Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief
Im not a lawyer but I would think that there would be some legal boundaries beyond "whatever".
Fundamentalist Mormons are not legally free to exercise their belief in plural marriage. David Koresh types are not legally free to have sex with minors because its their belief that it is OK accoerding to their interpretation of scripture. Killing abortion doctors still brings legal consequences no matter what people may believe.
Legally boundaries still apply in most cases that I am aware of that adversely effect other people..
If someones beliefs include plagiarism or copyright infringement as a legitimate " gift of the spirit" do they automatically get off the hook?
If so, Im going to setup a religion that believes in bank robbery and is constitutionally protected for me to freely exercise
While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint
that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as
well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.
The 'fact' that it is ALSO doctrine does not alter the FACT that it is PROPERTY and therefore subject to copyright protections which you have apparently breached. One does not negate the other.
The 'fact' that it is ALSO doctrine does not alter the FACT that it is PROPERTY and therefore subject to copyright protections which you have apparently breached. One does not negate the other.
.
I still have a disagreement that in and of itself it is "doctrine"-
-Interpretation of the text is doctrine...
Will everyone who reads it be nontrinitarian? Will they also all believe that the dead are dead until the return? 4 were crucified with Christ?
I doubt it...
What about water baptism? tithing?
divorce? Abortion? Church Polity?, Motorcoaches? hitting children with a wooden spoon?
I heavily doubt that everyone who reads the text will hold the exact same belief structure or doctrinal views by a long shot
How then can it be considered doctrine if those that purport to 'believe' it can hold opposing views?
I'd be amazed if they didn't vary substantially on several points
James you might want to actually read through those court casese you are citing as at least one of them does not support what you claim it supports.
I am not going to tell you which one. If you are citing them in court you need to know what they say, what they were actually about, and what the COURT actually ruled on.
Just citing them in court will not win your case you do realise the judge will read them over too. Dazzle in court only works on TV shows.
Edited to add.
I suggest you go find some other cases because those two you cited actually favor TWI if you used them in a court of law.
Both of these cases involve Real Estate law. And the whole doctrinal angle you are throwing down is being thrown out by the court in them and the cases were judged soley on the merit of law in regards to Real Estate and the Property rights of the Owner of record of each of these properties.
THe Court is saying it will not rule on these decision based on doctrinal theory of the respective religious oraganizations in the lawsuits but on the actual Law.
The First Amendment's mandate, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has been consistently recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const. Amend. I.
In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:
In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.
I suspect the court will side
with you allowing you to continue to believe whatever you wish
...and against you in that you infringed on their copyright
Unless you can come up with a valid argument proving that religious organizations, or at least the Way in particular, do not merit copyright protection.
In Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) the Court unanimously (9-0) decided that the Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in this dispute.
In the 1970 case ((MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S. 367, 368-370 (1970)) the Court did rule on the property dispute, but also held that it could not have done so if doing so would have required the court to consider matters of doctrine, saying "general principles of property law may NOT be relied upon if their application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example, provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced."
In Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) the Court unanimously (9-0) decided that the Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in this dispute.
In the 1970 case ((MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S. 367, 368-370 (1970)) the Court did rule on the property dispute, but also held that it could not have done so if doing so would have required the court to consider matters of doctrine, saying "general principles of property law may NOT be relied upon if their application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example, provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced."
Yes I believe the court will set aside all doctrinal issues and "not rule" on any of those and view your case as a pure copyright infringement case.
In order to do so they will look at the words in question without regard to what you (or the Way) say about doctrine.
If you bring it up doctrine, the judge will simply tell you to desist, looking instead to the amount of material borrowed.
I'll assume it's enough to gain attention from the Way, so it's probably signifigant.
If you try to make doctrine a point, the Way's lawyers will object. The Judge will uphold their objection and proceed with the case.
I'd make preparations for that if I were you, and I wouldn't count on making it a doctrinal case. Maybe later on you can appeal it.
But a lower court will not allow itself to become entangled, they'll find you guilty and let you appeal.
That's quite common on any touchy cases. Let a Higher court decide.
Even if they let you speak on "Doctrine",... don't delude yourself into thinking they will decide on that basis in a Lower court.
