

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

FrazzledUBM - I am a born-in; I know about being cheated out of a lot of things. And if I had a child and a JW spouse, I would definitely want primary custody if possible regardless of how good a parent she was otherwise. But what do you mean by restrictions on the parent? Like a court telling the parent she can't take a child to JW meetings or teach them at home with WT literature? That's a dangerous game, and I would be against anything like that.

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

I agree that most children would likely be better off raised by a non-JW parent, but making the argument in the OP would open up Pandora's box to put religions on trial in every child custody case. If using fear is a negative, doesn't that apply to every religion that teaches that hell exists?

I also think it paints with too broad of a brush. When children's lives are at stake, I'd rather consider what the particular parent does instead of what the parent's religion does. If the parent themself, for whatever reason, discourages higher education for example, I think it should be considered. But I can think of several examples of people I knew personally where the child would almost certainly be better off with the JW parent.

36

Does anyone know the curent understanding on Chess for JWs?

by BU2B in

jw
friends

i seem to remember chess was frowned upon by some jws.

is this like the oral/anal sex policy?

just ignore it and hope it goes away...

Chaserious

I played chess with family members and other JWs growing up and never heard anyone even question whether there was anything wrong with it

19

Taking Back The Kingdom Halls.

by RunAsFastAsYouCan in

jw
friends

thesis: the kingdom halls as a real estate entity could be couped; coup d'etat.

a group of 3 elders as trustees could sell the kingdom hall out from under mother watchtower corporation.

spread the money to the community or non profits, or just give it as a distribution to the congregation who paid for the kingdom hall.

Chaserious

It's not that easy, RunAsFastAsYouCan. It is unlikely that this would work anywhere in the U.S. The rule used to be that in a hierarchical church, a local congregation couldn't break off and keep the land, regardless of how it was titled or who pays the expenses. Then came a Supreme Court decision in 1979, the result of which was that states could either continue to follow the hierarchical model or deviate from it (the alternative approach is usually called "neutral principles"). Where states follow the neutral principles approach, the response from national church organizations has been to get the local congregations to change the way the land is owned. The result is that the land ends up basically being owned like a trust, where it's nominally titled to the local congregation, but can't be removed from under the umbrella of the national church, who are treated like the beneficial owners. I don't know for sure that all JW congregations have adopted a change in response, but it's likely that they have. I have seen some material that indicates the WTS took steps to protect themselves in the wake of the 1979 change in law.

The case of The Falls Chuch in Virginia is an interesting case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/episcopal-church-wins-virginia-supreme-court-ruling/2013/04/18/51b9cc04-a82e-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html. The land at issue was worth millions, and the congregation had a lot of wealthy and influential members and good attorneys, yet they lost in their bid to break away from the Episcopal Church and keep the land.

Menlo Park is another example of how this didn't work. This aside from the challenge of finding groups of elders who are willing to volunteer to be DF'd and take on the WTS and their war chest in a legal battle.

37

An incident in Michigan

by Mandette in

an article on a jw who died from lack of blood.

family then sued..

Chaserious

The HUSBAND upheld his wife's decision. What non-witless would have done that in a life or death situation?

Suing just shows that they want money money money.

Yes, the husband upheld her decision to refuse blood. But the husband isn't the representative of the estate, according to the lawsuit. The representative of the estate gets to decide whether to sue or not. So how do you know that whoever decided to sue is a JW? Not saying they aren't; just that it doesn't seem possible to tell, although many have assumed that to be the case.

37

An incident in Michigan

by Mandette in

an article on a jw who died from lack of blood.

family then sued..

Chaserious

A lawyer for Roziers estate is appealing this decisionn and taking it to a higher court , what does that tell you about the family and jehovahs witnesses .

How do you know that those prosecuting the lawsuit are JWs?

51

Jehovah's Witness juror - The actions of this juror are a complete disgrace, said Prince Georges County States Attorney Angela Alsobrooks.

by Sol Reform in

http://www.csnwashington.com/article/juror-email-leads-mistrial.

juror email leads to mistrial.

that juror now faces a possible contempt of court charge.the trial of a man involved in a high speed crash that killed a prince george's county police officer last year ended in a mistrial.. one of the jurors told the judge via email thursday morning that judging others was a violation of her religion as a jehovah's witness, news4's prince george's county bureau chief tracee wilkins reported.. kevon darnell neal, 23, was charged with vehicular manslaughter and fleeing and eluding following the death of officer adrian morris, 23.. morris and his partner were pursuing a stolen silver acura when their cruiser ran off interstate 95 near the powder mill road exit in august 2012. morris died after being ejected from the vehicle.

Chaserious

There would be an alternate juror to fill in. So the case should be intact, right?

The article says a mistrial was declared, so no, they have to try the whole case over. In the federal system and in some states, alternates can be substituted even during deliberations in criminal trials-although they would have to start deliberating all over. But in other states (which I assume includes Maryland), once the jury starts deliberating the alternates are dismissed and can't step in. It's a matter of criminal procedure, so it's not uniform in every state. In criminal trials I have been familiar with, the judge keeps all of the alternates around until a verdict is reached just in case of some nonsense like this. What a waste of everyone's time on account of this nut. I suspect she won't face any consequences, though.

170

Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom

by TJ Curioso in

launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.

link.

Chaserious

No, you don't need case law to proceed, but it's awfully hard to proceed in the face of established contrary law. There is an abundance of case law saying that the government can't do what you're asking it to do. A comparison with the sex abuse scandals is not helpful. Sexual abuse of children is obvious criminal behavior under US law, while shunning is clear protected behavior. I'm curious, Poconoknows, what you think the remedy should be? It's easy to say to investigate, but what should be the ultimate resolution? Would the government have to review their literature before it's printed to make sure it's acceptable? Would parents be reported for not inviting their grown children over for meals? I'm genuinely curious what those in favor of the petition think the end game would be. Also, welcome to the forum.