Supreme Court Ruling Thursday on Grounds of Privacy

by ninecharger 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ninecharger

  Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in the 1986 Georgia case Bowers v Hardwick. In essence the court said that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional as they invade the citizen's right to sexual privacy. How will the WT react?

  At present, the secret elders book says that if the elders know a man stayed overnight in the home of a homosexual, he can be disfellowshipped. (Whether they can prove sex took place is not relevant.) Or if a man and woman stay overnight in the same house in "incriminating circumstances" the elders can decide to disfellowship, even in the absence of concrete evidence.

  My question: will they remove this policy from the elders book to protect themselves from legal action arising from the new ruling, or will they waste millions of dollars defending their right to pass judgment on their flock without interference from the state?

  Details can be found on CNN.

  I think they will take the latter course.
• 

  Emma

  They're above the law, at least in their own minds. The use of "theocratic strategy" comes to mind.
• 

  Euphemism

  This ruling applies exclusively to protections from intrusion of privacy by the government. It has no relation to the action of private parties.
• 

  ninecharger

  Euphemism - you are right, that is why I think they will waste money on court cases instead of spending it on something more worthwhile. There are bound to be people who sue because elders sat outside their house at 3 in the morning.

  Further to this, if a single man has a dog could the elders decide to disfellowship on the grounds of bestiality?

  Strange how a father raping his daughter when home alone is not recognised as a possibility even in the face of concrete evidence.
• 

  Euphemism

  Further to this, if a single man has a dog could the elders decide to disfellowship on the grounds of bestiality?

  ROFL!
• 

  undercover

  At present, the secret elders book says that if the elders know a man stayed overnight in the home of a homosexual, he can be disfellowshipped. (Whether they can prove sex took place is not relevant.) Or if a man and woman stay overnight in the same house in "incriminating circumstances" the elders can decide to disfellowship, even in the absence of concrete evidence.

  I can see the elders being concerned that a single brother and single sister may have been alone in a house all night, but if both denied any wrongdoing, how can they DF? What happened to the two witness policy?

  If a known homosexual stays at my house while his house is being repaired and my wife is out of town, I could be DF'd? Even if I deny anything happened? Where is the two witness rule again?

  Being concerned for spirtual welfare is one thing. Being concerned how people might react, knowing that one if not both of the parties is a JW is valid. But if they approach the ones involved and they deny, all the elders can do is read a few scriptures/WT quotes, keep an eye on them for further trouble. Maybe even priviledges taken away, but DFing without proof or admission of guilt doesn't seem right. Can the "secret elders book" policy be confirmed?

  Take it a little further: A child accuses an elder of doing terrible things to him. Since there's no witnesses, nothing happens. There's a double standard there. If the two witness rule is binding on pedophile accusations it should be binding on others transgressions.
• 

  ninecharger

  I think the secret elders book is posted on 'Jehovah's Witnessesquotes.com' A more seasoned member of this site could point you to where it is posted. The two witness rule seems to be more and more only invoked in cases of child abuse.

  One guy sees you smoke (in July) One guy sees you smoke (in September) BANG Disfellowshipped.

  One little girl says "I was raped" (in July) One little boy says "I was raped" (in September) Nothing happens. The elders now need two witnesses to each event.

  Parents go to police. BANG disfellowshipped - They are slanderers. See Silentlambs web sight.
• 

  Euphemism

  The elders now need two witnesses to each event.

  Last I heard, official policy was two witnesses to the same kind of sin, not to the same event. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
• 

  ninecharger

  Two witnesses to the the same kind of sin?

  So why has Silentlambs come to exist? Nearly everyone on this site is smart enough to work out what is going on.
• 

  Euphemism

  Why has SilentLambs come to be? I dunno... many reasons. For years, the WTS had no specific policy on child abuse. Even after it did, it has often, in practice, followed a course of trying to hush up such incidents. And, as if that weren't bad enough... elders have often gone even farther than the Society in trying to hush things up. Responsibility still comes back to the Society, because it's done little to discipline such elders or to rectify matters. The Catholic church has at least instituted a large-scale investigation. I don't think that the WTS would dream of such a step... they don't want to know the truth of how extensive the problem is. IMHO.

  So I'm not at all justifying the Society's handling of such cases! I think it's despicable. I was just correcting what I do believe is an innacurate statement as to Witness policy.