All right cut the crap.... why are we fighting over the Big News?

by Check_Your_Premises 40 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  AuldSoul

  Gerard,

  Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.

  As you have repeatedly been told, there isn't a single element of the law that Ms. Louderback-Wood's article attempts to CHANGE.

  The reason the courts refused to hear argument of a religious nature in the Molko case is because of the focus established at the outset. The court allowed a trial within parameters that equally negated argumentation from either side on religious issues. Having narrowed the focus and the argumentation presented to secular issues only, the trial proceeded and was successful in providing the claimant relief.

  This theory requests similarly narrowed focus at the outset. If it EVER sees the inside of a courtroom for trial, the court will have negated the possibility of religious argument prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Therefore, the only arguments which would be deemed admissable in argumentation are those pertinent to secular issues.

  You have missed the significance, Eduardo (bless his heart) missed the significance, and even steve2 (a psychologist) missed the significance of NARROW FOCUS, and the effect it has of restricting argumentation to ONLY secular issues.

  If an attempt is made to shift the focus to religious doctrine by either side the court will step in and smack the offender. If narrow focus is allowed, there CAN'T be discussion of religion, at all. That is the application of Molko to this theory, Eduardo missed the mark big time in his analysis.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  joelbear

  i missed the big news and the big fight, yay!
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  A court can not consider a plaintiff's negligent infliction of injury count without entangling itself in matters of the religion and burdening the free exercise rights of the defendants. Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.

  Unfortunately, the assay (re: BIG NEWS!) has not, can not and will not change this law.

  G

  This has nothing to do with first admendment rights. Have your READ the paper?
  TAKEN FROM "THE BIG NEWS:" "In order to maximize chances of prevailing, a plaintifff's attorney should clearly articulate such a suit gainst the Society for inadiequate disclosure of its blood policy by empahasizing three points: (1) the usit is about the Society's failure to properly disseminate; (2) the suit does not attack the Society's or the individual's relgious belief; but rather, (3) the suit potects the follower's right to freee religious exercise by asserting damages against the Society for failing to dissmeinate its religious beliefs to its followers." (emphasis mine) --Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation
  

  ******************************************************
  

  "The relief would be narrow, as only the harmed parties who relied on the misrepresentations or omissions could sue, because the judgement would be in monetary damages, the religion could still practice and no one would be incarcerated. The monetary damages would need to be comparable with the damage inflicted, and the myriad of medical tort law settlements would provide guidance on damages for the value of a human life. Such a suit would only reach the Watchtower Society's non-religious behaviour of : (1) misrepresenting statements made by secular writers and (2) not fully disclosing its life-saving policy shipt of allowing blood components." (empahsis mine)

  -Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation

  **********************************************************
• 

  Gerard

  ...narrowed the focus and the argumentation presented to secular issues only

  As you've been told repeatedly, the "secular" medical teachings should have been taken from a qualified physician, not from a religious organization. ANy judge with 3 or less neurons will rule out that taking and acting these facts (either right or wrong) from the WT forms part of religious practice, and therefore, untouchable by civil courts. That is my point.

  I see no way you or any lawyer can separate religious doctrine & practices from the WT's writings -as you claim the current strategy is. The WT have all their bases covered at every instance they won their religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court.

  Of course, I hope time and a relevant BIG NEWS will prove me wrong.

  G
• 

  AuldSoul

  It ALREADY HAPPENED, in Molko. The plea for narrow focus was granted.

  AuldSoul

  P.S. Why don't you go ask whether Randy thinks this is valuable.
• 

  Gerard

  This has nothing to do with first amendment rights.

  Yes it does because it is the WT's all-powerful defense.

  (2) the suit does not attack the Society's or the individual's religious belief; but rather, (3) the suit potects the follower's right to freee religious exerciseby asserting damages against the Society for failing to dissmeinate its religious beliefs to its followers." (emphasis mine)
  
  

  --Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation

  Thank you, you made my point better than I: it is all about free religious exercise. Untouchable by a civil court. The best case scenario is that a judge will ask the WT to not write about medicine. But it is each individual person's responsibility to gather and act on information from a qualified physician, not from a religious cult.

  "The relief would be narrow, as only the harmed parties who relied on the misrepresentations or omissions could sue, because the judgement would be in monetary damages, the religion could still practice and no one would be incarcerated. The monetary damages would need to be comparable with the damage inflicted, and the myriad of medical tort law settlements would provide guidance on damages for the value of a human life. Such a suit would only reach the Watchtower Society's non-religious behavior of : (1) misrepresenting statements made by secular writers and (2) not fully disclosing its life-saving policy shipt of allowing blood components." (empahsis mine)

  -Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation

  The "narrow focus" of the essay is so narrow that it loses relevance and -IMO- practical application. I rather call the "narrow focus" an "immensely optimistic theory".

  Wake up and smell the flowers: What you call "The WT's non-religious behavior of misrepresenting statements" Judges call: religious freedom, doctrine, religious behavior and/or religious practice.

  I understand the paper. And I don't see any Judge awarding anything to a plaintiff on this unrealistically optimistic basis, because in truth, every blood transfusion rejection by a JW was in fact a religious motivated behavior. Only if the adult patient was deemed "insane or incapable", then a legal guardian would have overridden the patient's wish to refuse blood / blood products.

  The WT, you and the civil courts know that the blood issue is a religious choice, and whether the WT used faith, Voodoo, or fried-green-tomatoes to convince you to subject yourself to the cults' rites and practices, it is LEGALY, ultimately, YOU the one responsible for subjecting to the cult's doctrine of accepting / refusing competent medical treatment.

  That is, regardless of religion, the decision and responsibility to refuse qualified medical care is yours. If your doctor misrepresented the medical facts, he will certainly be liable. But hey, just spend a couple of hundred thousand$ trying to convince a Civil Court Judge that all JWs are under the impression the medical opinion of this religious cult, supersedes the medical opinion of a qualified physician.
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  So you are saying because the words, 'religious beliefs' are in the sentence, then all the other words in the same sentence don't count? Because all the other words in the sentence say the suit is NOT attacking religious beliefs.
• 

  Gerard

  It ALREADY HAPPENED, in Molko. The plea for narrow focus was granted.

  I believe that in that case the misrepresentation was granted only because of the failure to disclose the real religion they offered. The court was not asked to rule on religious doctrine, beliefs or practices. THAT is the difference and relevance.
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  The court was not asked to rule on religious doctrine, beliefs or practices. THAT is the difference and relevance .

  The suits proposed do not ask the court to rule on religious doctrine, beliefs or practices. That fact is repeated over and over in the paper.

  You might not think that is possible, and I understand that you don't. But you can't say that the 'Big News' is saying a court should be asked to rule on religious doctrine, beliefs or practices, when that is not what the paper is saying at all.
• 

  Gerard

  So you are saying because the words, 'religious beliefs' are in the sentence, then all the other words in the same sentence don't count? Because all the other words in the sentence say the suit is NOT attacking religious beliefs.

  OK. The WT can and have freedom of expression and can print its opinion and "facts" on medical issues (as nauseating as that is). You may want to challenge its accuracy, sure, that but it will be meaningless to victims of an unhealthy treatment choice of theirs. Want to remain secular and win this? You will have to convince a Civil Court Judge that the WT's medical opinion and credentials supersede the medical opinion and credentials of a qualified physician.