IMPORTANT: JWS and the CHARITIES COMMISSION

by Dansk 101 Replies latest jw friends

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    Dear ALL (especially those in the UK),

    Following on from Danny's excellent post here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/128626/1.ashx I have just sent an e-mail to the Charities Commission. I said this:

    Some time ago I wrote to you about the dangers of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they don't deserve charity status because far from helping mankind they are a real danger to it. I should know, I was one for 19 years. The religion almost destroyed my entire family. My older daughter has been shunning the rest of the family for over four years since we broke away. Now, please read this and tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't dangerous and deserve charity status: (here I cut and pasted the article Danny referred to).

    Now, it is VITAL that YOU contact the Charities Commission, too, to once again show them what a dangerous and unloving sect JWs are. Here is their web address: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/

    There is a press office e-mail address: [email protected]

    OR you can follow the links to 'Contact Us' here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/

    IF WE BOMBARD THE COMMISSION WITH COMPLAINTS THEY'LL HAVE TO ACT!! DON'T LEAVE IT! ACT NOW!!

    The Charities Commission is Watchtower's achilles heal. They depend on getting rich through it. STOP IT NOW!!

    Ian

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    I just received this reply:

    Your enquiry is being handled by Charity Commission Direct, the single point of contact for all enquiries and requests for services coming into the Commission. Charity Commission Direct ensures enquiries are fast tracked to the right place first time and priority requests are dealt with more quickly. You should expect an initial response within five working days. An account has now been created for you which allows you to update your question or check on its progress. Just click on the link below or go to ‘Contact Us’ on the homepage of the Charity Commission website and click on the ‘My Stuff’ tab.

    To update your question from our support site, click here.

    Question Reference No071005-000029
    Summary: Some time ago I wrote to you about the dangers of Jehovah's Witnesses and how...
    Product Level 1: Complaints
    Product Level 2: About the Commission
    Date Created: 05/10/2007 11.02 AM
    Last Updated: 05/10/2007 11.02 AM
    Status: Unresolved
    Discussion Thread
    Customer (Ian Hinze)05/10/2007 11.02 AM
    Some time ago I wrote to you about the dangers of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they don't deserve charity status because far from helping mankind they are a real danger to it. I should know, I was one for 19 years. The religion almost destroyed my entire family. My older daughter has been shunning the rest of the family for over four years since we broke away. Now, please read this and tell me that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't dangerous and deserve charity status:

    Parents don't get a moral pass
    Toronto Star, Canada - 3
    Even the discovery that their parents were devout Jehovah's Witnesses – and is there any other kind of Watchtower congregant? – raised only faint alarm ...


    Rosie [email protected] the author

    VANCOUVER–Remember when the news about Canada's first sextuplets was all giddy and gurgling?

    Such a blessed event, the live birth of six tiny infants, so mini-me they could be held in the palm of an average adult's hand, their hearts the size of grapes.

    Effusive commentators gave unsolicited advice on bringing up babies, estimating that the brood would go through 500 diapers a week. It seemed churlish to question the ethics – medical and otherwise – of carrying half a dozen babes in the womb, complicating all their survival chances. Even the discovery that their parents were devout Jehovah's Witnesses – and is there any other kind of Watchtower congregant? – raised only faint alarm bells about the excruciating moral dilemmas that likely lay ahead, even as hospital officials released the most terse updates, that the newborns were in "fair" or "satisfactory" condition.

    Then the babies started dying. One ... two ... Could still, tragically, be more because few know what's happening in the neonatal intensive care unit of B.C. Women and Children's Hospital. Except, as revealed this week, that at least two of these fragile infants were sickly enough to require a blood transfusion, done over the objections of the parents.

    Three of the babies, according to court documents, were taken into the temporary custody of provincial authorities last weekend. It isn't clear whether the third child has also been transfused but all were formally returned to the custody of their parents – a rather misleading description since the babies remain in hospital under intense medical care – by Wednesday.

    The parents, while grieving over the loss of two babies, are livid with authorities for allegedly thrusting their imperatives aside. Their religious beliefs, they argue, forbid blood transfusion and the procedure has caused them immense distress, to the point, as the father said in an affidavit, that they couldn't bear to be at the hospital while doctors were "violating our little girl."

    What doctors were doing, in fact, was probably saving that baby's life.
    The parents – their names protected by a publication ban – are not grateful. They are dismayed. Clearly, they view their transfused babies as somehow contaminated, unclean, and repugnant in the eyes of their Lord. Their faith calls for the shunning of those who transgress against this central tenet of the Watchtower Society, which bases its religion on a model of 1st century Christianity, although many would place Jehovah's Witnesses outside of Christendom, in the realm of sect.

    These parents profess their profound love for the babies. But where is the love, or the parental obligation to nurture and protect, in this?

    How daintily have child welfare authorities, religious scholars and ethicists picked their way through the moral minefield of religious rights as enshrined in the Charter versus a government's duty – a society's duty – to protect children. This responsibility has been upheld repeatedly by our courts because minors, and certainly not infants, can't make mature life-and-death decisions for themselves. Parents don't own children to the extent that they can deny them critical medical treatment any more than they can beat the tar out of kids because they happen to believe that sparing the rod spoils the child.

