Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Randy Wall
OC well that is one of the questions that the justices are trying to determine if in fact there is a contract and if there is a contract who is the contract between. Just like how one of the justices asked, what is the consideration that a member gives and what is the consideration that the member gets.
The respondent lawyer made the contention that the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members, the justices will have to determine if that can be considered an appropriate legal consideration for the creation and enforcement of a legal contract.
JD: the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members
I think they get more than just that.
What about the HLC support? That is available to baptized JWs and their children. And only available as a benefit of JW membership. You have to be a JW to receive HLC support.
Hey was Randy Wall an Elder by any chance ?
The WT said (basically) "we are just a religion, we are not a 'court' or taking over the judicial process"...... What do they call this 'spiritual process to help this poor man to see his errors?'
A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
My questions? We don't "shun"?..... we just 'don't associate with them on a spiritual level'?
(check 2 minute 30 seconds)
Let's have the court watch this video, and ask the WT lawyers what if this girl was a person baptized at a young age, got sexually abused, saw the hypocrisy of the cover-ups, could not live healthily in this situation and left?
This is what ARC, Judge Peter McCllelan told the WT that this was cruel to treat a person in such a manner.
Or "what if this girl had just been in an auto accident? was in the hospital? how would the parents know? what if she was ill? needed help? Is this what you call "not spiritual contact, but normal family relations continue?" Not!
cha ching: The WT said (basically) "we are just a religion, we are not a 'court' or taking over the judicial process"...... What do they call this 'spiritual process to help this poor man to see his errors?'
A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Typical Watchtoweresque language twisting.
The Watchtower tries to twist under the language limbo bar whenever they have to address secular authorities. What is important, I think, in this case and in many situations like it, is that the congregant views the process as a judicial one. They do not view the JC as a "pastoral visit" where the elders are meeting to comfort and guide them. They know and understand that a JC is for discipline and not for pastoral care meeting.
This would be similar to how an application to the courts for a restraining order is approached. The decision as to whether to grant such an order will hinge on whether or not the one applying for that order views another person as a threat. It is the applicant's view of the matter and their understanding of what constitutes a threat that has the most bearing.
Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
What is the 'procedure' of 'loving your neighbor' when a person a person is baptized into a religion as a minor, then as an adult finds teachings and conduct contrary to their conscience?
Procedures over love, doesn't it come down to that? What do they value most?
After watching some of the op video and the Alex Silva video...I don't think it possible to legislate how parents must relate to their adult children.
To publicly announce that a person should be shunned or avoided isn't even in the bible.
It does say though to avoid wrong doers or evil ones.
To emulate the social activities or social standards of the 3000 year old ancient Hebrews is pretty aggressively stupid anyways.
Sorry but I think this guy is going to lose his case.
He made the predetermined decision to socially engage in a business relationship with other JWS knowing that if he were to be Dfed he would lose those relationships, business related or otherwise.
No one ever said that religion is fair, moral or supportive to human rights, most of the time they are not.
Whichever way it goes in this case, the Court cannot intervene without trespassing on religious freedom. Hall's attorney justified this, quantifying the intrusion in his argument as " just a little".
Could there be consequences from proceeding through a yellow light as if it was green to go? To get hit by another car having a green light.
As a remedy, what I have seen higher Courts do, is to find errors of law in the lower Court's adjudication and send it back down.
Reading Mr Hall's factum, he claims that the elders weren't doing their spiritual job and therefore he should not have be expelled from the group. He also claims that he experienced financial loss and emotional consequences resulting from his expulsion, as a remedy he wants a justiciable, secular standard of justice imposed on the church that the church should adhere to, and that church members should be able to, after exhausting all church administrative remedies, bring their grievances to secular Courts for secular justice.