Yes I believe the court will set aside all doctrinal issues and "not rule" on any of those and view your case as a pure copyright infringement case.
In order to do so they will look at the words in question without regard to what you (or the Way) say about doctrine.
If you bring it up doctrine, the judge will simply tell you to desist, looking instead to the amount of material borrowed.
I'll assume it's enough to gain attention from the Way, so it's probably signifigant.
If you try to make doctrine a point, the Way's lawyers will object. The Judge will uphold their objection and proceed with the case.
I'd make preparations for that if I were you, and I wouldn't count on making it a doctrinal case. Maybe later on you can appeal it.
But a lower court will not allow itself to become entangled, they'll find you guilty and let you appeal.
That's quite common on any touchy cases. Let a Higher court decide.
Even if they let you speak on "Doctrine",... don't delude yourself into thinking they will decide on that basis in a Lower court.
OK you are almost there. There are really only two major points that my First Amendment jurisdiction argument turns on:
1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.
2. Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine.
3. Therefore in resolving this property dispute the court would be required to consider Bible translation, weigh Bible Translation, interpret (translate) the Bible itself and resolve issues of Bible translation in order to determine if a copyright infringement has occurred, this the court is constitutionally barred from hearing this case.
Below is a much more in depth explanation of why Bible translation is doctrine and how the court would be in unconstitutional territory in hearing this case.
TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the
“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”
as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious
education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a
“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical
research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and
“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have
no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New
Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”
as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a
form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because
“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its
very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture
interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme
Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and
implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon
resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because
determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording
of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own
translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits
that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what
Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other
differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two
versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would
forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not
identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit
Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.
Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is
barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in
resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ
may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff
therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a
sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear
TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and
weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may
not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by
line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way
and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in
another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate
or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own
doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic
Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and
phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the
decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the
Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this
property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the
Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the
First Amendment.
The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without
resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United
States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court
has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this
case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396
U.S. 367.
The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may
follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the
decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of
Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues
by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.
This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never
shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.
The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the
Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,
i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and
scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing
Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which
would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme
Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no
consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”
Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application
requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by
Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the
Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are
permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and
every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by
definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’
interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance
by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has
been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the
U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow
the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from
interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In
this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the
would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal
disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)
Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;
and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.
This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its
Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing
this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture
is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.
Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would
be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as
instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This
would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is
clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is
erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in
weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more
things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing
two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in
this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute
between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its
doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one
religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so
without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this
case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the
US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.
1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.
I highly doubt that doctrine will play any role in this.
It's all a matter of whether one party "borrowed" from the work of another or not.
The meaning of the work in question is of little significance in relation to the decision.
1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.
I highly doubt that doctrine will play any role in this.
It's all a matter of whether one party "borrowed" from the work of another or not.
The meaning of the work in question is of little significance in relation to the decision.
You don't seem to get it.
Bible translation is Scripture interpretation
Scripture interpretation is doctrine
therefore Bible translation is doctrine
(this is a categorical sylagism)
Therefore if Bible translation plays any role in this, doctrine plays a role in it.
Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.
You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).
You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.
Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.
You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).
You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.
You don't get it, every word of the Bible is doctrine. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
BTW you don't have to agree with those of us who regard the actual words of the Bible as doctrine, you just have to agree that those Establishments of Religion who do hold that the very words of the Bible are doctrine have a constitutionally protected doctrine.
Therefore if Bible translation plays any role in this, doctrine plays a role in it.
This is not brain surgery.
An apple is a fruit. A banana is a fruit. Therefore an apple is a banana. This also is a categorical syllogism (which you spelled wrong). Categorical syllogisms are not a construct of logic. They are something you made up to sound smart.
Yet in spite of your BS rhetoric, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Yes, Scripture interpretation and doctrine are tied together, and there certainly is a causal effect between how a group interprets Scripture and what they teach as doctrine.
And TWI's "beliefs" conveniently will fall within whatever laws they deem convenient for the Little Napoleons and Little Queen Victorias to remain in their little positions of diminishing power.
You don't get it, every word of the Bible is doctrine. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
BTW you don't have to agree with those of us who regard the actual words of the Bible as doctrine, you just have to agree that those Establishments of Religion who do hold that the very words of the Bible are doctrine have a constitutionally protected doctrine.
In other words the Establishment Clause also prohibits the court from determining that the actual words of our Bible as it is written is not doctrine. Only an Establishment of Religion can determine what their own doctrine is.
Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.
You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).
You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.
We maintain that Elohim actually inspired the Bible and so it actually has a meaning before anyone expounds it (the meaning He intended to communicate) and that makes its very words doctrine.
You don't have to agree with our view, you just have to accept that those of us who accept the very words of the Bible as doctrine, have constitutional protection for our doctrine. That the rulings the US Supreme court have made that prevent the courts form considering, weighing and interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal disputes apply to the every words of our Bible as it is wruitten as our doctrine.
Bowtwi has it exactly right and not only is he going to try to argue it that way he is using cases where the court expressly ruled that they will not rule on the doctirne issue and threw that part of it out and then looked at the cases in light of real estate law and ruled in favor of the owners of the property he can try to say they ruled on it according to doctrine of the religions but when you read the cases all the way through that is not what they are about. THe people who owned the property legaly had someone else try to take their property away by using their church doctrine. THe courts refused to rule in their favor.
HE is going in thinking he can win with absolutely no proof that he did the work! Why should he have any proof it is quite obvious he did not do the work and infringed on their copy rights. I may hate the Way International but this is rediculous.
HE is hoping the court will let him win so he can sell his bible as his own work and as truth.
HE is just another Victor Paul Weirwille in James Trimm clothing,
No in the 1969 case the court ruled that the courts could not hear the case.
What do I want? Well ideally TWI and WNAE could resolve our differences between the two of us outside of the court system.
If I can't have that I would like the Bill of Rights to be upheld., and the Court to recognize that it cannot hear a property dispute between two establishments of religion that would require the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine (including the very words of the HRV Bible as it is written) or resolve doctrinal disputes).
If the Bill of Rights is not upheld, then I want the court to find that the HRV is an independent original translation, that similarities with the AEINT are within the bounds of the legal doctrine of merger and that any use the HRV might make of the AEINT is within the four criteria of the fair use law and by virtue of an implied license.
But wouldn't it be nice if we could just get together with the TWI and resolve our problems between us. Maybe even have a community bridges of understanding event together next year at Holocaust Remembrance Day, or a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium...
And then we could all stand around together and sing Kum Ba Yah together :-)
What do I want? Well ideally TWI and WNAE could resolve our differences between the two of us outside of the court system.
The Way's Director's conscience is so seared that they will never act out of Christian compassion. The only way they will move is through legal action.
You don't seem to have much legal recourse. Of course publicly exposing their lack of Christian compassion is always a good option.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
9
8
23
Popular Days
Apr 12
29
Apr 11
19
Apr 14
16
Apr 6
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Tzaia 8 posts
WordWolf 9 posts
mstar1 8 posts
James Trimm 23 posts
Popular Days
Apr 12 2010
29 posts
Apr 11 2010
19 posts
Apr 14 2010
16 posts
Apr 6 2010
10 posts
Popular Posts
mstar1
Hi Rock THIS SITE lists them as different people with different skill sets and different 'gifts' <_< :) It lists Rood as a "False Prophet", while Trimm is a "pathological liar"
mstar1
Hi Shift I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left. They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no park
mstar1
Im not a lawyer but I would think that there would be some legal boundaries beyond "whatever". Fundamentalist Mormons are not legally free to exercise their belief in plural marriage. David Koresh ty
James Trimm
The First Amendment’s mandate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been consistently
recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from
interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const.
Amend. I.
In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:
In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.
While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint
that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as
well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.
As the Supreme Court has observed, religious freedom encompasses the power of
religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church
government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.
In 1862 the U.S. Supreme Court held in a dispute between Presbyterians and Unitarians
over title to a church meetinghouse in Boston, that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to
permit an appeal from state court. Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house, 66 U.S.
262.
