Feb. 15th WT - WT Society says DFed Ones are Lawless- Just Like Demons

by flipper 217 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  djeggnog

  @Quendi:

  [I]t can no longer be said that someone is being publicly reproved for 'conduct unbecoming a Christian'. And we have seen now that a person is no longer "disfellowshipped" but instead "is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Those changes reflect lawsuits that were brought against the WTS on issues like defamation of character.

  We disfellowship (expel) those in whom we find their conduct to be reprehensible and unbecoming to a Christian. We also give public reproofs when necessary. We admonish those that promote non-Christian viewpoints, which is essentially tantamount to their 'promoting a sect.' (Titus 3:10) We shun those we disfellowship. I just want everyone that reads this thread and comes upon this particular post to know that as of today's date, we continue to do these things that you claim we no longer do, and no one at all is in fear of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit for defamation of character or slander, for we will not go to courts of law and testify that any disfellowshipped person was not disfellowshipped by us following such an action for in courts of law we are put under oath to affirm that we will tell the truth and the truth is a complete defense to defamation or slander lawsuit here in the US. Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees to all citizens freedom of worship, which states as follows:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have fought enough battles in the SCOTUS so that no one that was actually paying attention at any of our meetings when this subject came up could have possibly failed to appreciate the folly of filing a lawsuit against us when all such decisions are stare decisis, meaning that not only must trial courts respect the decisions of the higher courts, but even the SCOTUS must respect its prior precedents. You shouldn't be pretending to know what you're talking about because what you're really doing is dispensing incorrect information here.

  @djeggnog
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  We disfellowship (expel) those in whom we find their conduct to be reprehensible and unbecoming to a Christian. We also give public reproofs when necessary. We admonish those that promote non-Christian viewpoints, which is essentially tantamount to their 'promoting a sect.' (Titus 3:10) We shun those we disfellowship.

  'We do not show Christian love. We do not even understand what love is. We make our faith invalid because of our tradition (Matt 15:4-9). Our 'fruits' are pain, suffering, and the distruction of families.'
• 

  Quendi

  The profound ignorance that djeggnog displays is most unfortunate. However, none of us who have read his previous posts are surprised. I will say this about his stare decisis nonsense. If SCOTUS found itself bound to stand by all earlier decisions it has rendered then neither Jones v. Opelika nor Minersville v. Gobeitis would ever have been reversed . It is djeggnogg who clearly does not know what he is talking about .

  Despite this, I am glad that he is making your views known here. For it is obvious that he is a 'wolf in sheep's covering'. Reading his posts, larded as they are with specious reasoning and downright falsehoods, alerts the rest of us to the dangers of association with the WTS religion. However, I wish him no ill will. Instead, it is my hope that he will closely and honestly examine WTS religion and practice. Maybe that will open his eyes to the truth he claims to love.
• 

  itscrap&theyknowit!

  Our Dad just passed away a few months ago. It has torn our family apart. It's Satan, of course. I noticed that "all of a sudden" REALLY started trying to "get herself together". She, at this point, really wants to see Dad in the resurrection. Even if he is NOT her husband (what a horrible way to live into the New Order).

  Long story short. As I stopped attending the meetings years ago, all of a sudden, Mom stopped taking my phone calls to check up on her emotional status. I mean, Dad hadn't even been gone 4 weeks yet. When she would answer the call, it would be short and with a sneering heckle. I asked her if I had done something wrong because of the ill treatment. It was brought to my attention that she (and my bible-wannabe) bothers and sister, were to back away from me since I nolonger wanted to share with them in attending the meetings.

  Oh, really?!!!! It hurt me to the core!!!! At the time when we all needed each other more than ever, they called themselves not speaking to me! Fine. I didn't call or go to my parent's home to visit Mom for 8 weeks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, I broke Mom down. She eventually called to check on me. You see. That is a double-edged sword. Understand you may possibly NEVER see Dad again. Me? They chose for the sake of this dub-a$$ religion to cut of and I'm the one still living and breathing!!!!!

  I could see if I were living a vile and corrupt life. Not taking care of my kids and begging for money. I work EVERYDAY, attend college, kids are BETTER OFF than they were ever before, AND I look great! Now, I smile...all the time!!!!

  I guess it was better when I was miserable. Wearing the same black dress everyday, hair all over my head, bags under my eyes with a dumb-a$$ elder husband treating me like a child. Oh!!!! I was doing it for Jehovah. No! I was doing it for APPEARANCES.
• 

  grewupjw1969

  @ITSCRAP... I totally agree with you. The Society and it's members do everything for appearance sake. Very sad.

  Grewup
• 

  itscrap&theyknowit!

