in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
John: The soul is what produces the sense of infinity in your mind. And the search for meaning, justice, beauty and so on. No other animal do that
How do you know this? How do you know that no other animal searches "for meaning, justice, beauty and so on"?
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.
the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.
so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.
This could get interesting. The trial will pit secular law against religious law.
This could have some far reaching consequences
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.
the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.
so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.
I am still thinking about the one judge's comment that likened the congregation of JWs to a bridge club. I think he is way off base with that analogy. The congregation is not like a bridge club unless you draw an analogy between the congregation and an ACBL sanctioned bridge club. The congregation is not a private club - they are more like an ACBL club.
And, in the case of an ACBL sanctioned bridge club, they do have procedural judicial hearings that do follow natural justice principles. If, for example, a member is found to be cheating, a judicial process is embarked upon that holds the member accountable for their actions. But...the ACBL's procedure is nothing at all like the JWs' kangaroo court. The one accused of cheating is entitled to a fair trial to determine his/her guilt or innocence and if a member has been expelled inappropriately, they have recourse to remedy the wrong. The one accused is entitled to representation and to full disclosure - the same as in a court of law.
Yes, a bridge club member can be shunned by their club - no question about that - the difference is that a sanctioned club must follow administrative law and natural justice principles in enforcing their rules. The JW congregation does not do that.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.
the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.
so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.
william: I can see the WT, if they haven't already done this, getting elders to sign some sort of release saying that any decisions made by a local JC be held solely libel and the WT is off the hook. In other words if anyone is ever sued would be the local JC, leaving the WT off the hook.
The WT is not named as an appellant in this case. This case is solely against the elders involved in the judicial hearing.
berrygerry: Doesn't change anything. It is the Shepherding book that contains the rules (and lack thereof).
That is true. The Shepherding book does come from the WTS. However, for the purposes of this trial, the fact that the elders are under the command and control of the WTS, only comes into play if the elders are found at fault and have to pay compensation to Randy in some way. Saying "oh, but we were only following orders" will likely be insufficient to alleviate them of guilt. Ignorance does not equal innocence
Then, it will be up to the elders to sue the WTS for giving them faulty instruction. The onus will be on them to find fault with the WTS' shepherding book that they so faithfully followed.
I don't think that the courts will have the power to pursue the WTS in this particular case. I could be wrong...but I don't think so. The WTS is not named in the court documents
vidiot: Even if the state can't completely prevent high-control religions from shunning, I believe that the degree of shunning can still be mitigated with the threat of revoking tax-exempt status
What is going to mitigate the shunning in this case is the elders being held accountable for their unjust action and Randy being levied a form of compensation. If this case holds (and I think that Randy has an excellent chance of making it stick) it should make the elders re-evaluate whether or not they should be following the edicts that come down to them from above.
Which is a really good thing...the elders being held accountable for the consequences of their judicial decisions is where the shunning edict could start to unravel.
And one more thing. The 15 year old child that was shunned and the parents being pressured by the elders to kick her out of the home - depriving a child of shelter and home is a violation of the International Rights of the Child. That could become an issue as well in this case, or, at least...I hope it is brought up in some way at the trial.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.
the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.
so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.
These are the points on which the JWs judicial hearing fails natural justice rules (thank you to a reddit poster for this list) This is what is at issue:
1) The Judicial Meeting did not follow any rules of natural justice. Highwood did not afford, inter alia, the Applicant:
a) Notice of any kind, but certainly not any form of proper notice;
b) No disclosure of evidence was provided, accordingly, the Applicant could not know the case he was required to answer (Suresh http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc1/2002scc1.html?autocompleteStr=suresh&autocompletePos=1 );
c) No list of witnesses was provided, nor was there any opportunity to cross-examine them or test the veracity of their statements;
d) The chairman was in a position of conflict of interest on the basis of prior association (Marques v Dylex http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1977/1977canlii1157/1977canlii1157.html?resultIndex=1 ), accordingly he had a reasonable apprehension of bias;
e) Legal or other representation was forbidden;
f) No support individual was made available before, during or after the proceeding;
g) Note-taking or recording of the proceeding was forbidden;
h) The possible outcome was not disclosed;
i) No hearing rules or by-laws were provided; and,
j) No rules or by-laws outlining membership requirements and expulsion procedures were provided.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/religion/alberta-appeal-court-rules-judges-can-overturn-unfair-church-edicts.
the other day, this court decision was posted on jwn along with a link to the court document, but few expected the media to pick up the story.
so to all involved, i understand it was a surprise to see the story in print.