In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia court ruling holding that Civil courts
cannot, consistently with First Amendment principles, determine ecclesiastical questions in
resolving property disputes; and since the departure-from-doctrine element of Georgia's implied
trust theory requires civil courts to weigh the significance and meaning of religious doctrines, it
can play no role in judicial proceedings. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440.
The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church:
It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property
disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution. Special
problems arise, however, when these disputes implicate controversies over church
doctrine and practice. The approach of this Court in such cases was originally
developed in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a pre-Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
diversity decision decided before the application of the First Amendment to the
States but nonetheless informed by First Amendment considerations. (fn4) There,
as here, civil courts were asked to resolve a property dispute between a national
Presbyterian organization and local churches of that organization. There, as here,
the disputes arose out of a controversy over church doctrine. There, as here, the
Court was asked to decree the termination of an implied trust because of
departures from doctrine by the national organization. The Watson Court refused,
pointing out that it was wholly inconsistent with the American concept of the
relationship between church and state to permit civil courts to determine
ecclesiastical questions. Id. at 446.
In language which has a clear constitutional ring, the Court went on to further state:
“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice
any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate
the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is
conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body
[the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are
bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total
subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions
could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence
of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of
questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all
cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism
itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729.
The logic of this language leaves the courts no role in determining ecclesiastical
questions in the process of resolving property disputes. …Any decisions which
have been made by the general church about the local churches’ withdrawal have
at most a tangential relationship to the state-fashioned departure-from-doctrine
standard. A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or
arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To
reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden
process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church
had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and
enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. Presbyterian
Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-451 (1969) [Emphasis added].
Justice Brennan further noted in the same case that:
….First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property
litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over
religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such
controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever
present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating
secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. . . . [T]he [First]
Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes
without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Id. at 449
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limited ways to resolve property disputes
between religious bodies. The first is the approach of as articulated in the Watson case:
Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872),
and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity
“by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have
instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,” id., at 724, and within a
church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute
at issue, (fn1) unless “express terms” in the “instrument by which the property is
held” condition the property's use or control in a specified manner. (fn2) Under
Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has
power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a
determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently
necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit
civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so
as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property
would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil
determination of religious doctrine. (fn3) Similarly, where the identity of the
governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a
matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into
religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy.
In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions
of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be
determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive
inquiry into religious polity. (MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S.
367, 368-370 (1970)
The Second approach is that of neutral principles of law, as the Supreme Court continued:
“[N]eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,”
Presbyterian Church, at 449, provide another means for resolving litigation over
religious property. Under the “formal title” doctrine, courts can determine
ownership by studying deeds, reverter clauses, and general state corporation laws.
Id. at 370.
The Supreme Court went on to state that the “Neutral Principles of law” cannot be applied
where the State would be resolving “doctrinal issues”:
Again, however, general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their
application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example,
provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local
church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure
from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced. Id. at 370.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Im not a lawyer but I would think that there would be some legal boundaries beyond "whatever".
Fundamentalist Mormons are not legally free to exercise their belief in plural marriage. David Koresh types are not legally free to have sex with minors because its their belief that it is OK accoerding to their interpretation of scripture. Killing abortion doctors still brings legal consequences no matter what people may believe.
Legally boundaries still apply in most cases that I am aware of that adversely effect other people..
If someones beliefs include plagiarism or copyright infringement as a legitimate " gift of the spirit" do they automatically get off the hook?
If so, Im going to setup a religion that believes in bank robbery and is constitutionally protected for me to freely exercise
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
The 'fact' that it is ALSO doctrine does not alter the FACT that it is PROPERTY and therefore subject to copyright protections which you have apparently breached. One does not negate the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I still have a disagreement that in and of itself it is "doctrine"-
-Interpretation of the text is doctrine...
Will everyone who reads it be nontrinitarian? Will they also all believe that the dead are dead until the return? 4 were crucified with Christ?
I doubt it...
What about water baptism? tithing?
divorce? Abortion? Church Polity?, Motorcoaches? hitting children with a wooden spoon?
I heavily doubt that everyone who reads the text will hold the exact same belief structure or doctrinal views by a long shot
How then can it be considered doctrine if those that purport to 'believe' it can hold opposing views?
