Oklahoma lawsuit against JWs fails

by Euphemism 9 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    I don't have the text of the decision; this sumary is via the blog Religion Clause:

    Police Can Help Church Eject Trespassing Worshipper

    In Ferreira v. Harris, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41734 (ND Okl., June 20, 2006), plaintiff was a dissident member of a Woodland View Jehovah’s Witness Congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After Ferreira claimed that God has selected him as an "other sheep", the church informed Ferreira that he had been disfellowshipped. When Ferreira continued to attend services anyway, first the church asked him to sit in the back of the congregation, and later it asked him to leave. When he refused, the Congregation called Tulsa police who arrested him for trespassing. Ferreira then filed suit in federal court claiming that the city and church officials violated his state and federal constitutional rights. He also claimed that the Oklahoma trespassing laws are unconstitutionally vague and that the city of Tulsa, in violation of the Establishment Clause, had used funds to support a religious group.

    The court held that the church autonomy doctrine precludes it from reviewing the church’s decision to shun, and then exclude, Ferreira, since the decision was based on the church’s interpretation of religious doctrines. It went on to hold that governmental enforcement of trespassing statutes did not violate Ferreira’s free exercise rights. The statute is a neutral law of general applicability that protects worshippers from disturbance of the peace and poses only an incidental burden on Ferreira’s exercise of religion.

    The court also rejected Ferreira’s Establishment Clause claim—that the city had spent over $19,150 to keep him imprisoned for attempting to attend church services. The trespass laws were not enforced in a manner that favored any particular religion. Finally, the court also rejected Ferreira’s vagueness claims as well as his civil rights conspiracy claims under 42 USC Section 1985.

    While Ferreira's disfellowshipping and treatment by the Witnesses was obviously wrong, it doesn't appear that his claim had any legal merit, especially not his claim that the police violated his rights by removing him from the Kingdom Hall.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    The court held that the church autonomy doctrine precludes it from reviewing the church’s decision to shun, and then exclude, Ferreira, since the decision was based on the church’s interpretation of religious doctrines. It went on to hold that governmental enforcement of trespassing statutes did not violate Ferreira’s free exercise rights. The statute is a neutral law of general applicability that protects worshippers from disturbance of the peace and poses only an incidental burden on Ferreira’s exercise of religion.

    With all due respect to the court, bullshit.

    This man's entire belief structure revolves around the total indoctrination into the idea that the ONLY WAY TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD IS TO BE AT THE KINGDOM HALL REGULARLY. Ironically, he was fed that belief structure primarily at a Kingdom Hall.

    Sorry for shouting, but that point can't be emphasised too much. Oh yeah, one other thing, if you are disfellowshipped, where do Jehovahs Witnesses teach you that you should be 3 times a week, if you want to have any chance at avoiding a horrible, painful life that culminates in being deservedly slaughtered by the one true god Jehovah?

  • just2sheep
    just2sheep

    not enough information here. was he being passive or aggressive? if you make an ass of yourself, you will be asked to leave no matter where you are. and if you refuse to leave the police may be called, because once you are asked to leave and refuse you are trespassing. i learned this from a number of unfortunate incidents during my old drinking days.

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard

    I found this on blog search

    http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/06/police-can-help-church-eject.html

    Police Can Help Church Eject Trespassing Worshipper

    14 hours ago by Howard Friedman
    LEXIS 41734 (ND Okl., June 20, 2006), plaintiff was a dissident member of a
    Woodland View Jehovah’s Witness Congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After Ferreira
    claimed that God has selected him as an "other sheep", the church informed ... Religion Clause - http://religionclause.blogspot.com

    ---

    Police Can Help Church Eject Trespassing Worshipper

    In Ferreira v. Harris, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41734 (ND Okl., June 20, 2006), plaintiff was a dissident member of a Woodland View Jehovah’s Witness Congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. After Ferreira claimed that God has selected him as an "other sheep", the church informed Ferreira that he had been disfellowshipped . When Ferreira continued to attend services anyway, first the church asked him to sit in the back of the congregation, and later it asked him to leave. When he refused, the Congregation called Tulsa police who arrested him for trespassing. Ferreira then filed suit in federal court claiming that the city and church officials violated his state and federal constitutional rights. He also claimed that the Oklahoma trespassing laws are unconstitutionally vague and that the city of Tulsa, in violation of the Establishment Clause, had used funds to support a religious group.

    The court held that the church autonomy doctrine precludes it from reviewing the church’s decision to shun, and then exclude, Ferreira, since the decision was based on the church’s interpretation of religious doctrines. It went on to hold that governmental enforcement of trespassing statutes did not violate Ferreira’s free exercise rights. The statute is a neutral law of general applicability that protects worshippers from disturbance of the peace and poses only an incidental burden on Ferreira’s exercise of religion.

    The court also rejected Ferreira’s Establishment Clause claim—that the city had spent over $19,150 to keep him imprisoned for attempting to attend church services. The trespass laws were not enforced in a manner that favored any particular religion. Finally, the court also rejected Ferreira’s vagueness claims as well as his civil rights conspiracy claims under 42 USC Section 1985 . Danny's comment below
    Gravatar My concern is keeping the Jehovah's Witnesses from defiant trespass on my private property when they recruit door to door. http://www.dannyhaszard.com/ notr...trespassing.htm
    Danny Haszard | Homepage | 06.25.06 - 3:14 pm |
  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard

    Just as a side note i always picket protested at city hall not the Kingdumb Hall much better results they cheered me

  • sf
    sf
    since the decision was based on the church’s interpretation of religious doctrines.

    Well there you go.

    sKally

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    Am I reading this right-they were trying to force him to sit in the back and when he refused they called the police to eject him? wow, jws are total asses. He does not flog himself and sit like a worm in the back and what next, allow them to spit on him as they pass by?

    I hope they take this case and appeal it seem to me it would be really improper to force somone to sit in the back of anything, church, bus whatever.

  • kwr
    kwr

    Every corporation or person has the right to refuse service to anyone and ask them to leave. If you do not leave then you are trespassing. The hate that seethes out from the posts her is disgusting.

  • Odrade
    Odrade

    edited for being un-funny. ;)

  • Finally-Free
    Finally-Free
    The hate that seethes out from the posts her is disgusting.

    I think the hate that saturates Watchtower cult teaching and practice is far worse.

    W

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit