Re: Tom DeVocht - Stop your bullying Scientology and leave my family and my friends a
Churchill, I think it's time we really got serious about taking on the legal aspects of this. Meaning -- it's time for us to use some hard-hitting US constitutional attorneys.
The First Amendment guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights. It does not guarantee church rights, corporate rights, non-profit rights or any other
group rights.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
The idea that a church can limit someone's speech regarding their former religion and their experiences there by the signing of documents is ludicrous. IMHO, to speak out against a church's religious beliefs or practices is the legitimate exercising of First Amendment rights.
The Garcia case - that a judge can formally insist that a former member of a cult must use arbitration procedures written within that cult's belief system, which the Garcias have long since left, and its facade framework is shocking. This violates the Garcias First Amendment rights - not just to practice their beliefs, but to fully renounce their beliefs.
Tom DeVocht and other Scientologists have repeatedly and systematically had their First Amendment and other rights stomped. A CHURCH does not have the right to enforce its beliefs on anyone. The use of physical coercion, punishment, threats, internal jails (RPF), etc., are all a violation of constitutional rights. Individuals are punished for exercising free speech or their rights to life, liberty and happiness are taken from them in the form or disconnection, harassment, intimidation and outright abuse. A CHURCH or CULT does not have individual rights, IMHO, and this is a perversion of the words of the Constitution.
It makes me sick to see laws twisted and abused this way.
Cornell University sees this conflict of individual and group (church or cult) rights written within the First Amendment and describes it as follows:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
[/INDENT]
Wow Sheila I am so glad you posted this..it has been very helpful to me as regards my concern of the '1st Amendment'.
In fact on March 14th I made some comments on Tony Ortega's Blog the Underground Bunker regarding this issue.
by ME... (Dchoice)
I think there needs to be an amendment to the the 1st. Where in the rights granted in free exercise
of beliefs cannot be senior or override the other rights given the greater community (citizens) in
the constitution. And most certainly not exempt from purview and adjudication as to benefit or equity
in that respect in a court. (I feel that the courts have gone astray on this since at least since
the late 19th century).
I feel that contract law also intertwines with this but as I am not a lawyer nor diligent layman
student of law I am unable at this time to even make an clear opinion on this.
I would love to hear or learn more about this by anyone familiar with these laws.
True justice is just not being arrived at. Especially in regards this case.
====================
Me to TX Lawyer
This is so close to what is wrong ( or wrongly adjudicated) with the 1st Amendment and decisions
related thereto. It enables, as shown so far in this case, a religious community and their beliefs to
be above the trier of fact and adjudication of the court of the whole land. In essence is establishes
or at least permits an entity, free to curtail and harm the rights of others, to exist within the the
USA. The potential for treason against the nation and its citizens is the anti-social `53rd card in
the deck that is surreptitiously injecting into the 52 card game.
How is a Judge and the court system ever going to be a trier of facts when that 53rd card can never
be tried.?
Whatever happened to equality under the law?
=====================
and from your link.. ( underlining is done by me)
....
Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:
If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion.
In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]
And although this could be an entire thread on it's own.. I do belief it is extremely pertinent to Tom DeVocht's situation and in fact the Fair Game extremism as incited by Hubbard. Any Legislature and Judicial system worth their weight would look at the 1st, and the actions of scientology and say holy crap...we need to fix the laws to protect our citizens and our country because cults are operating well outside the intent of the Supreme Law of the USA.