REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE

by Oroborus21 103 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Dansk

  Do you have some suggestions that would strengthen the case against the Organization?

  Now that's more like it!

  Ian
• 

  ballistic

  Oro, you can resolve issues copying and pasting from Microsoft Word by pasting into a .txt file first and then copying and pasting into here. This has the effect of stripping out all formatting.
• 

  seesthesky

  i followed the "big news" thread - very weird - kind of, but not exactly, like a jw special announcment which turns out to concern a new method for handling watchtowers at the door and how that method will increase the sheep - lol
  
  even weirder is the circling of wagons with re to ms. anderson - someone please explain this to me -
• 

  skeeter1

  Molko could be applied elsewhere. There are parallels as I explained earlier and below.
  
  Molko is a California Supreme Court Case. That means that it is precedent in California. Other states may, but are not required, to use its reasoning. Legal trends, like other trends, tend to start in California.
  
  Federal courts did not take Molko for cert. That means that the federal court either agreed that Mr. Molko SHOULD win against the Moonies, or that they did not have enough time to fit it into their schedules. Either way, THE HARMED FOLLOWER WON.
  CONTEXT is everything.
  The Moonie church tried to argue that their identity deception was religiously intertwined. If they told the recruit in the beginning, 'Yeah, we're the Moonies" the would not have as many followers. So, they gave the recruit a little vacation to a nice farm for a week or so, and then told the recruit, if he still stayed. Then, the recruit could continue on for a few/several months & get baptized as a Moonie. The court saw through this. If the Moonie's told the recruit in the beginning, "We're the Moonies, please come to dinner with us" most recruits would run away fast. The Moonies were purposely waiting to reveal their identity until after Mr. Molko had swallowed the bait.
  
  With the JWs, the blood doctrine is not presented in the beginning stages of a book study. Why not tell recruits on their first or second week about the blood doctrine? The Society is afraid the recruit would run away fast. No, the book study conductor waits until the recruit "appreciates the Truth." In this blood booklet, the pages and pages and pages historical and medical information is placed well towards the beginning...right after a short blurb about religious beliefs. The historical information basically says that early Christians did not eat blood and the medical information basically says that not taking blood will save your physical life. Why is this information placed in the very beginning....right after only a page or two of biblical reasoning? It's because the Society wants people to more easily accept that they will not die if they follow this belief, but will be even stronger in health. It's in the beginning so people do not run away fast.

  Mr. Esq (or anyone who has this article). Please list out which quotes Ms. L-W claim to debunk.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Oroborus21/Eduardo writes:

  “A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that has nothing to do with its beliefs may also be found to be liable (but it woudl be an extremely difficult case.)

  “A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that is integral to its belief-system is not going to be found liable.

  “What people consistently fail to appreciate is that religions do not have to tell the truth or provide factual information, even on secular matters IF they are part of the religion.”

  Then you agree there is potential here that the WTS is legally culpable since the WTS has taken great pains over the years to delineate its religious view on blood versus the medical science on blood (i.e., the medical science proffered by the WTS!)

  Do you seriously disagree that the WTS has taken meticulous pains over the years to point out that its presentations of medical science on the subject of blood is completely aside from its doctrinal religious view that is, supposedly, completely based on the Bible?

  Eduardo writes:

  “The bottom line problem for anyone wishing to challenge the blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that it is a belief (currently) and such things as Witnessing at the door or via the Literature are considered to be part of the indoctrination process. the essay even calls the blood brochure "indoctrinating literature."”

  The article does not challenge the WTS’ Blood Doctrine. It challenges the legality of the WTS’ presentation of medical science.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  DaCheech

  P.S. To my above post...this guy was an elder and pioneer!!! Don't you just love it? I had a sister working in my office that was writing out checks to herself and hiding it by changing the numbers on the checks and used my Corp Amex to order things for her home. She had successfully stolen about $15,000.00 before we caught it. She was privately reproved...couldn't answer at the meetings for 3 WHOLE months! Wow! We went to same hall and I thought we were good friends. The Elders begged me not to press charges as she agreed to repay the money...I'm still waiting! 10 yrs and waiting!!!

  Swalker

  Reminds me of the rule of counting the money at the kingdom hall: 2 brothers collect, and at no time will one do it alone!!!

  If we are the "most honest people on earth" then why do we need 2 brothers?

  As another poster said "All doors in bethel have locks". I guess we are the most honest people on earth that cannot be trusted!!!
• 

  Sunnygal41

  As another poster said "All doors in bethel have locks". I guess we are the most honest people on earth that cannot be trusted!!!

  Dacheech...........I discussed this issue with friends that had lived at Bethel for over 25 years...........their answer to me was that while a brother or sister is in the process of putting on the new personality of a Christian, there is still the imperfect, wicked flesh to deal with. They said that at Bethel, they are encouraged NOT to allow any temptation to the brothers or sisters.........example: if you have money, don't just throw it on the top of your dresser, put it away, safely out of sight, so there will be no visual temptation.
• 

  skeeter1

  POLICY ARGUMENT - Is it logical that government would allow a religion to incorrectly cite medical evidence just because it's alongside a religious text?

