Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  gringojj

  But the r&f will just say that they are following the bible. The WTS will just equate any litigation to persecution, further fulfilling bible prophecy! It will prove them right!
• 

  serendipity

  Who's Brenda?
• 

  Bryan

  While these quotes are not in themselves inaccurate, the Society does not inform its readers that these particular cases do not involve minors of Jehovah’s Witnesses who need immediate, life-saving blood transfusions.

  Using quotes for something totally different!

  That's Wack!

  Bryan
• 

  Soledad

  .[25] From these examples, a clear precedent can be seen that many courts will order blood transfusions for minors over and against the parents’ wishes.[26] Thus, Jehovah’s Witness parents may be surprised to learn that precedent denies their supposed “right” to make martyrs of their children.[27]

  get ready!!!
• 

  blondie

  But think of all the family members who are not JWs that lost family members due to the WTS policy. Think of all the non-JW family members fighting to have a blood transfusion administered to a JW family member.

  It is hard to have an opinion when we have not read the whole writing. Perhaps it would be good to read it first.

  Blondie
• 

  SixofNine

  This is some very heavy ammunition. I only pray that after we who have familial interest in using this ammo have milked it for every drop of hard earned remedy, the courts can then use it as a foundation with which to squeeze this sleazebag religion until they are penniless.
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  Whooooooooohooooooooo!!!!!!
• 

  Big Dog

  I could see someone going for a mass tort suit, in the style of the TV ads that ask if you have suffered a particular condition to call their hot line. I could see a similar ad, if you have refused a blood transfusion or a member of your family has, call xxx-xxxx. They get enough plaintiffs together and file a mass tort suit, it could get interesting.
• 

  inbyathread

  I'm sorry but I really don't know what or how this is going to help. I must really be dense on this one. The WT as consistently called new information or changed doctrine by their favorite phrase "new light" As long as they speak as church doctrine are they not protected by the laws of church and state? When the Pope speaks "for the Church" he nor the church can be held accountable for anything said. If the GB wants to state "whatever" even though it is a lie and put it alongside the articles of faith. Those members of the WT must believe or leave. The shunning continues as always and the WT stays in power.

  The WT has all but admitted that any member CAN have a blood transfusion "if they want to" but they will by doing so show their desire to remove themselves from the membership roles. And the shunning begins.

  For those without a degree in jurisprudence - English please.
• 

  serendipity

  
  Now we need a lawsuit to test this.

  Besides the potential for lawsuits related to blood and associated costs, what are the other implications of this?

  And I wonder in what other areas this could be applied?

  Additionally, courts are now willing to allow aggrieved citizens to sue their church if it misrepresented a secular fact.[4] For example, one court has held a religious organization liable for misrepresenting its use of donated funds.[5]