Canadian Appeal Court decision made the news: Judges can overturn unfair church edicts (page 4)

rebel8

A part of me wants them to stay as crazy as possible, as a repellent.

The more mainstream they become, the more people will join.

Vidiot

stuckinarut2 - "...According to the WT, whenever it comes to their authority structure in the consideration of any policy or teaching, the governing body is always held up as the final word, no matter what. (i.e., 'Do whatever we say, or else! We’re Almighty God’s one-and-only mouthpiece on earth!') However, whenever it comes to any kind of specific liability or accountability issues, then the WT will always say, 'Oh, well, that must be a decision made by one of our lowly congregations, which all operate independently from us here at WT headquarters, so therefore it’s their own fault and responsibility. But not us here at WT. Oh, no, we have nothing to do with what any of our lowly, independent congregations do!'..."

Well, with all their private correspondence proving the former (and exposing the latter as utter horseshit) being made more and more public (especially to the courts), that's less and less of a problem, these days. :smirk:

Vidiot

rebel8 - "A part of me wants them to stay as crazy as possible, as a repellent. The more mainstream they become, the more people will join."

I don't think you need to worry. :smirk:

DesirousOfChange

The shunning practice or DFing of individuals within the JW religion causes traumatic personal grief, anxiety, depression and social disorder, which has even driven some people to commit suicide, does bring up the question of civil liability against the WTS organization for its conduct and orchestration of this problematic social behavior.

A good attorney could make a lot of money if that was true. Since money is the only thing that seem to really matter to the WTS, the cost of litigation and resulting monetary judgements might be the only way to take down WTS, or at least force some kind of reform.

Does this suit seem like it was almost "designed" for the purpose of pursing litigation against WTS? ...................DOC

OrphanCrow

doc: Does this suit seem like it was almost "designed" for the purpose of pursing litigation against WTS? ...................DOC

Only in the sense that the WTS are the architects of their own demise

Vidiot

OrphanCrow - "Only in the sense that the WTS are the architects of their own demise."

It's hard to shake the feeling that the WT leadership - thinking that their end may be nigh (not an entirely unreasonable fear on their part, IMO) - is trying to provoke "Satan's World" into "attacking" them in the hopes that Jehovah will step in and bail them out via the Big A.

OrphanCrow

Vidiot, there is some political context in Canada that could be relevant.

Religious freedom office replaced with new 'office of human rights'

May, 2016:

Justin Trudeau's Liberal government has replaced the Office of Religious Freedom created by the previous Conservative government with an office focused more broadly on human rights.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion announced the creation of the new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion in a release late Tuesday.
Andrew Bennett was appointed as Canada's ambassador for religious freedom in 2013. The new office will expand on his work "under a comprehensive vision that includes all human rights," the release said.
The budget allocated for the previous office now has been tripled to $15 million.

Randy Wall's case will be about whether or not his civil rights were violated by unfair judicial practices/procedures undertaken by a religious group - it is not about religious doctrine or religious belief whatsoever.

The political climate in Canada should work in Randy's favour. And the repercussions could be broad - it could impact other religions who engage in activity that would be illegal in secular courts yet gets the nod by flying under the religious banner. Religious freedom will not mean the freedom for religion to oppress

biblexaminer

A bridge club can choose to eject (disfellowship) a player because they don't like him.

THEY CANNOT SEEK TO EXTEND THEIR INFLUENCE OUTSIDE THE CLUB IN AN EFFORT TO DESTROY THAT PERSONS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY.

If their action taken with respect to the bridge club extended to areas outside the scope of their domain, then they should be disallowed from taking any action whatsoever.

berrygerry

A bridge club can choose to eject (disfellowship) a player because they don't like him.
THEY CANNOT SEEK TO EXTEND THEIR INFLUENCE OUTSIDE THE CLUB IN AN EFFORT TO DESTROY THAT PERSONS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY.
If their action taken with respect to the bridge club extended to areas outside the scope of their domain, then they should be disallowed from taking any action whatsoever.

Bridge Club - Going Clear

berrygerry

A part of me wants them to stay as crazy as possible, as a repellent.

As they say, "You can't fix stupid."

Canadian Appeal Court decision made the news: Judges can overturn unfair church edicts

Share this