Jehovah's Witnesses and The Supreme Court of the State of Montana, September 2019

[Evacuated]

On 9/15/2019 at 7:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Judging? :))

The side, not the person.

[Evacuated]

On 9/14/2019 at 7:46 PM, Jack Ryan said:

When we call out their lies, they say we must have been hurt. When we call out their hurtfulness, they say we must be lying.

This a classic example of "OTHERING", a fascinating but rather sad aspect of human behaviour. Who is exempt? Why does it happen? How did it start? How can it be overcome? Trying to answer these questions would be a more profitable excercise than the eternal mudslinging that "otherness" appears to breed.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Supreme Court denied Petition made by WT Society.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-40.html

[Srecko Sostar]

Supreme Court of Montana - Reversal, January 8 2020

I chose few paragraphs, and some accentuation.

The parties agree that elders are “clergy” under Montana law.

Relevant here, § 41-3-201(6)(c), MCA, provides: “A member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.” ¶12 Jehovah’s Witnesses contend they are excepted from the general mandatory reporting statute pursuant to § 41-3-201(6)(c), MCA.

¶15 The Jehovah’s Witnesses religion has established procedures for responding to allegations of serious sin, such as child molestation, within a congregation. When elders receive a report of physical or sexual child abuse, they are instructed to immediately call the Watchtower legal department in New York to determine whether the laws of their jurisdiction require them to report the abuse to authorities. According to the Jehovah’s 9 Witnesses, elders will report child abuse to secular authorities if required by law; otherwise, they address it internally.

¶30 Jehovah’s Witnesses point out that imposing a narrow definition of confidentiality impermissibly could discriminate between different religious beliefs and practices, protecting confidentiality of reports made in a confession from a parishioner to priest, like the traditional Catholic practice, while offering no protection to a congregant’s disclosures to a committee of elders using a process like that followed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. “It is the duty of courts, if possible, to construe statutes in a manner that avoids unconstitutional interpretation.” State v. Mathis, 2003 MT 112, ¶ 8, 315 Mont. 378, 68 P.3d 756 (citation omitted).

¶31 Finally, both the state and federal constitutions prohibit this Court “from considering whether certain religious conduct conformed to the standards of a particular religious group.”

¶33 We hold accordingly that the undisputed material facts in the summary judgment record demonstrate as a matter of law that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not mandatory reporters under § 41-3-201, MCA, in this case because their church doctrine, canon, or practice required that clergy keep reports of child abuse confidential, thus entitling the Defendants to the exception of § 41-3-201(6)(c), MCA

CONCLUSION ¶34 The District Court erred in ruling that Jehovah’s Witnesses were under a mandatory duty to report Peter or Holly McGowan’s disclosure of Maximo’s abuse and thus were negligent per se for violating § 41-3-201, MCA. We reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://jwsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Opinion-Published.pdf

Well, again we see how WT Society have double talk. They claim how JW's have NO CLERGY CLASS. But it seems how in Montana they have clergy class. And they want to have the same privilege as Catholic priests, because otherwise they would have felt RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. 

Where there is a priesthood, clergy, there are lay people. What JW members would say if they could know....?

 

[Shiwiii]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

“A member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.” ¶12 Jehovah’s Witnesses contend they are excepted from the general mandatory reporting statute pursuant to

This is disgusting! So if doctrine states that killing someone on the third Tuesday of the month is ok, then would this also be allowed as well? 

The good thing about this though is that it is a great witness as to the practices and policies within this organization, and those who are curious will see this and think long and hard if it truly is an organization being used by God. Would a loving God want child abuse covered up? Would a loving God want it hidden because men made up a doctrine to get away with it?