The truth about the donation arrangement

by Wolfgirl 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mary

  Eduardo said: an amicus brief, friend of the court, brief is not a DEFENSE of the parties or an ADVOCATE of the parties' claims, and it may not even address any of the claims or issues that the parties involved have raised in their own pleadings. Thus it is entirely incorrect to say that the WTS came to the defense of Swaggart ministries or in any way had anything to do with Swaggart ministries.

  Eduardo what on earth have you been smoking today? First you try saying that Gumby's post doesn't constitute a contradiction and now you're trying to say that the WTS didn't really do anything wrong when they filed the ""friend of the court" brief?

  "... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.

  The very fact that the WTS would file anything that might help a member of 'Babylon the Great' is hypocrisy at it's finest, seeing as a brother in the congregation isn't even allowed to paint, do electrical work or do repairs inside another church. Why not? Because the GB has deemed that that would be 'supporting false religion aka Babylon the Great'. So once again, here's a wonderful contradiction or double standards: The WTS can file a "friend of the court" for the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, but what if a brother was called upon to do repair work inside one of Jimmy Swaggart's churches? He'd be told he can't. Let his family go hungry instead. Their filing this brief is no damn different than when they got the Library Card from the UN. Or are you going to try and defend that too?
• 

  TopHat

  It depends which box you put the money into. "Contributions" stays with the local congo for local expenses. "Contributions to the WWF " goes the Bethel for the worldwide funds.

  Thank You for your answer BluesBrother:
• 

  looking_glass

  Mary - I did not take what Or was saying as a contradiction, but a clarification. Both of you are correct in your own ways. I would liken it to the UN library card thing. JWs will use any excuse to get around getting in bed w/ their sworn enemy, as Mary has pointed out.

  Let's look at this from a WTBTS talking head point of view. What is one way that we can join in on the law suit w/o looking like we are taking Jimbo's side. Let's file a friend of the court brief, that way when people start to throw stones at us we can say ... no, no, we are not taking that evil man's side, but are protecting our own.

  If you read the prior posts, there were comments that would indicate that WTBTS JOINED in on the appeal, when in fact it is like someone who steps up and makes a comment, but is never actually a party to any suit. In a court of law there is a HUGE difference, as Or pointed out. But we know as people who have a history with the religion that guilt by association is a club they pull out and use on a regular basis, so let's us the same club on them.

  This is just another example of the WTBTS talking out of both sides of their mouth.

  I remember knowing about this but the spin that was put on it was it was the government's way of getting at the JWs and trying to stop the ever important preaching work. When the appeal was denied and the "donation" approach went into effect, everyone was high-fiving eachother because once again the WTBTS out smarted the US government!

  COME ON WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT NOW, IT IS PRETTY FUNNY THE CRAP THEY THREW AT US AND WHAT WE BELIEVED.
• 

  jimbo

  Hey looking_glass!!!!
  
  I resemble that remark. How dare you use my name in the same paragraph with the WT-BS.
  
  jimbo
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  God's chosen people, the ones who don't say things in Jehovah's name, but otherwise, are spirit-directed- these people would never get involved with a court-case for Satan's tools. They would wait for the government to come after them, then use Jehovah's guidance to do his will. They would even assume that it might be Jehovah's Will to eliminate profits at Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, and that Jehovah would guide matters so that the courts never go after God's chosen people. While the legal mumbo-jumbo is the reality here, let's face it, they are supposed to rely on their faith, and they didn't.
• 

  TweetieBird

  Thanks, Mary for coming to my defense. The bottom line for me as far as the Jimmy Swaggert, donation and the UN thing is this...for an organization that is suppose to be Jehovah's organization led by holy spirit, they seem to be NOT relying on that holy spirit to take care of things. Why now allow Jehovah's holy spirit to take care of things?
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  sorry this is a little off topic, but they have done some work on that JW wikipedia page... allowing the section on controversies, and relatively in depth. Is this new?
• 

  metatron

  "Friend of the court"?

  Here's the critical point: these hypocrites claim to be "no part of the world" while being deeply involved in the legal

  system. And what is the result? They end up defending the interests of slime like Jimmy Swaggart to protect their

  own cash flow. How does "Friend of the Court" not equal "friend of the world", Watchtower?

  metatron
• 

  Broken Promises

  bttt for Man In Black