  @GREWUP - I've endured alot. I would think they would support me 'getting out' of a miserable situation. They have seen first hand with my marriage and have been BEYOND upset because of his status as elder inthe congreagtion! But,now? Oh, because he continues on in meeting attendance and taking the kids to the hall for the sake of their lives @ Armageddon! WTF???!!! He is a 'whitewashed grave full of crap'! Nobody thinks to say, 'wow, his crap has caught up with him.' I guess if I told them all the gory details, it would satisfy them-NOT! He shiny and true because thru it all, he's still a child a of God in the eyes of the borganization! APPEARANCES, APPEARANCES...................
• 

  flipper

  DGP- Thanks for bookmarking. Feel free to chime in if you'd like !

  QUENDI- I'm so sorry about the loss of your friend who committed suicide. My condolences to you as I lost some dear friends in death myself over the years. You are so correct in that the WT society has changed the wording in their announcing of someone as " no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses " being motivated by legal reasonings. It's less self incriminatory than saying announcing someone is DFEd for " conduct unbecoming a Christian ". Covering their legal behinds. But very true, they have already won in courts on the right to expel people . Very true that all we can do is hope that our former JW associates wake up and exit the cult to make a move towards restoring our friendship. I hope more will exit the JW cult.

  DING- I thought that while reading this WT. It certainly will NOT motivate ANY DFed ones to want reinstatement. The information is so derogatory.

  DJ EGGNOG- You totally misunderstood and misinterpreted what QUENDI was saying to you. That's not surprising , your reasoning abilities are stunted in the Jehovah's Witness cult. She didn't SAY that JW's no longer DF members - she said they no longer ANNOUNCE JW's are DFed. They announce they are " no longer Jehovah's Witnesses ". We are aware of the court cases the WT society won upholding their stupid , barbaric Disfellowshipping policy. Doesn't mean it's just and fair. Just that you won a damned court case. Big deal . O.J. Simpson got off on murder charges in court as well. Didn't make him innocent. Connect the dots- you get my point. You still haven't responded tomy questions to you on pg. 5 and 6 of this thread. Perhaps you finally see the logic I was using.

  LISABOBEESA- Very true. WT society and JW's DON'T understand what true and real love is.

  ITSCRAPANDTHEYKNOWIT- It truly is incredibly weird and insane how JW family members treat us differently once we stop attending, isn't it ? It's crazy. WE become better people - yet our JW relatives treat us like we are demonized or something. It's truly sick and unjust. My condolences once again to you on the loss of your father in death- and I'm sorry your mom and JW relatives are so blind. Perhaps someday they'll change. I hope the same for my jW relatives.

  GREWUPJW 1969- I relate to what you're saying. EVERYTHING is about outward appearance in the JW's. My dad was City overseer for 35 years and an elder now for 55 years. I know about " outward appearance " - believe me
• 

  djeggnog

  @Quendi:

  The profound ignorance that djeggnog displays is most unfortunate. However, none of us who have read his previous posts are surprised. I will say this about his stare decisis nonsense. If SCOTUS found itself bound to stand by all earlier decisions it has rendered then neither Jones v. Opelika nor Minersville v. Gobeitis would everhave been reversed. It is djeggnogg who clearly does not know what he is talking about.

  Is that right? I work as an licensed LDA and I work on appeals for three attorneys at a law office that specializes in post-foreclosure eviction defense, and yet you are suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about here? From now on, when I think of you, I won't be associating you with "profound ignorance." No, when I think of you, I'll be thinking about your hubris. I submit that you are the one that doesn't have your facts straight.

  Reading [djeggnog's] posts, larded as they are with specious reasoning and downright falsehoods, alerts the rest of us to the dangers of association with the WTS religion. However, I wish him no ill will. Instead, it is my hope that he will closely and honestly examine WTS religion and practice. Maybe that will open his eyes to the truth he claims to love.

  I don't care that you don't wish me any ill will. There's absolutely no truth to what you said here, and I thought it funny that if you had ever read the first Jones v. Opelika case that you would be here saying that the case was reversed, when what really happened is that Jones v. Opelika II was vacated by the SCOTUS. I'm going to assume, arguendo, that you at least know what the word "vacated" means. Let's take a look at this first case you mentioned:

  Jones v. Opelika

  was a 1942 case in Opelika, Alabama, that involved whether it was lawful for Jehovah's Witnesses to buy a license for the sale of religious books and the court decided 7-2 against Jehovah's Witnesses, finding that religious groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that are purveyors of religious books must be held to the same standard as purveyors of books by non-religious groups.

