What's new

Rutherford Institute Supports Scientology Defense of Forced Abortion Case


@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Rutherford Institute Supports Scientology Defense of Forced Abortion Case

From Tony Ortega: http://Rutherford Institute Supports Scientology Defense of Forced Abortion Case

Response from The Rutherford Institute

We reported earlier that two organizations had filed amicus briefs to Scientology’s petition to the US Supreme Court in its lawsuit with Laura DeCrescenzo, who is suing the church over the way she was mistreated as a Sea Org employee, including being forced to have an abortion at 17. We told you that the Episcopal Church was unhappy once one of our readers notified it that the National Council of Churches, of which it is a member, had provided an amicus letter in support of Scientology. The other organization that filed a letter was The Rutherford Institute, which tends to file a lot of such letters in what it considers First Amendment issues. One of our readers wrote to the Institute, explaining that Scientology’s complaints about priest-penitent privilege were really cover for what it was really trying to do — keep under wraps thousands of pages resulting from interrogations of DeCrescenzo, which would have included intimate details of her private life, and which were shared among more than 250 church officials.

But the Rutherford Institute was not swayed. Here’s the message it sent to our reader, with no name attached…
With respect to our amicus brief in support of the Scientology v. DeCrescenzo cert petition, as a civil liberties and civil rights organization, we are interested in ensuring the protection of individual rights in any form they may take. Particularly, since our founding in 1982 we have had a specific focus on defending religious liberty rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The issue in this particular case turned on whether the Church of Scientology could properly invoke the penitent-clergy evidentiary privilege rule that keeps confidential certain communications between penitents and clergy members of the church. In the lower court, the California Superior Court ruled that the privilege was vitiated by virtue of the fact that the privileged information was transmitted from one clergyman to another clergyman within the church. We argued, and it is our belief that, in reaching this determination that the privilege is destroyed simply by the transmission of the privileged information between clergymen, without any inquiry into the reason or justification for the transmission, the court sets a dangerous precedent. Many religions, including Scientology, Mormons, and other Christian sects like Methodists, are not limited to a traditional one-on-one Catholic-style clergy-penitent relationship, and it is often the case that either for the purpose of advice and counsel or for reasons of seeking absolution, privileged information will be transmitted from one clergyman to another. We believe that the court’s ruling that the privilege is destroyed in such a circumstance represents discrimination among the different religions, which the First Amendment cannot tolerate. With regard to your specific concerns about the fact that the privilege is being invoked only by the Church and not by Ms. DeCrescenzo, prior court precedent has clearly held that the privilege can be invoked by either party, and for good reason — in giving absolution, clergymen often also share very personal, private, and privileged faith-based information, and the threat that such information could potentially be revealed might hinder the genuineness and effectiveness of the absolution-seeking process.

While we understand that you might have concerns about the motivations and practices of the Scientology religion specifically, our interest in this case is broader than any single religion or practice, and instead our argument focuses on the fact that the decision results in an unconstitutional denominational preference, favoring one group of religions over another. We strongly support the legal principle that we argue in favor of in our petition — that the privilege should be extended evenly to religious practices evenly, without favoring or disfavoring any religion because of the manner in which they engage in clergy-penitent communications.

Thank you for your thoughts on this, and we hope that you continue to read our articles and remain interested in what we do.

History of The Rutherford Institute
On June 29, 1982 John Whitehead and his wife Carol withdrew $200 from their bank account—their entire savings at the time—and set up a small office in the basement of their home. As a Christian and 60s rebel who considered himself an activist, Whitehead dreamed of creating a legal organization that would defend people who were persecuted or oppressed for their beliefs without charging them for such services. He also hoped to influence American culture by encouraging Christians to play a more active role in the courts and in society as a whole. As Whitehead has said, "The Rutherford Institute exists to ensure that people are treated fairly in the courts and are free to express themselves without fear." At the time it was a radical idea. Given the enormity of the task, and the limited finances, many thought the Whiteheads were chasing windmills.

Fast-forward thirty years…

Against the odds The Rutherford Institute (named after Samuel Rutherford, a 17th century Scottish theologian who believed that no one, not even the King, was above the law.) has emerged as one of the nation's leading advocates of religious freedom and civil liberties. Last year alone over 10,000 requests for legal assistance were handled by Institute staff. And with a national affiliate network of over 700 volunteer attorneys, trained and educated on pertinent case law and provided with sample pleadings, legal research, and support and funding for court expenses, the Institute is equipped to handle hundreds of cases at a time. In addition the Institute’s media department makes sure that the major television news stations and thousands of newspaper outlets and radio stations receive news alerts on Institute cases, as well as public service messages on issues concerning religious freedom and constitutional liberties. Now that the Institute has become a nationally known force to reckon with, important cases get the attention they deserve.

Long ago, in a land far, far away…

In the late 70s the idea of encouraging Christians to get more involved in the courts and in politics was not a popular idea. In fact some believers told Whitehead that Christian involvement in the courts was unbiblical. "Religious people had mostly withdrawn and were not participating in their culture," says Whitehead. "Some of it was due to fear of discrimination; for others it was a conscious choice." But Whitehead believed that Christians needed to be willing to fight court battles to preserve religious freedoms, "otherwise you create a vacuum, and other voices are going to fill it up." In essence Whitehead believed that American society, and the Constitution itself, was under siege by an increasingly cold and inhuman secular view of the world. To counter that, Whitehead believed that Christians had to start becoming activists. In 1981 Whitehead wrote The Second American Revolution, in which he argued that modern humanism had turned the state into a kind of deity, with the Supreme Court making laws that actively rejected God and paved the way for abortion, euthanasia, and an attack on religious liberty. Although he used strong, "fighting words" in the book, Whitehead advocated a peaceful revolution, one "not designed to kill people or tear down and physically destroy society, but a revolution in the minds and souls of human beings." The Second American Revolution sold over 100,000 copies and made Whitehead a minor celebrity in the Christian media. Suddenly his phone began ringing with Christians claiming they had suffered religious discrimination for too long and were now ready to do something about it. By 1982 Christian evangelicals like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson had caught up with Whitehead’s notion that it was okay, perhaps necessary, for Christians to be involved in the courts and in politics. The revolution had begun.