I'd be amazed if they didn't vary substantially on several points
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
James you might want to actually read through those court casese you are citing as at least one of them does not support what you claim it supports.
I am not going to tell you which one. If you are citing them in court you need to know what they say, what they were actually about, and what the COURT actually ruled on.
Just citing them in court will not win your case you do realise the judge will read them over too. Dazzle in court only works on TV shows.
Edited to add.
I suggest you go find some other cases because those two you cited actually favor TWI if you used them in a court of law.
Both of these cases involve Real Estate law. And the whole doctrinal angle you are throwing down is being thrown out by the court in them and the cases were judged soley on the merit of law in regards to Real Estate and the Property rights of the Owner of record of each of these properties.
THe Court is saying it will not rule on these decision based on doctrinal theory of the respective religious oraganizations in the lawsuits but on the actual Law.
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I suspect the court will side
with you allowing you to continue to believe whatever you wish
...and against you in that you infringed on their copyright
Unless you can come up with a valid argument proving that religious organizations, or at least the Way in particular, do not merit copyright protection.
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
In Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) the Court unanimously (9-0) decided that the Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in this dispute.
In the 1970 case ((MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S. 367, 368-370 (1970)) the Court did rule on the property dispute, but also held that it could not have done so if doing so would have required the court to consider matters of doctrine, saying "general principles of property law may NOT be relied upon if their application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example, provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced."
Edited by James TrimmLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Yes I believe the court will set aside all doctrinal issues and "not rule" on any of those and view your case as a pure copyright infringement case.
In order to do so they will look at the words in question without regard to what you (or the Way) say about doctrine.
If you bring it up doctrine, the judge will simply tell you to desist, looking instead to the amount of material borrowed.
I'll assume it's enough to gain attention from the Way, so it's probably signifigant.
If you try to make doctrine a point, the Way's lawyers will object. The Judge will uphold their objection and proceed with the case.
I'd make preparations for that if I were you, and I wouldn't count on making it a doctrinal case. Maybe later on you can appeal it.
But a lower court will not allow itself to become entangled, they'll find you guilty and let you appeal.
That's quite common on any touchy cases. Let a Higher court decide.
Even if they let you speak on "Doctrine",... don't delude yourself into thinking they will decide on that basis in a Lower court.
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'll tell you what I'd do if it was me.
I'd write "The Teacher".
That's:
The Teacher
P.O. Box 328
New Knockwurst, Ohio 45871
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
OK you are almost there. There are really only two major points that my First Amendment jurisdiction argument turns on:
1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.
2. Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine.
3. Therefore in resolving this property dispute the court would be required to consider Bible translation, weigh Bible Translation, interpret (translate) the Bible itself and resolve issues of Bible translation in order to determine if a copyright infringement has occurred, this the court is constitutionally barred from hearing this case.
Below is a much more in depth explanation of why Bible translation is doctrine and how the court would be in unconstitutional territory in hearing this case.
TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the
“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”
as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious
education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a
“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical
research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and
“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have
no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New
Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”
as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a
form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because
“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its
very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture
interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme
Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and
implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon
resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because
determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording
of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own
translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits
that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what
Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other
differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two
versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would
forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not
identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit
Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.
Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is
barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in
resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ
may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff
therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a
sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear
TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and
weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may
not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by
line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way
and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in
another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate
or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own
doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic
Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and
phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the
decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the
Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this
property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the
Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the
First Amendment.
The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without
resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United
States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court
has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this
case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396
U.S. 367.
The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may
follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the
decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of
Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues
by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.
This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never
shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.
The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the
Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,
i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and
scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing
Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which
would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme
Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no
consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”
Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application
requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by
Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the
Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are
permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and
every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by
definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’
interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance
by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has
been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the
U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow
the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from
interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In
this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the
would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal
disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)
Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;
and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.
This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its
Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing
this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture
is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.
Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would
be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as
instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This
would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is
clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is
erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in
weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more
things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing
two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in
this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute
between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its
doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one
religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so
without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this
case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the
US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.
I highly doubt that doctrine will play any role in this.
It's all a matter of whether one party "borrowed" from the work of another or not.
