What a let-down! An essay published by a second-rate "Christian" American University. A newly graduated student whose mother supposedly died for refusing blood. Is this really the best that anti-Jws can come up with? Is it maybe time you guys all "got a life" and moved on!
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
The misrepentation of facts issued in the blood book of the WTS organization is "Scare Tactics" for JWs who might even consider excepting blood if they needed to have a blood transfustion. That is wrong in it's self. Now to prove that the WTS was using "Scare Tactics" is another issue.
The article does not seem to be posted on high beam yet, nor is it on findarticles.com yet. Here is a link to order a copy of the Journal: http://www3.baylor.edu/Church_State/ordering_publications.htm . The site states elsewhere that individual copies may be ordered, but I don't see it listed on the order form. I'm sure it can be done by calling.
Is there an attorney here who can evaluate the article for us? The Tort of Misrepresentation is very unfamiliar to me but I'll be reading up on it. Edited to add: here is 1 legal opinion: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/103593/1.ashx (I'm still hoping some law firm would take the case.)
Hey, how about a CLASS ACTION?That is my real question. It may be premature to answer that question at this point w/o an attorney researching it, but how can we get the ball rolling? (I know we can start calling law firms but is there a btr way to do that than to pick someone from a directory?) As you can see from my previous posts, I am a person with a serious bleeding disorder (similar to Hemophilia) and had many near death experiences thanks to the WTS. I am also a long-time healthcare admin professional and VERY active in the bleeding disorders community here in the US, and a member of AJWRB. Again---please include me on any action taken!
Deary dreary... You sneer out of fear or because you do not understand.
Let me put it in simple terms;
The journal this is published in is a legal equaivalent of peer-reviewed scientific literature. The journal is not a publication that specialises in unfounded speculation, but rather in articles addressing law that are held to be a fair representation of or commentary on law.
This article has obviously been reviewed for publication and the main thrust of the article (JW's are liable to suits under the law of tort as religious belief is no justification for secular representation) is held to be sound by very well-regarded legal experts This is a legal theory which will become legal fact if a case based upon this theory's presumptions succeeds, which on the basis of the paper it should.
If this happens, then the floodgates of litigation open; the WTBTS could be whacked with a massive class action by thousands of non-JW's whose realtives have died as a result of the blood doctrine - they are a rich Organsiation, so it's easy to see how this could happen. Those within the Organsiation might sue singly or as a group if the publicity makes them feel that they have been deceived.
I think this is likely to make a very big hole in the finances of the Corporate arm.
I think the next step is important.
And that's having a court case testing this legal position.
If we want real news coverage (according to the journalist who's authored several articles in the UK press on issues regarding JW's) we need a court case. He points out the actual article is not rwally 'news' - to paraphrase him, it merely states what rational people already know, that refusing blood can be dangerous for your health and JW's are silly not to.
Once articles in legal journals (of massive interest to us but of 'yeah, well, that's obvious' interest to most people) lead to actual court cases, it's newsworthy enough for the mainstream press to take an interest in. I can see his point;
US law may allow JW's to be charged with misrepresentation over their blood doctrine
... is, let's face it, a headline WE would read, but most other people...? Whereas...
JW sell 15 European Headquarters to pay for payouts to victims of their blood doctrine
... is far more interesting to the general public...
OK can somebody please tell me what is different now?
Somebody refered to they can now 'prove' it.....HOW?
Who reads this magazine anyway?...Will it reach the news, and therefore the people who have lost loved ones?
I agree that the next step is important, Abaddon. However, the first headline you mentioned "US law may allow JW's to be charged with misrepresentation over their blood doctrine" needs to be out there to increase the odds that an attorney or firm will start rubbing their sweaty palms together imagining dollars from a new sector of litigation.
That's the only way the second headline will ever happen.
The thing is: A huge lawsuit is needed. If a lawsuit is won, then that sets a presedence. And then, that one lawsuit will be followed by lots of others, and that will sure hurt their pockets. They will of course try the "but transfusion is a matter of the individual JWs conscience"-defense, which we all know is just bs. The thing is, this "defense" must be beaten in a court of law. And when that happens, presedence is set. And the gates of hell are opened up on the WTS. This will be really interesting! But lawsuits takes years. However, this will sure harm them in the long run. I see an analogy with the tobacco companies: When that first lawsuit against a tobacco company was won, a whole flood of lawsuits followed. And the sums weren`t small either, we`re talking multi-millions. Yeah, hit them in their wallet, that`s their soft spot.
I am assuming the 'cabal' that hyped this have plans beyond day 1, which should include that vital step; getting into court so a journal paper can become precedent.
Mass mailling to Dubbie will only work for those that can think independantly. The others will swallow the Dubby line... I came across this quotation whilst researching;
Given the Witnesses lack of toleration for individual autonomy and intellectual and spiritual independence among themselves, it is ironic that they have championed, however, reluctantly, the cause of individual liberty for everyone
(McAninch, "A Catalyst For The Evolution Of Constitutional Law," 1077).
They will of course try the "but transfusion is a matter of the individual JWs conscience"-defense, which... won't work. That's why this idea is cool. It is NOT about relgious freedom, it is NOT about freedom of expression, it is about misrepresentation of secular facts. If they had only ever said 'this is our interpretation of the Bible', they'd be safe. It's their habit of twisting quotes and omitting information so as to build a credible argument that have got them here. Sweet. I too don't expect things to move quickly for a good while... but a sucessful class action would require the GB to tuck their trousers in their socks and kiss their retirement home good bye...
Does Bethel know yet?
They knew before you did.