Viewed 712 times
Court Sided With WT On Shunning
|
|
Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:49:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|---|---|
|
Post 1692 of 2522 Since 3/9/2009 |
Bangalore
|
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:19:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|
Post 751 of 999 Since 9/10/2010 |
|
hotspur
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:24:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
![]() England, CambridgeshirePost 456 of 472 Since 1/22/2008 |
The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning Pretty much sums it all up! Never mind about human rights.... and I read the rest of the court report. Is there any hope ~ anywhere? I know there needs to be protections but, how far? How deep? Is there no constitutional protection of parental support and love? Where did that go? |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:25:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|
Post 9419 of 16416 Since 6/17/2009 |
The greater public understands what these types of cases mean. The public can perform their own shunning when the JWs come knocking on their doors. |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:27:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|
Post 1694 of 2522 Since 3/9/2009 |
For some reason American courts are reluctant to interfere in religious disputes.
Bangalore |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:29:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|
Post 3260 of 4495 Since 5/13/2009 |
they try to keep it separate???? not working |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:47:00 GMT
(2/24/2012)
|
|
Post 447 of 3727 Since 12/17/2011 |
Very interesting case Banga, thanks for posting. Here in the U.K we do not have a Constitution that would automaticaaly preclude the act of shunning from being tortious. We do however have the Human Rights Act and European legislation which may give the same protection to religions that shun like the WT, I suppose a route that one could go down would be to sue individual JW's for their action, but they may still be protected by the law, I don't know. I wonder too, if in English law there is any reason why a Court should not rule on the truthfullness of a doctrine, in the U.S this is impossible, but if it were possible here in the U.K it would be good to see the Blood doctrine demolished by law, followed by the shunning doctrine. dream on Phizzy ! |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:55:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
![]() Post 12880 of 14553 Since 5/10/2007 |
The witlesses get away with ruining people's lives for disagreeing with their doctrine, even when they can use their own Bible to prove it wrong. They get away with washtowel articles that, were anyone else to put out similar articles in those countries, they would go to jail for "hate speech". They get away with scams designed to indebt members needlessly for rubbish projects, redundant fees, and unnecessary personal expenses. They get away with having children doing things that, were they working with another company, they would get raided. Another institution that gets away with rubbish like this is the Federal Reserve. They, too, get away with things that ordinary citizens would go to jail for committing. The big banks also get away with crimes that would get anyone else a long jail term. I wonder if the UN involvement in 1991-2003 was just one of the many ties the Washtowel Babble and Crap Slaveholdery currently has with the One World Totalitarian Government. At least King Rothschild doesn't try and hide his involvement in Agenda 21+ behind a religion that pretends to bash the world. |
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:02:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
![]() Post 4233 of 6430 Since 11/29/2007 |
The JWs may celebrate this court "victory", but it's actually just further proof that government has no interest in "turning on religion". The JW prophecy that the UN and the governments are going to destroy religion "very soon" is just another false prophecy. That event was supposed to be the climactic start of the big A. Now they don't even talk about it because even WT knows that they have that one all wrong. |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:16:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
|
Post 5193 of 6766 Since 4/4/2009 |
The JWs may celebrate this court "victory", but it's actually just further proof that government has no interest in "turning on religion". The JW prophecy that the UN and the governments are going to destroy religion "very soon" is just another false prophecy. That event was supposed to be the climactic start of the big A. Now they don't even talk about it because even WT knows that they have that one all wrong. Just quoting BILLY for emphaisis. |
Snoozy
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:50:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
![]() MissouriPost 3754 of 3920 Since 11/3/2001 |
1987? Snoozy Now I wonder if he had been gay, Black, they could have used the hate crime against them for shunning/disfellowshipping him? That might have worked... |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:09:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
|
Post 169 of 707 Since 5/5/2010 |
|
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:09:00 GMT
(2/25/2012)
|
![]() Post 4235 of 6430 Since 11/29/2007 |
Refried, they only mention King of the North and destruction of Babylon the Great in old public talk outlines. Their single mantra is "The end is near because Watchtower says so." |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:20:00 GMT
(2/26/2012)
|
|
Post 8783 of 13111 Since 4/8/2009 |
If only there were legislation in place that removed the protection of "freedom of religion" from cults that are only in it for the money...... |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:35:00 GMT
(2/26/2012)
|
|
Post 1700 of 2522 Since 3/9/2009 |
I think after the Soviet Union collapsed they have not mentioned any new KOTN.
Bangalore |
|
|
Re: Court Sided With WT On Shunning
posted Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:15:00 GMT
(2/26/2012)
|
|
Post 2936 of 3960 Since 11/12/2009 |
Perhaps we shall be their new 'king of the north' LOL... after all, apostates are the bogeyman of the day it seems Oz |


Home
Isn't this the same judge who ruled (or tried to rule) that the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance was unconsititutional???

England, Cambridgeshire


Missouri
