Do Jehovah's Witnesses Have The "Right" To Practice Their Religion???

by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  ....I strongly believe that most educated persons realize onr thing about JWs and that is that they won't give even their kids blood if they needed it.
  
  JWs get away with doing whatever they have gotten away with----not because of a lack of knowledge but because the laws of the land protect them----and they know this. Hence the WT. has some bright legal minds that continue doing what they do because they can.

  Minimus believes that educated people understand the issues fully, so that implies that ignorant people only
  were tricked into joining the WTS. Minimus is ignorant. Circular logic.

  Minimus supports the government's ignoring anything WTS does.

  Don't be overlysensitive, Min. I am just showing that I disagree with you on some points.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  The only thing I can say is there's so many confusing rules that a lawyer would be scratching his head too.

  but the courts have ruled that refusing a blood transfusion is not necessarily illegal.

  Mins hidden message is that lawyers are stupid. They can't understand issues that your average
  judge understands.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  the legal world is quite aware that JWs don't take blood.
  
  I say they are informed. There's no secret.

  Minimus is confused and scratching his head. He just said lawyers don't know what they
  are talking about- or was it that lawyers don't understand WTS? Well, now they are "informed."
• 

  stillajwexelder

  The right to life, libery and the persuit of happiness - that has to include freedom. And if you truly believe in freedom as I do then yes they should be constitutionally protected to practice and have God given right - or constitutionally given right
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  From another thread:

  In Boston, the inner city (where I live close to), it is an exception for a black male or female to sound articulate.

  This quote from Minimus proves he is a bigot.

  You see where this can go, Min. Take things out of context. Magnify points or minimize others.
  We could be just as bad as WTS is on this. You sling mud, I respond. I am overly sensitive because
  I respond, but you are right to disagree with me.

  Truly, I don't have a problem with your position. I know where you stand. You know where I stand.
  Your tearing down what I say is just to make yourself look good.

  I no longer worry about what I say making me look like. So if I look overly sensitive, whatever.

  I imagine I don't need to start a new thread on Minimus' ridiculous statements. They are everywhere.
  Don't be overly sensitive.
• 

  minimus

  On The Way Out, if you think I'm a Watchtower apologist, I guess that's your right. I've expressed my disdain for the Watchtower quite emphatically on this forum for years. IF there was a law stating that Witnesses cannot shun others, I'd be thrilled to see the law enacted. But if no law exists, then it is not illegal or against the law of the land. If you confuse this position with support for the Watchtower, then you should write your anti thread against me and see where it takes you.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  if you think I'm a Watchtower apologist, I guess that's your right.

  Okay, you miss the point. In general, you ask a controversial question.
  You generally agree with me, but not to the same degree, and there are
  minor points that you disagree with me on.

  To make your thread more interesting, you ATTACK my position again
  and again. I respond, I help you make the thread interesting, and I am
  attacked some more.

  I had no choice but to carry your comments out to the ridiculous level.

  I don't know about whether you are a bigot or not, that was your statement,
  but I took it out of context. I do know that you are not a WT apologist-
  but now I have your statement that you are one.
  I think you know that I don't like WTS, and that I think it is a mind-control cult.
  I am entitled to an opinion, just as you are.

  If I attacked anything you said, it was just to make the thread interesting.
  I learned that from you.
• 

  minimus

  Just so you'll know, I wasn't "attacking" you. And I certainly wouldn't attack you to make a thread more interesting. If I offended you, I apologize.
• 

  Finally-Free

  IF there was a law stating that Witnesses cannot shun others, I'd be thrilled to see the law enacted.

  I don't think I'd like that. I don't think it's possible to enact such a law and apply it to only a single group. To be fair, it would have to be applied to everyone. Such a law would prohibit me from shunning Jehovah's Witnesses, panhandlers, and assholes. I think such a law would encroach on my freedom to choose my own associates.

  W
• 

  undercover

  I think such a law would encroach on my freedom to choose my own associates.

  Yea...it would definitely be a slippery slope.

  However...(playing Devil's advocate for a moment)...to protect people from being shunned for trying to practice their Constitional rights or civil rights would be interesting. Say that I decide to vote in the next Presidential election...or...I openly associate with a DFd relative. I have the Constitional right to vote and associating with my family is a civil right, I would think. If I got DFd and then subsequently shunned for either of those "infractions" against church law, then wouldn't church law be in violation of denying someone their Constitional or civil rights? Wouldn't a protection be in order so one could not be punished for pursuing their rights?

  Such a "law" would not apply to the individual freedom of shunning or avoiding people they don't like. Individually we can shun or avoid whomever we care to. But as an organization, the church or any other group that enforces the shunning, black-listing or ostracizing of member's who have done nothing other than pursue their rights should be able to have some kind of governmental sanction imposed upon it.