Court: Judges cannot get involved in Church Disputes
by Iamallcool 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AllTimeJeff
Yet another reason why using the legal system for civil relief and to bring down JW's is pretty close to a waste of time.
Criminal? That depends on if/when/ever the USA starts to investigate things like pedophilia. That is different, but I don't see that around the bend.
-
wobble
The legal sytem wishing to not get involved is understandable with the U.S constitution being what it is, but here in the U.K the same attitude exists, hence it is nigh on impossible to insist that laws like the Human Rights Act should apply when someone faces a JW Judicial Committee.
If the law was followed, the "defendant" would have all sorts of rights that are considered vital to the workings of justice in normal courts, the right to see evidence against you,time to prepare a defense, the right to a qualified defender, the right to record all proceedings etc etc
None of these things are allowed for the accused in a JC, if it is not a court, why call it a JC ? if it is a court, albeit an ecclesiastical one, why cannot it act for justice as much as "worldly" courts do ?
Because a JC is actually a Star Chamber, Kangaroo Court run by janitors in cheap suits, who know or care nothing for justice.
This ruling by the american court is a bad day for justice.
-
Quendi
This SCOTUS ruling will put paid to any and all efforts to sue the WTS over its disfellowshipping practices in the United States. The decision was unanimous, and I'm sure they broke out the champagne in Bethel when they got word about it. As deplorable as the WTS' actions in this regard are, I believe the Court was absolutely right in its decision. The best thing for disfellowshipped people to do with respect to their friends and family members who continue to shun them is to 'return evil for evil to no one'. They should get on with their lives and leave these others behind and the sooner they do so, the better off they will be.
Quendi
-
Band on the Run
I am certain the analysis is correct. There was a decision involving the Salvation Army a few years ago. I have no opinion as to whether this is good policy or not. I believe in the current Free Exercise cases. Depending on the facts, I can like or dislike the results in any case. It would be a mistake to burden all religions b/c of bad feelings toward the Witnesses. It might make oone wonder whether to pursue a secular career in any religion.
-
ashlyashly
That's nice analysis.
-
GLTirebiter
Here's a link to the decision. Does the Alito-Kagan concurring opinion reasonably include as "ministers" all the "baptized publishers" taking Watchtower teachings door-to-door? This language suggests it would:
The “ministerial” exception gives concrete protection to the free “expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine.” The Constitution leaves it to the collective conscience of each religious group to determine for itself who is qualified to serve as a teacher or messenger of its faith.
Edit to add: This was a rare unanimous decision from the Supreme Court! -
steve2
The defending lawyer refered to it as a victory for religious freedom - not dissimilar to the way the Watchtower crows about this kind of outcome.
I'd just modify slightly the lawyer's declaration: it is a victory, not for individual's religious freedom, but for the freedom of religious groups.
-
DT
I think this is a mixed blessing for religious organizations. Many churches are in desperate need of ministers. This will not make it any easier for them to find people who are willing to choose a career path that offers very few legal protections. If religious occupations don't offer the same job security as secular occupations, then it is only natural that fewer people will undergo the training to become ministers.
I found it interesting that this court case didn't address the issue of breach of contract. However, it raises the question of whether this could also be a problem for religious employees seeking relief. If so, it would frustrate the plans of a religious organization that realises that it may be necessary to offer reasonable employment contracts to entice people to work for them as a career.
If the rights of a religious organisation to enter into contracts, that are enforceable by law, is tampered with, then it would be a severe limitation of its ability to function in the real world. On the other hand, if the courts are willing to fully enforce contracts made with religious organisations, then it could easily involve judicial involvement in internal religious affairs.
-
Band on the Run
One of the signs of John Roberts' leadership as Chief Justice is the vast number of unanimous opinions. It is either a first or a close second. The trend is directly responsible to Roberts.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bans government involvement in religion. There is to be no state religion as existed in England and Europe. One of the key test is "excessive entangelment" of government and religion. If courts could decide what constitutes a minister, the state would decide religious matters.
Many people want to bring law suits against the Witnesses. The First Amendment almost always bars such suits. Law suits rarely bring justice. Substantive issues are lost in a wealth of procedural issues. It takes years for resolution. There is no fairness unless both parties have equal firing power. Marketing seems a much better answer. Every late night comedy show that makes a JW joke makes it harder for people to take them seriously. We should be powerful word of mouth concerning the truth of overreaching and total control. The problem is convey the message without rancor when you feel rage.
Most people know knocking on doors and blood transfusions. If people knew about oral sex, shunning, the vast number of failed Armageddon predictions, the joke of the New World Translation, hatred of education, etc. I don't think they would find a willing crowd to convert.
An evangelical Christian I know who knows of my JW background keeps putting them down as though her religion is so golden. It is obvious I am full of rage for the JWs but she turns me off with her ardor.