    A spokesperson for Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada pleaded, earlier this week, for the public to avoid "stereotypical assumptions" about this family or the religion. But you don't get a moral pass just because you believe in a thing. And Witnesses have been knocking heads with the courts ever since they adopted the proscription against blood "consumption" in 1945.

    The Scriptural basis is found in several passages, but mainly arises from Leviticus 17:10-14. It reads, in part: "And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

    The Bible, obviously, says nothing about blood transfusion. It is an interpretation, the blood taboo formulated at a time when the young sect was deeply suspicious – and ignorant – of modern medicine. Yet the Watchtower Society permits organ transplants, vaccinations and fertility treatments, all of these procedures the results of bio-technical advancements.
    Though never confirmed, it's widely assumed that these parents availed themselves of some version of reproductive technology or fertility enhancement. The odds of producing natural sextuplets are one in billions.


    So it's permissible to make babies by intervening with nature but not save them by providing a natural and life-sustaining element. This is not religious freedom; it's religious tyranny.

    Throughout the pregnancy – the four boys and two girls were born Jan. 7, after 25 weeks gestation – the couple made crucial decisions about how it would unfold. They rejected "selective reduction," which would have killed some of the fetuses in utero by lethal injection. It is understandable that some would refuse this abortive procedure.

    The parents also authorized resuscitation for the babies after birth, though they had the option to decline. And every step is being taken to promote healthy development of the infants, as nascent organs and muscles develop.

    But blood is blood, the most central component in carrying oxygen to tissues. And blood, transfused, the parents won't countenance. It is a mercy, then, that medical and government authorities trumped their professed religious rights with the right of these frail babies to struggle for life.

    "Now ... because we choose alternative medical treatments to blood transfusions, we have been stripped of our parental rights and have been labeled unfit," the father states in his affidavit.

    "We have consented to all required treatment and have asked the doctors to more actively employ available alternatives to blood transfusions. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions."

    A 1995 Supreme Court decision allows parents to demand a hearing wherein they may present evidence. This father says that never happened. Government authorities have not confirmed it nor, if so, explained why. It may have been a matter of medical urgency. It's known that child welfare officials acted on the advice of doctors and that an ethics team had been monitoring the situation since shortly after the babies were delivered.

    This "gross violation" of the parents' constitutional rights – as characterized by their lawyer – will be argued when the matter comes before the B.C. Supreme Court for a hearing Feb. 23.
    The parents and other Jehovah's Witness defenders assert there are effective alternatives to blood transfusion that were not sufficiently pursued in this case. A pediatrician from Sault St. Marie will allegedly advance that premise at the hearing. (Calls to the doctor yesterday were not returned.)

    But a blood expert told the Star there is no such transfusion alternative yet.
    "There's nothing clinically approved that can transport oxygen to tissue, which is the primary job of blood," said Dr. Mark Scott, a senior scientist with Canadian Blood Services, which manages blood supply in all provinces and territories except Quebec. "If you don't have enough red blood cells, there's nothing to do outside of blood transfusions."
    Clinical tests on alternate substances have had poor results, with severe side effects, actually increasing mortality rates.

    Blood substitutes, Scott added, might some day effectively boost blood oxygen levels, but the usefulness would be very short-term, until a transfusion was available. Such a product would, for example, be used on wounded soldiers in the battlefield, until they could be transported to hospital.

    There are, as well, options for pumping up volume when large amounts of blood have been lost, as in an automobile accident. "Volume replacement therapy can be done with a non-blood product, such a saline. It's like filling up a radiator with antifreeze or water."

    With acute blood loss, the body – starved for oxygen – could start to replenish itself by generating its own blood cells. But this scenario relates to individuals who had previously been healthy. It would not be of much use to fragile preemies. Without transfusion, their oxygen-depleted organs would fail rapidly. The Vancouver babies must clearly have been starting to fail.

    In his affidavit, their father stated: "We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live."
    But only, apparently, on their terms.

    God save babies from the piety of their parents.
    Auto-response05/10/2007 11.02 AM
    The following Answers were automatically selected for you based upon the Topic of your question.


    Title: Charity Doorstep Collections – Making an Informed Choice
    Link: http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=298&p_created=1171625247

    Title: Charities Act 2006: Summary for trustees of smaller charities
    Link: http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=390&p_created=1182247673

    Title: How do I email the Charity Commission?
    Link: http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=378&p_created=1180529225

    Title: Types of complaints about charities that the Commission not take up
    Link: http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=97&p_created=1148370438

    Title: Why do I need to open a User Account before I can submit a question?
    Link: http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_faqid=67&p_created=1147876149


    If no Answers are listed or the Answers are not helpful, please select "Finish Submitting Question" to submit your question to our support staff.


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.1/1050 - Release Date: 04/10/2007 17:03

  • Gill
    Gill

    Good Morning, Ian!

