Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  there are various reasons this could turn out bad for the organization.

  Hi AM! A lot more is at stake here. It is religious grounds that the Courts have never explored. Also, it affects all Religions more than it does the JW.
  
  
• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  As it applies to this case: Ought Caesar's secular standards stand on religious grounds?
• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Thanks OC for the links.
• 
  57

  Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  It did appear that the Court had a problem with Mr Wall's concept and explanation of the word contract from the referenced, relevant case laws as he applied it to this case but the attorney did a magnificent attempt in showing that there is a relationship between church and congregant and that the church should not terminate that relationship (contractual) without applying due process and natural justice besides Religious Process. I think that Mr Wall's attorney was very persuasive in his attempt to get the Court to take a look at JW Judicial Proceedings.

  WT attorney argues that WT process in terminating or expulsion of a member is religious process and religious practice and that the standard used in such process and adjudication is righteousness and he equates substance of a case to the process itself. He argues that the termination process of JW member is pastoral in nature and doctrinal and that secular Courts should not impose a standard of natural justice to church doctrine without violating the church's autonomy or self definition. I think that wt religious process is vulnerable to judicial intervention after the Conti case. All the Hall attorney had to do in this case is to take part of the the Conti verdict requiring wt to obey its own rules and apply it here -no legal genius required. But getting back to wt argument that JC ( which is what this case is about) are religious practice in nature and therefore out of bounds for judicial intervention, the Court can say that although there is a spiritual definition of JC's adjudication of sin, there is also a factorable element that cannot be arbitrated with a cannon of righteousness requring natural justice to be used because of the tangible effects members experience when expelled from the group, and because of the relationship itself between church and member forms a contract requiring performance not only from its members but also from the church, in this case involving termination of membership it is not only a spiritual matter but also within the realms of natural justice.
• 
  41

  October 31, 2017 TO ALL CONGREGATIONS Re: New Visitor Exhibit at Bethel (UK)

  by wifibandit in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  october 31, 2017 to all congregations re: new visitor exhibit at bethel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Fact is that at this time literature is scarce in the US.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  but restraint order has to based on concrete evidence

  No it does not. It can be granted before there is trial or a conviction and only based on allegations - that can even latter on be falsified.

  But It doesn't even matter. Point is that communication is forbidden.
  
  
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  not true 1981 at days must be df.

  In 1981, Adultery was a crime governed by the Penal law and so were other sex conduct criminal between consenting adults. It ain't the case today.
  
  
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  human the right to speak to another human is against universal law.

  Secular Courts do this all the time. They call it an "Order of Protection" or a "Restraining Order".
  
  
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Because if they speak to him they are shunned this there right as a citizen with free speech violated.

  JW are only forbidden to fellowship with DF members. It is a personal decision whether or not JW communicate or deal with df JW. You may feel that this violates civil rights but you are wrong because it does not.
• 
  106

  Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because he was shunned by his customers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  I think that a Beth Din can forbid the Jewish community from doing business with a Jew.