Posts by OrphanCrow

29

New "paradise" video preview? "Will you be there?"

by stuckinarut2 in

my wife (unstuck) just saw a new 2-3 min video in her ex jw facebook feed, depicting a "paradise" scene preview.. it was complete with aerial shots and slow motion montages, with moving music.. scriptures were quoted across the screen, such as rev 21:3,4. i shazamed the music, and it came from another "worldly" album called "world of dreams.future world music" (you should see the song titles from that album!).

is it an official wt video, or some private persons production?.

if it is official, they seem to have once again resorted to desperate emotional manipulation tactics..... anyone else know?

OrphanCrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_World_Music

72

Single Sisters Over A Certain Age Group Getting A Bad Rap

by HiddlesWife in

i'm new here; one of my relatives was a member on this forum a few years ago and told me about it.

anyways, as a sister who has been in the org since childhood and now in her late 40's (plus as a woman of color), i have noticed that a number of brothers have an ageist attitude.

they are very accepting of young women under 26 and rejecting women over that age, particularly those in their 30's and over.. is this an unspoken mindset from wthq (specifically from bethel), or is it that quite a number of males (sorry, i'm not sexist here) have this type of mentality?

OrphanCrow

TD: A great many men don't seem to be able to look in the mirror and see themselves as the rest of the world sees them. I don't know why exactly, but I would bet that it's been studied.

Yes, it has.

It is tied up with the politics of "the gaze". Basically, the position of power owns the gaze and the powerless are the objects of the gaze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

OrphanCrow

RO: What Watchtower is appealing is if a secular court has the right to even hear the case in the first. place.

That is correct.

From the article:

The Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Queen's Bench has jurisdiction to decide on the matter of Wall's expulsion from the church.

What the Supreme Court will be determining is if secular law can be brought to bear in matters of religious law.

For anyone not familiar with Canadian law, "the Court of Queen's Bench is the Superior Trial Court for the Province, hearing trials in civil and criminal matters and appeals from decisions of the Provincial Court." Queen's Bench courts have federally appointed judges and are governed by federal law.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

OrphanCrow

sir82: So are JWs going to be encouraged to write letters to Trudeau about this case?

Lol! Maybe there should be some letter writing going on.

This case has the potential to fight the very thing that causes the shunning to begin with. The internal judicial system of the JWs. And the Supreme Court of Canada is nothing to sneeze at - that is where many religious freedoms have been set in the past. It is ironic, now, that the "Champions of Freedom" are now being called out on whether or not they grant the same freedoms to their members.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read it, what is going to be at question, is whether or not the judicial process of the JWs respects the rights of individuals under Section 7-14 Legal Rights of the Canadian Constitution.

In other words, did the JC follow correct legal procedure? Was Randy given his full legal rights during that process?

I think it is quite clear that one essential right is always denied a person during those proceedings and that is the "right of representation".

The first argument is not concerning what he was accused of doing, or even what the results of the punishment was, it is whether or not the process was fair and constitutional.

However, where those issues may come up is in questioning whether or not the "punishment fit the crime", so to speak. That will be a difficult one if it needs to be addressed, considering that the WT law equates disfellowshipping with stoning to death - the harshest punishment of all. Seems a bit over the top to treat someone who was accused of what Randy was, in the same manner as you would a murderer.

So, for anyone interested in doing something about shunning, this case is critical because it strikes at the heart of where shunning comes from. The JWs' judicial system itself.

24

Church gets own police force - are the Dubs next?

by SadElder in

just read this article in the washington times.

other sites have similar stories.. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/12/briarwood-presbyterian-alabama-megachurch-gets-sta/.

can you imagine the dubs with a sworn police force with arrest powers?.

OrphanCrow

blondie: I was not alive then but my jw relatives from that period were shocked that they were prepared to hurt people and not depend on the police.

I wasn't either but I imagine the justification came from them viewing it as "self defense". One of the WTs from 1939 said this:

It was only after Rutherford took his cane to the grave, and the WT found out that it was more advantageous to play the victim card rather than pursue Rutherford's militant tendencies, that the passive, non-violent approach became the norm. Not only that, but they likely found out that canes can be pretty ineffective in the face of military power.

