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.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
27
UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not
by Frazzled UBM infor 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.
-
-
-
27
UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not
by Frazzled UBM infor 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 ini 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 inthesis: 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 inan 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 inan 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 inhttp://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 inlaunch 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.
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
They DO have a case.
Of course they do not have a case, for the same reasons that many have stated in this thread. As you said, they didn't change the substance of the petition, only cleaned up the form so it doesn't seem so amateur.
It is not Christian-like to me. Nothing Jesus would advocate, and it seems to be a form of extremism.
Yes, it's un-Christian and extreme, but that's not what makes a violation of the law. I would be shocked if a law firm actually is "getting involved" in this in the sense of taking it on as a case. Maybe they will send it on their letterhead to some officials, but I would like to see a press release or something before I believe that they are actually doing anything meaningful.
That is why, the former JW's can make a valid case at the UN
You can't "make a case" at the UN. You can send them a letter, but there is little they can do even if they agree. The document you cited has no teeth. And besides, it's too general to even establish that the WTS violates it. It is primarily directed at governmental intrusions into someone's ability to change their religion. Do you have any authorities, other than personal opinions, that institutional shunning is "coercion" as defined by the UN? And even if it was, isn't their right to nonviolent shunning part of their own right to freedom to worship as they like, according to the same document?
It almost sounded like some of the comments here didn't want anybody to have success in stopping what the society does.
I don't know about others, but personally, although I don't like shunning and authoritarian dogmatic religions, I hate authoritarian government overreach and censorship more, and I know that the latter can be far more dangerous if unchecked.
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
Put aside the reality that the DOJ wouldn't do anything even with a hundred million signatures because no federal law has been broken and it would be contrary to the Constitution. Besides that, those signing the petition should think about what a slippery and dangerous slope it would be for the government to start investigating every percieved harm in society. As wearewatchingyouman pointed out, people unfortunately commit suicide for a lot of reasons. Why not criminalize adultery, being a poor parent or child, unkindness to co-workers, or the many other things that have led to suicide in some cases? Why not force everyone to be nice to everyone else under penalty of prosecution? Wouldn't anyone who turns someone against a friend so that they "shun" their former friend be part of some conspiracy to violate human rights?
Think also about the right to speak out critically that we take for granted in free societies. Essentially, the petition wants to criminalize the WT's criticism of former members and their collective decision to shun the former members. Why would the government then not have to investigate anyone who speaks out critically toward politicians, businesses, celebrities, or religious groups (any "Anti" movements come to mind?) to see if the criticism is justified? This is why the better way to combat shunning and breaking up of families is to publicize it and expose their double speak for what it is.