Let me go ahead and state, this will lead to legal action. Whether such action will be successful or not is yet to be established, but the grounds seem very sollid in that they reach back to address a state prior to adoption of doctrine and work forward from that point. This method has already been successfully applied in court.
It hasn't been successfully applied to the acceptance of doctrine regarding blood transfusions, but hopefully that will soon change. Note, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE BLOOD DOCTRINE, it is about how people are convinced to ACCEPT the doctrine. This has never been attempted before in courts: a claim that misrepresentation of secular fact was employed to garner acceptance of the doctrine, therefore making the organization liable for Tort of Misrepresentation and potentially criminal negligence resulting in death down the road.
We have always focused on the doctrine AFTER acceptance, now we are going after the misrepresentations of secular that create an increased likelihood of acceptance of the doctrine. It may take some time to wrap the brain around, but this is not an ttack on religious dogma—which means it just may work.
I respectfully disagree, Legolas. This is the best opportunity we've ever had to truly injur the beast.