24

Church gets own police force - are the Dubs next?

by SadElder in

just read this article in the washington times.

other sites have similar stories.. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/12/briarwood-presbyterian-alabama-megachurch-gets-sta/.

can you imagine the dubs with a sworn police force with arrest powers?.

OrphanCrow

Blondie, Rutherford's security force was described by journalists, too. The canes they carried were meant for crowd control. There was a cane incident at Madison Square, too, wasn't there?

From the St Louis "Globe Democrat" 1941:

When he arrives at the Arena a double line of husky well-instructed men link arms to shield him. Efficient flying squads block any approach near him in the building, while at least two guard are on duty at each of four landings in the arena stairway leading to the fourth-floor administration offices.

The Judge takes the elevator. Others must walk, explaining their mission four times en route. Few survive the gauntlet. Rutherford said he tries to make himself available to any Witness, but his subordinates explain they are seeking to conserve his strength.
Before and after addresses from the speakers' platform, the guard is even tighter. He arrives only seconds before he begins to talk and is whisked to an automobile before the concluding applause dies out. The audience is cautioned not to whisper. Ushers have turned back everyone seeking to enter the auditorium with a pop-bottle in his hand. No one not wearing a "convention servant" ribbon is permitted within 50 feet of the platform.

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

OrphanCrow

search: Just to add clarity:
This case is about two simple things:
- Did the Judicial Committee follow the "principles of natural justice"? - A requirement in Canada.
- Did the Judicial Committee follow its own internal rules (eg. in The Shepherd the Flock of God book)?
The statements made by Gnam and MacEwan as to freedom to associate, etc. are superfluous, strawman statements.
(And, no, Richard Oliver, I am not a wife-beater).
Randy

Thank you for that clarity, Randy. And best of luck as you proceed. You are taking a big bite and have got this far. It is monumental, really. Well done.

As far as the one judge's comments about likening the JC/shunning process to a "bridge club"...he is way off base. A bridge club that has affiliation with an official body (and, the JW congregation has affiliation with an official body that links them together with the WT organization, however loosely), must abide by "principles of natural justice" when they consider banning a player for impropriety. For example, in the world of ACBL sanctioned bridge club hearings, the accused is entitled to representation at the hearing, among other things, that distinguishes them from the JWs on how they handle judicial matters.

I will be watching for updates. Again, good luck. Eat well and get lots of sleep. Do happy things when you can...you have a long road ahead and you will need your strength!

48

Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court

by Simon in

high court will examine whether judicial review applies to membership decisions made by religious groups.

the supreme court of canada has agreed to hear an appeal involving a calgary man who was kicked out of his jehovah's witness church.. randy wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the highwood congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.. as a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.. after losing three internal church appeals of his expulsion, wall made an application with the court of queen's bench in calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.. decisions and appeals.

a judge decided the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application.. the church then appealed wall's decision to the alberta court of appeal, which upheld the court of queen's bench, affirming the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.. one of the three appeal court judges dissented — arguing that congregations are private organizations akin to bridge clubs, whose decisions "are not enforceable promises and have limited, if any, impact outside its small circle.".

OrphanCrow

For background and more details on the case:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jehovahs-witness-court-of-appeal-supreme-court-jurisdiction-1.3759026

from the article:

The 1992 Supreme Court decision regarding a Hutterite man who was expelled from his Manitoba colony noted that the courts "are slow to exercise jurisdiction over the question of membership in a voluntary association, especially a religious one."
The exception was when property or civil right hinged on membership.
Since 1992, there have been other cases that set the precedent for courts to have jurisdiction when "there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice or the complainant has exhausted the organization's internal processes."
Wall argued the internal process was unfair — that the church's framework for expulsion was unclear.
He submitted that he wasn't told whether he could retain a lawyer, if there would be a record of the proceedings, the details of the allegations against him or whether there would be written reasons for the committee's decision
On the basis of those allegations, and because Wall had exhausted all avenues of internal appeal, the panel found the Court of Queen's Bench has jurisdiction to hear the application.