  The Society is an established religion who has a constitutionally protected religious belief to abstain from blood. Society quote pages and pages of medical journals that show abstaining from blood is medically sound. Average JW do not know the full truth about the medical quotes. But, the JWs are "convinced" that the secular quotes are "right on the 'scientific' money" and gamble their and their children's lives, in part, on this information. The JWs do not know about the people who wrote the religion claiming it to be false, and include false quotes of these secular writers. The Society warns JWs to not read apostate literature where they would figure out the misquotes and the truth about life-saving blood fractions. The Society backs up the the blood prohibition with sanctions. JWs and their children die.

  How long do you think the government would let a religion continue to misquote secular writers when people are dying?

  How long do you think the government will allow minors and advanced minors to make medical decisions for themselves based, in part, on the Scoiety's misquote of secular writers? This article will save an advanced minor's life, one day. Isn't that great?

  Do you think at least one follower will be dismayed at the misquotes of secular writers? A follower or two may just leave. Isn't that great?

  Is it "wrong" for the Society to dupe its followers with their quotes of secular material? Yes, and any wrong can be turned into a legal wrong when government & the people are fed up.

  Barbara said that its what we do with the information contained in the article.

  I've not heard Mr. Esq. say anything about the misquotes, perhaps as he's not a doctor.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Marvin,

  Do you seriously disagree that the WTS has taken meticulous pains over the years to point out that its presentations of medical science on the subject of blood is completely aside from its doctrinal religious view that is, supposedly, completely based on the Bible?

  Excellent question!

  The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly state that the proscription on blood is RELIGIOUS based on the Bible, not medical. Therefore, there is no religious compulsion involved in printing medical facts of any variety regarding blood. With no beliefs driving publication of misrepresented medical facts, the focus becomes SECULAR, because they themselves put it in that CONTEXT. In fact, with the brochure and DVDs they quite literally SHOVE it into that CONTEXT.

  I do not think he is even considering the fact that they themselves clearly delineate where the religious stops and the secular starts.

  Eduardo,

  I have no idea why this would not be clear to you, but from your more recent post you seems to think they will simply say, "We didn't know we took a sentence from the beginning of an appendix that did not originally contain ellipsis and stuck ellipsis in to hide things unfavorable to our secular argument. We didn't know we added a sentence from the end of the appendix with ellipsis without accurately representing what was in between, or what the ellipsis omitted." I think you think that will be difficult to prove false.

  I would like to show your potential clients what you think of as a "nearly impossible" to prove case of misrepresentation. Of course, you have started adding a disclaimer. Since you advertise "Esq." you would have been wiser, in my opinion, to have done that when you first posted legal opinion of any kind to this forum, because (as I am sure you know) you are personally accountable to your Bar for what you have written in this forum.

  Many persons have tried to draw out whether others are or are not attorneys. In a discussion forum, in my opinion, it is better to keep things informal, that way opinion can be freely expressed and banter can ensue without any needless possibility like facing accusation of Ethics violations, etc. But if someone ADVERTISES who they are and what they do as a means to gain weighty credibility for their voluminous opinions, then they have a correspondingly weighty accountability for what they write.

  PS: guys, Please understand that none of my posts are to be construed as legal advice. As a lawyer participating in a public forum, it is prudent for me to give this disclaimer when there is a potential that persons may not be mistaken into acting upon such in the event they have circumstances similar to the topic at hand. You should always consult a local attorney when you need help with your legal problems.

  Personally, I am unsure whether your current hastily added (i.e. "postscript") disclaimer in one thread would actually cover all the threads in which you have given legal advice in your professional capacity as an attorney, via signing posts containing legal counsel with "Esq." Particularly disturbing is the way in which you use the title as a means to garner credibility for your opinion on the one hand (an opinion that could persuade persons who might pursue this argument to disregard the argument as baseless per your unsolicited legal counsel) and on the other hand express a desire to distance yourself from the act that you just committed. It makes it appear you know exactly what you are exposing yourself to by posting with "Esq." as a signature line, and that you are trying to escape possible negative consequences that are associated with this unwise use of your title. In my opinion. But then, I'm a nobody.

  Forum,

  So that Enigma One and others are aware, that is WHY most attorneys do not identify themselves in their professional status on informal discussion forums. EVEN if asked repeatedly to do so. Kimberlee Norris has done so, but you will notice she has remained stone silent on this argument. That is for good reason. Having identified herself as an attorney, her opinion would reasonably be construed by readers as legal counsel. I think either Eduardo did not know this (which would mean he skipped his ethics classes) or has proceeded with full knowledge, heedless of possible consequences to himself.

  If you know what to watch for, the attorneys on the forum are easy to spot.

  To the attorneys who post here on a regular basis under the cloak of professional anonimity, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING YOUR VIEWS TO US! It really is helpful.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DaCheech

  Does the goverment shut down hate sites?

  Does the goverment shut down organizations that create suicidal conditions for it's members?

  Not always, but look at what happened to the branch davidians when they made a line crossing mistake?