Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Euphemism

    Wow! I'm glad to hear about this; any peer-reviewed literature that helps show the true nature of the Witnesses is a very good thing. I wouldn't get my hopes up about a lawsuit, however.

    No doubt this article makes a plausible case. But law reviews are full of plausible arguments on both sides of a question. Getting published in a law review is no guarantee of winning in court.

    There are two major legal issues that I don't see addressed in the excerpts:

    1. The Establishment Clause. Any inquiry into the rationality or consistency of a religion's beliefs is generally deemed an 'entanglement' with religion, which is not allowed. This would be a serious roadblock to bringing up in court the latter two objections presented:

    *The organization’s current blood policy misrepresents the scope of allowed blood products; and

    *The organization’s blood policy contains contradictions about autologous blood transfusions.

    Note that this is a separate issue from that of free exercise, which the article addresses.

    2. Freedom of Speech. Misleading argumentation--especially if it can be argued to be sincerely held--is constitutionally protected. People who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that the Holocaust didn't really happen, etc. are free to present half-truths, misquotes, and so forth. They're even free to solicit money to spread their misleading beliefs. The tort of misrepresentation requires one to enter a contract based on the misrepresentation. (And no, baptism is not considered a contract.)

    I may be more optimistic after reading the article, but for now, you'll have to color me skeptical.

    Even if a lawsuit is not a possibility, however, I think the article will still be useful in legal cases involving minors and transfusions, as well as in spreading general knowledge of the Witnesses in the legal community. So it is a very good thing, no doubt about that.

  • hartstrings

    The question arises, Will this entail CRIMINAL proceedings or civil? And if it is criminal, where does the burden of proof lie? Will the WTS have to prove that they didn't knowingly mislead anyone? Are their internal documents or witnesses that will show that the writers of these documents KNOWINGLY lied? I see FRAUD as the fundamental issue here, but how do you prove fraud in this case? HS

  • Euphemism

    BTW, the URL for the journal is (the C in Church is capitalized)

  • Ticker

    I think its obvious though that for this too have effect we must raise our voices and get this message out to thoese who can make religion liable for their damaging doctrines. This brochure needs to get some momentum behind it for it to fully effect the court system.


  • Euphemism
    hartstrings wrote:The question arises, Will this entail CRIMINAL proceedings or civil?

    The article title refers to "the tort of misrepresentation." A "tort" is civil.

  • Sunspot

    The WTS is NOW, at long last, going to be FORCED to clean up its act and be honest in the way it represents the facts...or face countless and costly lawsuits.

    ***Thank you, Barbara!!!!!!

    Copy, paste, send.....

    JUST what I did when I logged on to see what might have happened while I was watching the end of "The Great Race"! I see now yet another great race before me....trying to send as much as I can to as many as I can....and still finish the Christmas gifts and preparations in good time! (Party on the 18th!) And yes....THANK YOU DEAR BARBARA!!!!

    ***Outstanding....Indoctrination by deceptive literature! That's a can of worms there.

    Dontcha just LOVE IT??? The wording is "right out there" and doesn't pull any punches as to what their "findings" are when it comes to the WTS, huh? LOL!

    ***I think some are missing the point. Please read the entire thing. ITS NOT ABOUT THE BLOOD CARD OR COERCING WITNESSES OR SHUNNING. It's about the misrepresentation of medical facts. Which is what they are indeed guilty of and will definately be sued for.

    EXACTLY, Doodle V! The fact that they WILL be targets for costly and defaming lawsuits by nonJW family members---to ME is a great thing! THese family members are NOT subject to the WTS "rulez and regz" and will be MORE than pleased to know that THEY will be able to be "heard" in a court of law! This groundbreaking path has been put into motion, the precent has been set....Sounds like a REAL big deal to ME!

    ***I hope there isn't a statute of limitations involved

    {{{Mulan}}}...As was brought out---murder HAS no SOL...I'm hoping that thousands will be made aware of this BBN and will act according to the law....and sue the pants off the WTS for misrepresentation!

    ***What this opens up is the opportunity to hold a religion LEGALLY responsible for its teachings.

    Absolutely! This IS of monumental importance!!!!

    ***The importance of this article, and its legal implications are massive.

    ***Print out the post, read it, go to bed and think and talk about this. We have a lot of work to do, starting tomorrow.

    I am soooo physically tired and very exhausted right now, but I am SO excited to get going with this tomorrow. I have already posted this on the JW debate board at B'net as SOON as I read the BBN...but I am going to hit the sack soon..I hope!

    I stopped reading at page 3, long enough to see our wonderful advocate and friend--- AlanF's post! SO nice to see THAT amongst the other comments!!

    (Sigh)...Sometimes I wish there was two of me....but then again, I have enough to deal with being "one of me" LOL!

    I DO want to say that I dearly hope that I can contribute something worthwhile to this wonderful and important effort---and hope to make a difference somewhere, and somehow in my life. Whatever I do...I'll be doing it alongside champions from my fellow WTS victims here...

    VERY special hugs again to Barbara, to AlanF, and to all my friends here who stuck through this "waiting period" and are geared up for the days ahead...

    See you all in the morning......


  • Ticker

    Goodnight Annie.


  • bebu

    Wrong post here...

  • bebu

    From what I see, Euph, it is not merely misleading information--that is sincerely believed--being the issue. It is the quoting out of context, the deliberate manhandling of secular and historical facts, and how lies are given the status of facts by which people make life-or-death decisions. Re-read the article Barb posted, and you'll see that such mishandling of facts has been determined to not be related to freedom of religion. Whether secular or religious, lying in matters where the government has a claim:

    1. Government must have an important or compelling state interest.

    2. The “burden of expression must be essential to further” this interest.

    3. The “burden must be the minimum required to achieve” this interest.

    4. The measure must apply to everyone, not just the questioned religion.[2]

    This means, I think, that not every aggravating lie can be pursued in a lawsuit. It is only the matters which the government has an important or compelling state interest, such as life-and-death issues of citizens, especially minors. And the lies over the blood issue qualify for sure.

    I appreciated hearing more info about the journal, AuldSoul, and the fact that this essay got published without any difficulty. Hats off to you for "figuring it out".

    My husband was appalled at hearing all the distortions concerning blood, both its supposed dangers and the overstated safety of bloodless surgery.

    Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44 percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.[30]

    He noted that anyone going into renal failure immediately begins to battle anemia--it's the nature of the condition. And so, I suppose this is why the JW group had nearly double the kidney rejections--they put themselves into the higher-risk group from the start.

    He feels that hospitals, though, will probably wait until there is a court decision made over this before they really use this document. I'm curious about what anyone here who has worked in hospital admin has to say... I personally think hospitals would be very happy to see some grist by which to prevent another tragedy from occurring, even before a court processes any case...

    The blood pamphlet, which I have never read, sounds as deceptive and distorting as the Trinity pamphlet. I feel I should have been able to figure this all out, given the precedent I knew about...


  • bebu

    Sorry !

Share this