Details of Randy's disfellowshipping procedure:

In 2014, Wall was accused of "alleged wrongdoing involves drunkenness" and was directed to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. That committee was composed of four elders.
Wall told the panel his behaviour stemmed from stress related to the expulsion of his 15-year-old daughter who he and his wife were required by the church to shun.
The congregation had already kicked the teen out of the community and as a result, even though she was a dependent child living with her parents, the family was pressured to evict the girl from the home, leading to "much distress."
At the meeting, Wall admitted he'd been drunk twice that he'd verbally abused his wife once.
The judicial committee found Wall was "not sufficiently repentant" and he was disfellowshipped, a decision that then compelled his wife, children and other Jehovah's Witnesses to shun him.
Wall appealed that decision and a panel of three elders was selected and asked to consider "the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under" following his daughter's disfellowship but the committee sided with the original panel's decision.
Finally, Wall sent a letter of appeal to the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Canada but he was told the Canadian Branch would not overturn the decision.
After exhausting the church's appeal avenues, Wall made an application with the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary which ordered a hearing to first determine if there was jurisdiction for the court to hear the application.
A judge decided that the superior court did have jurisdiction to hear the application because "he was satisfied the disfellowship had an economic impact on [Wall]."
The congregation and its judicial committee then appealed Wall's right to have a Court of Queen's Bench judge hear his application.
One of the congregation's arguments was that the Court of Queen's Bench judge erred when he found the religious practice of shunning infringes civil and property rights.

It appears that the JWs internal judicial process will be examined at the Supreme Court hearing.

At question will be if the JC proceedings violated Randy's basic rights.

8

Biased report of JW trial in Russia

by Citizenfour in

i'm pretty sure most of us are keenly following the trial in russia via twitter or perhaps some other means, and are awaiting the results of the trial.

after the weekend, and what i presume to be a memorial break, the hearings resumed today.

i noticed however that unlike previous days, when it finally got to the prosecutor's moment to examine 4 ex-witnesses testimony on extremist behavior, the twitter feed relaying the trial information "suddenly" lost contact.

OrphanCrow

dsp: Actually I just thought that @SimonBotes was tweeting in English a summary of what was being posted in Russian on jw-russia.org??
He doesn't appear to be tweeting anything 'original' including the photos he's tweeting??

That sounds like Watchtower approved tweeting only.

Nah, not cult-like...

8

Biased report of JW trial in Russia

by Citizenfour in

i'm pretty sure most of us are keenly following the trial in russia via twitter or perhaps some other means, and are awaiting the results of the trial.

after the weekend, and what i presume to be a memorial break, the hearings resumed today.

i noticed however that unlike previous days, when it finally got to the prosecutor's moment to examine 4 ex-witnesses testimony on extremist behavior, the twitter feed relaying the trial information "suddenly" lost contact.

OrphanCrow

steve: My response: Russia JW defense team allege - shock, horror - that the ex-JWs who provided testimony against the organization were "prepared witnesses". And that these ex-JWs were "repeating arguments of the so-called sectological literature."
Huh?! That's the JW defense team's response? I would have thought that, since this is before one of the highest Courts in Russia, the JW defense team would actually address the ex-JWs' testimony rather than state the obvious. How does being "prepared" to provide testimony against JW organization and "repeating arguments aired elsewhere" negate or call into question that testimony? It doesn't . This is the kind of predictable counterarguments advanced by JW apologists: Don't address the testimony - just cast those providing testimony in the most negative light short of slander.

"repeating arguments aired elsewhere"

I am so glad they brought that up. Doesn't that allow every "apostate" and exJW story, of those who have been harmed, to be entered into evidence?

I would say that adds weight to the Ministry of Justice's case. I have a feeling that the JWs are going to be facing the same fate as Scientology did. They will be declared a cult that harms people. A harmful organization.

The report from the Moscow news agency fills in the gaps that the JW report left out. The reporting coming from that source has painted the Russian judiciary system as being ill-prepared. I think they are just getting started.

One thing is for certain. The Russians have have satisfied the two witness rule.

I wonder what the Russian courts would think if they knew that the night before, the JWs had all met and only special ones had been allowed to partake of the blood of Christ?

The viewpoint/argument has been made that the Russian Orthodox Church is the biggest influence on these proceedings. If that is indeed, the case, refusing the blood of Christ would be a difficult doctrine for those of the Orthodox faith to understand. Jus' sayin'