The meaning of the work in question is of little significance in relation to the decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
You don't seem to get it.
Bible translation is Scripture interpretation
Scripture interpretation is doctrine
therefore Bible translation is doctrine
(this is a categorical sylagism)
Therefore if Bible translation plays any role in this, doctrine plays a role in it.
This is not brain surgery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
No you dont seem to get it.
Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.
You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).
You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
You don't get it, every word of the Bible is doctrine. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious
text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.
Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just
interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness
to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.
Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation
involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and
interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as
possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves
not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of
God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most
fundamental level.
BTW you don't have to agree with those of us who regard the actual words of the Bible as doctrine, you just have to agree that those Establishments of Religion who do hold that the very words of the Bible are doctrine have a constitutionally protected doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
An apple is a fruit. A banana is a fruit. Therefore an apple is a banana. This also is a categorical syllogism (which you spelled wrong). Categorical syllogisms are not a construct of logic. They are something you made up to sound smart.
Yet in spite of your BS rhetoric, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Yes, Scripture interpretation and doctrine are tied together, and there certainly is a causal effect between how a group interprets Scripture and what they teach as doctrine.
And TWI's "beliefs" conveniently will fall within whatever laws they deem convenient for the Little Napoleons and Little Queen Victorias to remain in their little positions of diminishing power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
In other words the Establishment Clause also prohibits the court from determining that the actual words of our Bible as it is written is not doctrine. Only an Establishment of Religion can determine what their own doctrine is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
We maintain that Elohim actually inspired the Bible and so it actually has a meaning before anyone expounds it (the meaning He intended to communicate) and that makes its very words doctrine.
You don't have to agree with our view, you just have to accept that those of us who accept the very words of the Bible as doctrine, have constitutional protection for our doctrine. That the rulings the US Supreme court have made that prevent the courts form considering, weighing and interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal disputes apply to the every words of our Bible as it is wruitten as our doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so... what exactly are you trying to get out of all of this?
In other words.. what do you want?
just wonder..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
He wants the court to rule that he did the work.
The way wants the court to rule that he stole their work.
Doctrine, schmoctrine - that ain't the point.
The point is who did the work and who did not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I know.. I'm asking on a more personal level..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Bowtwi has it exactly right and not only is he going to try to argue it that way he is using cases where the court expressly ruled that they will not rule on the doctirne issue and threw that part of it out and then looked at the cases in light of real estate law and ruled in favor of the owners of the property he can try to say they ruled on it according to doctrine of the religions but when you read the cases all the way through that is not what they are about. THe people who owned the property legaly had someone else try to take their property away by using their church doctrine. THe courts refused to rule in their favor.
HE is going in thinking he can win with absolutely no proof that he did the work! Why should he have any proof it is quite obvious he did not do the work and infringed on their copy rights. I may hate the Way International but this is rediculous.
HE is hoping the court will let him win so he can sell his bible as his own work and as truth.
HE is just another Victor Paul Weirwille in James Trimm clothing,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
No in the 1969 case the court ruled that the courts could not hear the case.
What do I want? Well ideally TWI and WNAE could resolve our differences between the two of us outside of the court system.
If I can't have that I would like the Bill of Rights to be upheld., and the Court to recognize that it cannot hear a property dispute between two establishments of religion that would require the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine (including the very words of the HRV Bible as it is written) or resolve doctrinal disputes).
If the Bill of Rights is not upheld, then I want the court to find that the HRV is an independent original translation, that similarities with the AEINT are within the bounds of the legal doctrine of merger and that any use the HRV might make of the AEINT is within the four criteria of the fair use law and by virtue of an implied license.
But wouldn't it be nice if we could just get together with the TWI and resolve our problems between us. Maybe even have a community bridges of understanding event together next year at Holocaust Remembrance Day, or a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium...
And then we could all stand around together and sing Kum Ba Yah together :-)
WDYT?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The Way's Director's conscience is so seared that they will never act out of Christian compassion. The only way they will move is through legal action.
You don't seem to have much legal recourse. Of course publicly exposing their lack of Christian compassion is always a good option.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Okay and that made me laugh. You of course know that will not happen.
Good luck... though I think you will fail.
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.