What the court is going to do in this case is put the elders' JC process under scrutiny.
The court will look at whether or not the JWs' judicial process follows natural justice principles.
The judicial hearings that the elders hold do not pass the sniff test and I think they will have a difficult time in court proving that their process is fair and unbiased.
The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker. Maintaining procedural fairness protects the rights of individuals and enhances public confidence in the process.
The shunning is a consequence of the elders' actions in their JC and it is the JC itself that will come under the microscope. This is a very good thing as we all know that the JCs that the elders hold are kangaroo courts that do not give the accused the right of full disclosure, the right of representation, and the right to an objective decision maker.
This court case is happening in Canada, not the States. We are not governed by the constitution of the United States, we are governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Canadian Charter does not give a religion the freedom to oppress.
This case will have less to do with the shunning that arose from the JC and more to do with whether or not Mr. Wall's civil rights were upheld in the elders' judicial process itself. The elders will be held responsible for the consequences of their action of disfellowshipping based on whether or not their process to arrive at that decision followed natural justice rules.
i am of the opinion that the wt doctrine is influenced more by external factors that it is by internal ones.
one of the doctrines that has puzzled me for some time is the armageddon prediction of 1975. why would the wts make this prediction?
what was their real purpose?.
sfb: I would add that there is simply no evidence that JWs' status as a proselytising community has ever been in doubt. Especially in the United States where they fought many legal battles on that basis
Of course the fact that the "JWs status as a proselytising community" has never been in doubt. I didn't say that
I said that the preaching is a fundamental element that is required for the WTS to qualify for religious status. Period.
And, that religious status has been challenged many times in court. Maintaining that religious status is what has been difficult and the preaching work is what contributes to defining the JWs as a religion
*to add - am I right that nobody who has offered comments has bothered to read the links? If anyone had read the pdfs, they would know that it was critical for the WTS to establish that their publishing company's product (literature) was attached to a religious activity.
i am of the opinion that the wt doctrine is influenced more by external factors that it is by internal ones.
one of the doctrines that has puzzled me for some time is the armageddon prediction of 1975. why would the wts make this prediction?
what was their real purpose?.
fisherman: FF truly believed it.
Of course he did. Freddy was a true believer.
It is handy to have those kind of people around. It would have been pretty easy for a true believer to have interpreted tax problems as a "sign of the end". Freddy was nuts
i am of the opinion that the wt doctrine is influenced more by external factors that it is by internal ones.
one of the doctrines that has puzzled me for some time is the armageddon prediction of 1975. why would the wts make this prediction?
what was their real purpose?.
ding: The date was announced in 1966 in Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, so I doubt it had anything to do with a tax exemption in 1971 or 1974.
Do you have information that confirms that the WTS was not under investigation concerning their tax status in 1966 or in the years leading up to that? Are you aware of what was happening with non-profit tax law at that time?
Did you read the pdfs I linked to?
The struggle to maintain tax status did not just happen overnight. There was a whole list of corporations that lost tax status in 1971. I am sure that the IRS didn't just wake up on January 1st 1971 and say...let's take away property tax concessions to all these nonprofits.
It is a process and one that can take years. The WTS would have known what was in the works for years before it actually happened
http://abc7.com/religion/video-kid-cant-wait-to-be-baptized-/1500814/.
ok folks not a jw.lol but it would add some excitement at the assembly..
Millie: Unlike the stern JWs who measure to make sure a toe didnt stick out or it doesnt count and they re- dunk you.
Haha! I remember my dad always being the one of the guys who did the dunking at the assemblies. He was big and strong but he couldn't swim.
At the small summer assemblies, they would use a horse trough that was brought in just for the baptism. At this one assembly, a very large woman was being baptized and Dad had a really hard time with her. Not only did her toes float up above the water, and she barely fit in the trough, but she panicked and pulled my dad in under the water at one point. My dad almost drowned. It took some assistance to get all of her properly baptized.