Keeping the faith…

During the 80s and early 90s, an era of unprecedented wealth and prosperity in American society, many "Christian" movements and organizations succumbed to the temptations of greed and political ambition. As early as 1986 Whitehead began to wonder what had happened to the real Christian message in the modern world. He had seen too many of his "evangelical heroes" make ideological compromises in order to appease their political allies. In addition the inconsistency and hypocrisy of some of the evangelical leaders he had worked with began to disturb him. One well-known leader even made a habit of using Rutherford Institute cases to raise money for his ministry! It was a serious time of questioning for Whitehead and The Rutherford Institute. What was the true essence of being a Christian? Was it an attempted takeover of society, as some evangelicals were saying? Were passing laws and electing the next popular candidate more important than caring for human beings? Gradually Whitehead began to see that some of his more strident beliefs might have been based on some popular evangelical interpretations rather than on Christ’s true teachings. The fruit of this questioning was a small book called True Christianity, in which Whitehead clarified Christ’s teaching as he had begun to understand them, rejected the modern evangelical infatuation with entertainment and various forms of utopianism, and called on individual Christians to become more emotionally and intellectually engaged with their faith. "Equipped with great spiritually and intellectual power," Whitehead wrote, "along with fervent devotion to Jesus Christ, Christians can change the world around them." For the next fifteen years, Whitehead and The Rutherford Institute would do just that. By standing up for the religious freedoms and constitutional rights of countless individuals, provoking those on both sides of the political aisle with its independent and sometimes controversial stance on the issues, setting important legal precedents in several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and creating cultural and educational programs to help people better understand our rapidly changing world, The Rutherford Institute and its supporters have indeed changed the world around them.

An enduring message…

During the last twenty years, The Rutherford Institute has managed never to lose sight of its original vision or its humble beginnings. Even in the blinding glare of national media attention, the moral and religious foundation on which the Institute was built has always remained intact. This remarkable feat is due in large part to Whitehead’s decision to remain independent, to steer clear of political associations, and to keep the message pure and simple. As Whitehead writes in his autobiography Slaying Dragons," the enduring message of my life is not about human rights, religious freedoms, or the law. It is that there is a God who cares about people."
Twitter: @Rutherford_Inst

Last edited:


@IndieScieNews on Twitter
More info from WWP: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...on-lawsuit-updates.109839/page-8#post-2359821
Rutherford Institute is one of those religious right wingnut defender groups that has a flaky history of defending churches/pastors as well as attacking them when a christian or parishioner has been wronged. While their website and Wikipedia page paints the picture of the Rutherford group being righteous civil rights crusaders, that is not the whole story. More on their right winger pot-stirring antics here:



So no surprise this flippy floppy group is defending Scientology, AGAIN. They have done it before when Germany was getting ready to drop the ban hammer on the cult. And prior to that, they also defended against Scientology's aggressive attempts to censor the internet before the OT levels got released.

1992 Rutherford Institute protecting a Christian counter-cult organization against scilon censorship attacks:

1997 Rutherford Institute defending scilons against German efforts:
hatewatch.freedommag [dot] org /press/eng/apr/ 97040201.htm
See attached document for an alternate copy of ^^That.

As an aside, after reading the harpoon response on The Bunker it's strikes me as curious that they did NOT publish their brief in LauraD's case on their website since it appears they archive most of their filings there.

Rutherford Institute online legal archive via googlefu:


Gold Meritorious Patron
I wonder what Christ would say! The hipocraxy (I'll leave that typo right there) is disgraceful. That an organization founded on protecting the rights of living individuals and their would end up on the devil's side protecting another organization (a legal fictitious person) over the rights of life ( a child of god?). BY their reasoning it would have been okay to abort Jesus and if that failed then (excuse my ignorance of history) it would have been okay for a then extant religion to put Jesus on the cross because it was an organization's belief to murder and that belief is "senior" to all living individuals. And it is completely okay to overlook such attacks on a real individual who chose her life's beliefs over that of an oppressor ( a factitious one at that) protected from being encroached upon by the very laws of the country and that the oppressed should have her rights denied (encroached upon) in favour of the oppressor!! WTF????

Let me see,,hmm if there is a God and a devil..which of those would enable the law to sheild an oppressor through the courts.

Makes a lot of sense...not...Maybe I should start a religion and write scripture that says the hearts and conscience of all lawers should be cut out out and sent to heaven for God's final judgement. That aught to work. Hope the Rutherford Insanestitute would fight for my religion too. :omg:

Surely this statement is not true, "... creating a legal organization that would defend people who were persecuted or oppressed for their beliefs without charging them for such services...or it is being 'squirrelled' :yes::biggrin: Maybe they should change their name to Rutherford's squirrelly nuts.

NOTE: the above contains religious beliefs and is untouchable regardless of the condition of it's off the rails inhumane author.

next sermon when the spirit moves me.:grouch:


@IndieScieNews on Twitter
A Christian's view of the Church of Scientology

I'm going to put this here in case any new people, perhaps using Google, stumble on this thread.

A Christian's view of the Church of Scientology