I agree Newborn ...I hate it too..
I agree Newborn ...I hate it too..
Over the past few nights on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, she has been on assignment in Afghanistan. Richard Engel, NBC correspondent has been her guide during her visit and also makes additional commentary.
The subject of why the Aghani people seem to tolerate the Taliban has come up several times. Engel explained how the execution of justice was one major reason. If someone wants justice in the government courts, he has to wait months or even years to even be heard, and then the justice is often weak and inconclusive. If someone is demanding a repayment for a loss in the government courts, all the defendant has to do is say they have nothing. The judges look at the plaintiff and basically say, "Hey, you win. But what do you want us to do. The guilty party says he has nothing so we can not demand that he pay you or return your stuff."
On the other hand, the Taliban come through a village to collect money and to dispense justice. The people seem to love their "sharia" justice because it is quick and effective. The same case as above would end like this: "Hey, you win. The guilty party says he has nothing. We will chop off his hand this time as a lesson to him - unless you want to forgive the debt. If not, and he does it again to someone else, we will come back and cut off his head." There are no appeals and penalties are applied right then and there in public.
The general consensus is that although the Talibani are fanatics and take their religious beliefs too far for this modern age, that they tend to be impartial, always play by their own rules, and apply penalties immediately. They can settle all of the disputes in a village in a matter of hours. Everything is out in public so that their methods are well known and everyone knows what could happen to them if they break a law and the Taliban come back to their town.
Ancient Israel's judges apparently followed the same principles. Hold court in public, make a judgment, and then dispense the penalties or forgive the debtor or the wrong doer. They had cities of refuge for those who fell under certain guidelines - and they had to basically put themselves under house arrest for up to 7 years before they would be fully forgiven.
The JW judicial committees are completely back-assward from that approach. Keep everything under cover, lock away any notes or documentation, keep everyone in the Kingdom Hall in the dark about what happened and why a certain judgment was passed. Oh, was Brother Smith DF'd because he spoke out against the "generations" teaching, or did he sodomize half of the boys in the Kingdom Hall? Did Sister Jones get DF'd because she attended a wedding for her niece at the local Catholic Church? Or because she got caught selling her body for $20 over at the "No-Tell Motel"? No one knows because the Society's rules don't really allow for open and fair judicial hearings or dispensation of judgment.
Funny how it was the bad guys, the Sanhedrin under Annas/Caiaphas who had their "Judicial Committee" at night to convict Jesus under cover so no one would know what they were up to...
A person under prosecution had three guarantees.
(a) The right to a public trial
There could be no secret trials. Every trial was to be held in public so no one could be framed and then be penalized or executed. In that way the judges were constantly under the scrutiny of the populace, who were able to attend and know what was going on. All fair courts today have maintained the same procedure.
(b) The right to self-defense
There was to be a defender--someone who provided a defense for the accused.
(c) The right to hear witnesses
No one could be convicted of anything unless proven guilty by two or three witnesses. A solid case could be built only on the evidence of more than one witness.
The canonical epistles upon which judicial proceedings are justified were open letters to entire congregations. Therefore the idea of replacing an open congregational proceeding with a "Judicial committee" of three is inherently democratic in nature. (A delegate minority representing the will of a constituent majority)
However the JW congregation structure is not even vaguely democratic in nature, it is a patriarchal system where Elders may act in what they perceive to be the bests interests of the congregation, but neither their authority nor their appointment is derived from that source. (Like a father with his children; --Hence the name)
Patriarchal systems. where the governed have neither rights nor responsibilities can't be justified using principles of democracy because in democratic systems, the governed are the actual source of authority.
B, what WT or Awake was that from?
|Juan Viejo2||Re: "Judicial committee" posted ~ 6 hours ago (7/8/2010)|
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara
Posted Tue Jul 6, 2010 8:07am AEST
"Two men have been arrested in India after a college lecturer had his hand cut off for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohammed.A group of men attacked 52-year-old TJ Joseph as he returned from church in the southern state of Kerala.The assailants bashed him before cutting off his right hand. He was taken to hospital where he underwent surgery but it is unclear if the operation has been successful.The lecturer, from Newman Christian College, had been on bail since April, when Muslim activists accused him of writing an exam question that generated hate speech and was offensive to the Prophet Mohammed.The state government of Kerala has condemned the attack on Mr Joseph as a brutal "Taliban-style" act."
I wish more people would record their judicial committee meetings. It really exposes them for what they do.