those in this forum who cheer the russian ban on jw's are letting their personal feelings get in the way of seeing the significance of undemocratic behavior.
i submit the following brief article from washington post june 18, 2004. .
veering from reagan.
What do you think about this statement (www.jw-media.org) ?
"It also does not negate the Constitutional rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to freedom of speech, worship, and assembly in Moscow or elsewhere. Any attempt to limit such freedoms would constitute a misapplication of today's ruling and violate the Constitution"
Zacharie
in a current european case, the wt lawyers refer to a judgment by the court of appeal of new jersey (nyc congregation of jws vs. mrs janice paul, # 819f.2d875, june 10, 1987) about the supposedly non-discriminatory character of the wt disfellowshipping arrangement and the related (shunning) instructions to its members.
according to them, in this case an exjw sued the congregation for slander, breach of private life, fraud and insult as a consequence of her disfellowshipment.
the court decided that the shunning of a disfellowshipped person was protected by the first amendment of the us constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.
Ken,
What have you been thinking about quite a lot recently ?
Zacharie
in a current european case, the wt lawyers refer to a judgment by the court of appeal of new jersey (nyc congregation of jws vs. mrs janice paul, # 819f.2d875, june 10, 1987) about the supposedly non-discriminatory character of the wt disfellowshipping arrangement and the related (shunning) instructions to its members.
according to them, in this case an exjw sued the congregation for slander, breach of private life, fraud and insult as a consequence of her disfellowshipment.
the court decided that the shunning of a disfellowshipped person was protected by the first amendment of the us constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.
Mustang,
In Belgium, we sign nothing. So we don't agree with disfellowshipping and its consequences.
I speak french.
Zacharie
in a current european case, the wt lawyers refer to a judgment by the court of appeal of new jersey (nyc congregation of jws vs. mrs janice paul, # 819f.2d875, june 10, 1987) about the supposedly non-discriminatory character of the wt disfellowshipping arrangement and the related (shunning) instructions to its members.
according to them, in this case an exjw sued the congregation for slander, breach of private life, fraud and insult as a consequence of her disfellowshipment.
the court decided that the shunning of a disfellowshipped person was protected by the first amendment of the us constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship.
Mustang,
