Randy Wall case linked to on JWdotORG

by neat blue dog 15 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • StephaneLaliberte
    People need to step back and picture a world where the government can come and tell everyone who they have to talk to and do business with. How would that work? What kind of a world would it be?

    This is exactly what some religions like the Mormons, JWs, Scientology, etc. do. They do this by ENFORCING shunning. That is, shunning those who do not respect their shunning decree.

    The court ruled as a precedent that it is not for civil courts to interfere with the internal operations including discipline of its members and who they choose to allow to be members.

    ... As long as that discipline stays within the boundaries of that religion. The ultimate discipline being outcast out of the group. Shunning does step outside of the religion by inflicting emotional abuse on someone that is no longer a member. They don't have the right to "discipline" people who are no longer part of their group.

    Supreme Court needs to review the practice of Shunning organized by the religion. We cannot force people to talk to people. However, we can act against people who do force people NOT to talk to others.

  • AbusedandPissed

    lastmanstanding that is just called assault and that is a crime.

  • AbusedandPissed

    The court in it's decision actually brought up shunning and acknowledged that it could be very distressing.

    [31] Had Mr. Wall been able to show that he suffered some detriment or prejudice to his legal rights arising from the Congregation’s membership decision, he could have sought redress under appropriate private law remedies. This is not to say that the Congregation’s actions had no impact on Mr. Wall; I accept his testimony that it did. Rather, the point is that in the circumstances of this case, the negative impact does not give rise to an actionable claim. As such there is no basis for the courts to intervene in the Congregation’s decision-making process; in other words, the matters in issue fall outside the courts’ jurisdiction.

  • lastmanstanding

    Abused, it’s not a crime if it’s your religious right.

    Its Watchtowers religious right to brainwash their members with false information and get them to commit suicide at the hospital.

    Is that better or worse than beating your 16year old?

    What about these cases where teens gang up and work on another teen through social media, causing that teen to commit suicide. Illegal? Sure, but not where religion is involved.

    Shun him/her to the extreme so that they hang themselves... convince them of a fallacy through weekly indoctrination and undue influence causing them to refuse medical treatment and die.

    Its all legal, where religion is concerned.

  • StephaneLaliberte

    I believe the focus on that case was all wrong. They should not have focused on the disfellowshipping arrangement. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the ENFORCED shunning of the disfellowshipped ones.

    The Watchtower could be brought to court over enforcing the shunning practice. For instance, an ex-jw could try to document (video or audio recording) conversations where :

    1) Friends admit that they could be disfellowshipped if they maintained any type of communication.

    2) Family members admit that they could lose their position within the congregation if they maintained any type of communication.

    3) A friend or family member undergoes a JC where he is disfellowshipped for not respecting the shunning practice. During that conversation, he'd have to state that he does not want to be part of emotional bullying.

    The objective would be to demonstrate that this is not a matter of personal conscience. That the JW actively organize the shunning of specific people by internal laws and spreading hate. To this could be added the testimonies of various exjw who have suffered from being shunned.

    I believe that with these things above, JW could be held accountable for their shunning practice.

  • neat blue dog
    neat blue dog


    Excellent point, THAT should be the focus: Being disfellowshipped for not following disfellowshipping. Also it's worth noting that the court said that it wasn't the JWs intent to cause emotional distress. However that can be contradicted by quotes from publications saying that the loneliness DF'd one feel may prompt them to return.

Share this