Posts by Fisherman

106

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

by poopie in

jw
friends

because he was shunned by his customers?.

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

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

Fisherman

how the legal victories were from Jehovah.

Very modest of him to say that because listening to him, he is very talented,

So watchtower had to sign an Amicus curaie with "false religion". Isn't this grand!!

There is an expression that I learned from the Porto Ricans and other Spanish friends ; "Juntos per no revueletos."

23

JW HLC....a mixed bunch...what has been your experience?

by Lee Elder in

i have had greatly varied experiences with hlc members over the years.

i was never one myself, but i knew several of them personally.

most struck me as being generally decent human beings.

Fisherman

Yes, my baby survived. The doctors gave him a 3% chance of living. He lived because

OC, you and I have had discussions on this Forum. I sincerely respect your posts in our discussions not only because of sincerity on your part but also because you don't resort to deceit and logical fallacies just to win an argument.

Do you know that blood would have been a better choice for your baby? My JW friend wanted doctors to use non-blood when his newborn required it with HLC and all but the doctors outright used blood against my friends wishes -the baby died immediately. In your particular case, hind sight is 2020 but who knows what would have happened.

57

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

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

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

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

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

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

Fisherman

Thanks OC for the links.

57

Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall

by TerryWalstrom in

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

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