Of course that sort of thing would never come up if people would just build their statues of Jesus on private property to begin with. I’m pretty sure McDonald’s always buys the land before it puts up the Golden Arches.
And that infringes on my rights how?
Their religion does not infringe on anyone’s rights-unless they’re talking about minor children. If a person chooses not to have blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs-they’re not infringing on anyone’s rights. It’s their RIGHT to refuse to have a transfusion.
is that, those who experienced the JW “truth” but rejected it & died would go into non-existence & never be resurrected; while those who never really experienced the “truth” of the JW faith will be resurrected to have that opportunity & then if they reject what will be obviously true, they will be put out of existence.
an adult JW who willingly takes a blood transfusion or OKs one for a child risks never being resurrected. a JW, child or adult, who
gets a transfusion w/o their consent should be exempt for any penalty.
I don’t agree with any of this - just explaining.
I imagine that the statue of Jesus would offend many Christians as well. You know, idolotry, and all that.
If your religion says “anyone who drives a motorcycle is a heathen and an abomination” and you spread the word to others that I am a heathen, haven’t you slandered me ? This kind of thing goes on all the time. Wouldn’t that be infringing on my rights? I have the right to not be called names don’t I?
Not really, no. Libel and slander are legally actionable, but are also pretty narrowly defined. IANAL, but I know that the truth cannot be a libel. Saying “So-and-so will burn in the lake of fire for all eternity” or “So-and-so’s actions are displeasing to Almighty God” are statements the truth or falsehood of which cannot (fortunately) be decided in any secular court.
I think this is really to the advantage of us heathens and other religious minorities, as I’m pretty sure it would be the unpopular opinions which would be on the short end of the lawsuit more often than not if courts were permitted to meddle in such matters.
“Heathen” wouldn’t really be slander, it would be more an expression of that person’s opinion. It would be different if the person were spreading around that you were a rapist or child molester or had a loathesome disease, things that were not subjective opinions and had no basis in fact.
D’oh! Beaten again. MEBuckner came at the question a little differently, but still pretty much right. “Heathen” can’t be determined to be true or false. It’s like “jerkwad”.
“But your honor, truth is my defense! The plaintiff is, in fact, a jerkwad!”
“Your honor, if you will consult Exhibit A, a dictionary of the English language, you will see that the entry for ‘jerkwad’ is in fact illustrated with a picture of the plaintiff. The defense rests.”
Which I am, a few years ago, a girl died as her parents wouldn’t allow the doctors to give her a blood tranfusion. Then sometime last year, a religious couple (I’m not sure if they were Jehovas or not) had siamese twins, I don’t recall the exact place they were joined, but considering they had to be seperated, I’m guessing it was the spine, or they were sharing a heart. Anyways, the surgeon said they had to be seperated for one to day, or else they both would. The couple said both had to die because it was God’s will, but some court ruling had the surgeons seperate them.
I’m with Guinastasia. It strikes me as contradictory to promote the concept of the “mature minor” as a means of eliminating children who have been “brainwashed” into “religious fanatics”, so that they don’t reproduce, repeat the process, and risk other children’s lives.
If a child has been “brainwashed” by her parents into a particular belief, how can she be considered to have the free will and understanding to make a mature, adult decision?
If we are willing to allow a “brainwashed” child to die for a religious belief – whether to save us the trouble of dealing with her as an adult later on, or for some other reason – how are we different from the parents we would condemn for risking her life because of that belief?
Cite, please?
Most of the time, courts will rule that a parent cannot deny routine medical treatments to minors because of religious reasons.
That doesn’t mean, however, that excessive or non-routine procedures can’t be denied.
It happened in Britain. The parents were Catholics from Malta. Here’s a story from CBS about it. (The story erroneously states that the oarents were Eastern European. Malta is not in Eastern Europe.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/09/07/london/main231318.shtml
How would the Pat Roush case fall with ‘religious beliefs interfering on rights’?
American citizen marries Saudi Arabian citizen, marriage produces two daughters, marriage dissolves.
An American court (where the divorce occurred) grants sole custody to the American citizen, but the daughters are taken to Saudi Arabia by the non-custodial parent and have not (to date) returned to the U.S. due to the Islamic law of Saudi Arabia.
Does this mean that religious belief which is commingled with Saudi Arabian law has denied the daughters (both of whom are American citizens) their right to return to the U.S.?