I have. I really don't think that you have. In each of them, the writers use the term congress or government. Is Watchtower either Congress or a government as recognized by the US.
Posts by JC323
-
224How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Poopie: Please I am begging you to understand this. What you have constantly been talking about are amendments that prevent the government from infringing on a person's rights. This does not apply to private organizations.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Stephane: I don't like I don't believe in it. But for the government to make in an actionable offense would do way more harm than good. Even the threat of removing tax-exempt status as Desirous. We saw what happened with Tea Party nonprofits and the IRS a few years ago. When you start to have government dictate what is acceptable action and thought without a compelling governmental interest it is a slippery slope.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
In all honesty, the foundation of the court cases is based on an 1871 supreme court case. I really don't see any court bucking precedent for 148 years of case law.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Ok, so that is your definition of compelling governmental action. that is perfectly logical. But there is a wealth of case law that disagrees with you. And I honestly from the bottom of my heart if you somehow got a state legislature to make a law defining it, it would be struck down by the courts even before the ink is dry on the governor's signature. Just because the case law does not define it the way that you expect it to, how mandatory precedent rules apply would require courts to strike it down. -
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
No a priest cannot apply corporal punishment because again it is a neutral law. The goverment has a compeling interest in their citizens not being physically assaulted.
Please describe the compelling governmental interest that you want to apply with JW shunning.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
So you accept that people with authority have the right to control aspects of their lives. Under the law, whether you think it is right or not, the internal discipline or the internal rules of that faith lies with one entity the religion. That is the only entity that can make rules that don't violate a neutral law.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
so Stephane where is the line drawn. If someone murders a family member should the family of the victim be allowed to encourage each other to shun the murderer? Should a parent not be allowed to tell their child who they can or cannot talk to. Can a company tell an employee that in their official duties they cannot speak with a competitor about the industry that might be proprietary? Where is the line?
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Let me also ask you this.
Under your theory, no one can tell someone who to speak with and who not too.
Let's say that you are a parent and Timmy down the street you feel is a bad influence and you tell your son not to speak with Timmy because you think he will corrupt your son. Would that be a violation of your son's rights?
Or let's say that your wife slept with someone else and you are so hurt that you tell your grown kids if you speak to your mom again, don't bother speaking to me, because you chose her over me. Would the father be infringing on this children's rights?
There is no compelling governmental interest to ensure that people speak with each other. Even in child neglect laws, the only requirement of communication between a parent and child is to ensure the child's basic necessity. If the parent never says I love you or never says how was school, there is no compelling interest for the government to enforce that.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
The court has ruled on polygamy that there is a compelling governmental interest. That it has been considered as social propriety that a family unit consists of a single marriage and not multiple marriages at the same time. And you used female genital mutilation, again the government has a compelling governmental interest in stopping their citizens from being physically assaulted.
But also those are neutral law. just like a church was formed on the belief that marijuana was a part of their religious belief. But the law that was written was neutral stating that marijuana is a class 1 narcotic and is outlawed under federal law.
So please propose how you would want a neutral law to be written that doesn't violate the free exercise of religion and free association of the constitution.