this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Stephane:
Well if you feel that the practice of shunning is an actionable cause and you feel that you are being coerced to stay within religion because of that fear of the effects of Disfellowshipping then why don't you sue? And yes you are not a lawyer but if you think there is a case there why don't you go and hire one and show us all your initial filed complaint.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Btw Stephane please provide us with your initial filing when you sue watchtower over it.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
You can only bring in other plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. A class action is not easy to get certified. There has to be a significant number with similar cause and damages.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Also you have to remember to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress the act must be deliberate and the conduct must shock the normal senses of the community. Requiring a person not to speak to someone is not something that shocks the senses of society. People dont talk to others all the time. Even the claim that someone requires someone else not to speak to someone happens regularly even. There are cases outside of JWs that again excommunication or shunning doesnt rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Yes you are correct that in the Paul case the court did not pass judgement. It is because as you quoted that allowing a civil suit would have the same effect as prohibiting the act. As it would be a violation to prohibit a religious activity without q compelling governmental interest would be a violation of the constitution.
While yes the case in Paul did not include family. But the case in Anderson did involve family where the court in that case came to the same conclusion and if I remember correctly referenced the Paul case.
apologies if this topic has been discussed earlier.. i was thinking of whether demanding for a ban on shunning policy would be beneficial for the larger society.
following are some things that we need to remember while advocating the issue:.
1. shunning is not limited to jw's and for many americans, it is not that controversial as it seems.. 2. jw shunning is not a dark secret policy.
Also even if you can claim a minor being baptized when they do become the age of majority and still go to meetings they have confirmed it.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Actually if you read the Paul case fully. The reason why Paul disassociated herself was because her parents were disfellowshipped, she disagreed with the decision and was warned not to speak about her disagreement, she then disassociated herself. Same as in the scientology case, the man disassociated himself from his church.
The church in the paul case heard how people avoided to talk to her or was asked to leave a tuperwear party because of her status. That is what caused the suit. Pretty much met everyone of your conditions.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
The court actually differentiated of what scientology does and the actions of JWs. It highlights that the Paul decision is accurate. It further highlights that a requirement to discontinue from communicating with people is valid. It even highlights that churches teach that if you dont follow our instructions you will be dammed for all eternity. The court said that could be construed as coercive but there is a reasonable amount that every church experiences.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
You have to read the full decision. It speaks as to what constitutes a coercive environment.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Also a civil court requires a suit to include something that would provide relief to the person who is suing. This relief must be reasonable and force able to have an effect. If there isnt then it must be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
The courts have also ruled in the past that a civil judgement would be similar to a goverment in acting a law. Thst if the civil suit would prevent the free excercise of religion then the civil court cannot intervene.