  However, in 1943, the SCOTUS re-heard Jones v. Opelika and, as a result, it vacated its 1942 decision on the basis of principles articulated in another 1943 case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, which overturned an ordinance in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, that sought to require Jehovah's Witnesses to purchase a license for canvassing or soliciting religious books anywhere within the Commonwealth, which ordinance served as a restraint on the free exercise of religion and an abridgment of freedom of press, both of which are guaranteed to citizens by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. IOW, the SCOTUS reversed the judgments that were made in the lower courts in Murdock and, as I said, went on to unanimously vacate its decision in Jones I.

  Minersville v. Gobitis

  was a 1940 case in Minersville, Pennsylvania, that involved whether it was unlawful for a 12-year-old girl (Lillian Gobitis) and her 10-year-old brother (William Gobitis) to refuse to salute the US flag along with everyone else in school, for which conduct, or lack thereof, they were both expelled from the public school at which they attended, which denied these children their right to receive a free public education (since upon expulsion from public school their parents had to enroll them in a private school) and their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Both the district court and the circuit court had sided with the school board against these children of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is what prompted a hearing by the SCOTUS, The SCOTUS reversed the ruling of the lower courts unanimously.

  What does all of this mean? It means that both Minersville v. Gobitis and Jones v. Opelika are now stare decisis, and that you are pretending to be knowledgeable about what is, just as I said in my previous post that all such decisions that had been ruled in the favor of Jehovah's Witnesses were, namely, stare decisis. I don't care if you pretend; you are not the only pretentious person with whom I've exchanged posts here. It's clear to me though, and it ought now to be clear to you, too, that you should not even think that you can bluff me when it comes to such legal precedents involving Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Oh, btw, I don't wish you any ill will either, but if you feel a need to bluff someone, you're going to have to find another "mark" that would be more likely to look up and not down at you for your pretentiousness in this thread.

  @djeggnog
• 

  flipper

  DJEGGNOG- Don't get TOO apologetic for the JW cause and WT society just yet. They've settled out of court 16 child abuse cases involving abused JW children in California back in 2007 which was put forth on NBC nightly news in November 2007 . Just because the WT society wins DFing rights in court doesn't mean they aren't legally liable for the OTHER unlawful things they allow to go on inside their JW cult. Remember I stated to you in my last post ( which you refused to reply to ) that O.J. Simpson won in court being cleared of murdering his ex-wife & friend - allegedly - however O.J. got busted in Nevada and is now serving 30 years for another crime. Point I'm making is it's just a matter of time before the WT society's criminal ways will catch up to them. Whether you want to admit it or not
• 

  Mary

  djeggnog said: We disfellowship (expel) those in whom we find their conduct to be reprehensible and unbecoming to a Christian.

  Which includes anyone who can do a bit of research outside of Dub-dumb-Land and realizes that many of the Society's doctrines are built on sand. That's all it really takes. You don't have to be an adulterer or a drug dealer in order to be disfellowshipped for being "reprehensible" or for conduct "unbecoming a Christian". In reality, you're disfellowshipped for "conduct unbecoming a Jehovah's Witness", which bears no resemblance to Christianity whatsoever.

  We also give public reproofs when necessary. We admonish those that promote non-Christian viewpoints, which is essentially tantamount to their 'promoting a sect.' (Titus 3:10) We shun those we disfellowship

  Wow. You don't say. Let's see, wouldn't the Pharisees have used the exact same reasoning when they were trying to get rid of Jesus? Yep, I can hear them now: "We admonish those that promote non-Jewish viewpoints, which is essentially tantamount to 'promoting a sect'. Anytime anyone within a religious group says something that doesn't meet the party-line, the leaders and the fanatics that follow them blindly use the same bullshit excuse. You have no problem in nodding and smiling at the thought of Jesus exposing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders, yet if anyone today can expose the hypocrisy and lies that the Governing Body are guilty of, your brain switches off (assuming it was ever on in the first place), the glazed look transforms your features and you whine and bleat that we're only trying to "promote a sect" while you ignore proof and evidence that this is not the "one true religion". No double-standard there is there djeggnog?

  Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution

  Yes, isn't it ironic that on one hand, the Organization has condemned the USA for being 'part of Satan's world', or 'the King of the South', etc. etc. and view that it is deserving of complete destruction (except for those nice big houses that surviving Witlesses will get to pick and choose from right after Armageddon!), yet at the same time you hide like a bunch of cowards behind the very Constitution you love to bash screaming about 'Freedom of Religion'---the very freedom that the Organization denies to it's own members. Rutherfraud did the exact same thing a hundred years ago: Vilified and denounced the USA in the form of his books and pamphlets, yet had no problem whatsoever is crying about 'Freedom of Religion' for his cult whenever they found themselves in hot water.

  What a pathetic drone you are. You're not fooling anyone on here with your bullshit ideas, but I guess you need to get those 15 minutes in any way you can right?