Dear Waystation,
Which point was she misinformed about? Being appalled that our untainted Watchtower Society would have a vested interested in helping Jimmy Swaggart & Ministeries? So was I.
You state, kinda quoting you, that the persons who file the Friend of the Court brief might even have to have the permission of the parties involved or the Court. Well, no duh. That would suggest that the Society for Krishna Consciousness "might even" have had permission, along with other Churches, to file their similiar view points, also. Point well taken, and as I above stated, religion and money make strange bedfellows.
You also stated: "to intervene in a case in which they are neither plaintiff or defendant, usually to present their point of view (or that of their organization) in a case which has the potential of setting a legal precedent in their area of activity." Well, how do you and I disagree on that statement?
Jimmy Swaggart was being sued for CA sales tax. The Watchtower, along with other churches, do not want to pay sales tax. Thus, they approach the court, with permission, to file a Amicus curiae - for everyone's potential monetary benefit.
By the way, my daughter's boss, The Attorney, was the one who said the filer of the Amicus curiae
usually was in agreement with seeing the outcome of the court case to be decided in favor the one they were filing on behalf of - Jimmy Swaggart.
So, I really don't see your point - our beloved Watchtower Society discourages us from buying Girl Scout cookies and giving old clothes to the poor thru the Salvation Army - we must never lend our support or money to another religious organization, even if it actually has the potential of helping kids and poor people. We have been taught that helping doesn't matter - we must stay untainted by Babylon the Great.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society lended their support to Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries - to help fend off potentially "setting a legal precedent in their area of activity." And they were trying to save themselves money - which would have helped Jimmy Swaggart save money.
Quoting the Conclusion of the Friends of the Court brief filed by the Society: "However, Watchtower disagrees with the California court's abandonment of the following fundamental principle in Murdock: The mere fact that the religious literature is "sold" by itinerant preachers rather than "donated" does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project. The constitutional rights of those spreading their religious beliefs through the spoken and printed word are not to be gauged by standards governing retailers and wholesalers of books...The problem of drawing the line between a purely commercial activity and a religious group will at times be difficult.
319U.S. at 1II.
Despite the occasional difficulties in distinguishing commercial from religous activities, the distinction exists and must be observed. Where the activity is religious, such as that of ministers of Jehovah's Witnesses, the burdens imposed on retail merchants (to register, file quarterly returns, collect and pay license or sales or use or whatever taxes) should not encumber the right to freely deliver or receive a sermon, printed or otherwise."
Obviously, the Supreme Court of the United State of America did not agree with Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries, Watchtower Society, National Council of Churches and Society for Krishn Consciousness.
Again, for the record, Jimmy was ruled to pay his sales tax owed, and Jehovah's Witnesses went to a complete donation system - even for their assembly food.