    I most certainly will do that BUT, would like to point out that the dear dubbies are already trying to get sweet with the charities Commission by opening their KH's to the community on certain days - OPEN DAYS etc. I believe there have been several that I know of personally in the UK. They are well aware that their 'charity status' is under threat and have a 'persecution alert' out because of this.

    Basically they do nil, nothing, zero, zilch that could be described as charitable. They are the most uncharitable organization I have ever come across. My own mother collected locally fora local hospice in a very secretive way and was frightened to silliness that the Elders would find out she did such a thing!

    Their charitable 'activities' I believe are described along the line as offering counselling and Bible instruction. Since when was being brow beaten by a window cleaner and encouraged to read cult literature a charitable activity?

    I will email however, Ian!

    Thanks!

    Gill

  • ThomasCovenant
    ThomasCovenant

    Hi Dansk

    Any suggestions on what would be your objections to charitable status for the various congs in the UK?

    Thanks

    Thomas Covenant

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence
    Any suggestions on what would be your objections to charitable status for the various congs in the UK?

    I don't know what the laws are in the UK... but in the US my objection to their charitable status is that it means they don't have to pay taxes... which would be fine, if they actually did charitable work... but they don't.

    Jackie

  • James Free
    James Free

    "IF WE BOMBARD THE COMMISSION WITH COMPLAINTS THEY'LL HAVE TO ACT!!"

    Sorry to deflate your bubble but this is a non starter in the UK. Charity status, as in the US, is given to religious bodies. They do not have to do charitable work.

    It is too easy to think that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only evil religion around. Not so. I personally would remove charity status from ALL religions. But it isn't going to happen.

    In the UK, the chance of the JW's losing charity status is NIL.

  • Dansk
    Dansk
    In the UK, the chance of the JW's losing charity status is NIL.

    NO IT ISN'T! The JWs were granted charitable status because they supposedly helped people in the community. It was one of the criteria for gaining it. If it can be proved that the JWs are not helping the community, i.e. the blood transfusion issue, shunning, false doctrine, e.g. 1914, etc., the charitiable status can be removed. What is required is for individuals here to tell their own stories of injury. Every person who writes will receive a reply. When enough pain is shown the commission will have to act.

    Ian

  • ThomasCovenant
    ThomasCovenant

    Thanks Dansk

    I'm going to give it a go.

    Every little helps.

    Thomas Covenant

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    Here is a list of some of the "charitable" activities this organization is involved in:

    (1) Protecting pedophiles within the ranks. Go to www.silentlambs.org and see how many people are silenced under threat of getting disfellowshipped for "slander" after having been molested by a member of the "Christian" congregation.

    (2) Telling the parents to keep the children out of college. They use specious arguments to tell parents and children that college is bad news, and that the children would be better off out in the ministry full time. The result is a religion full of window washers that require food stamps and public assistance to make ends meet. They are also stagnant, since such jobs offer little to no value creation opportunities or means to move onto more lucrative careers.

    (3) Usurping people's free time. They are supposed to be out in service full time. They claim this is voluntary, but the Service Meetings (held every week, usually Thursday evenings after the children are supposed to be in bed, but they are supposed to be at those meetings also) is full of guilt trips for not doing ever more in time. They have skits and "suggested" schedules in their private journal The Kingdom Ministry that guide people into giving up more time. Those who do not usually get hounded.

    (4) Wasting a lot of gas in delivering this message from door to door. Very often, they head to a door and the person is not at home. As often, they knock and the person is clearly not interested. So, after a few months (and sometimes less, occasionally as little as a week), they call back on such people. The person has to start from scratch explaining that they are not interested. They often do this in spite of No Solicitors signs prominently displayed.

    (5) Besides sexual abuse to children, they physically and emotionally abuse children methodically. Cutting them off from others in school is one form of abuse. They are deprived of vacations that involve anything other than going door to door; those parents that take actual vacations are hounded. Every May or June they come up with a Kingdom Ministry article about this. Physical abuse can take the form of beatings for not sitting still for hours at a time, keeping them up late on school nights to attend those evening meetings that often don't let out until after 10:00 PM, and keeping them out in service most or all the day despite hot or very cold weather. Play time is usurped by field service at ages as young as 2. Children are pressured to get baptized young--they showcase children getting baptized as young as 6; teenagers are supposed to be already baptized.

    (6) The Bible is altered. Notice a famous example at John 1:1. The King James version states in the last phrase "And the Word was God". Most modern translations agree. The Jehovah's Witness Bible renders this "And the Word was a god" (note the lower-case "g"). This is an attempt to make the Trinity look like a false doctrine; there are many other instances of this throughout the Bible. Note particularly the dashes and the bracketed words; these are additions and omissions in the Bible.

    THIS IS NOT A CHARITY! Any organization that abuses children as methodically as the Watchtower Society does, wastes resources, and usurps people's time and energy to teach a message as Biblical that is in fact altered does not meet my criteria of charity. If anything, it is an anticharity. Oh yes, they do sham charity works by assisting their own people out of disasters (but they do not lift a finger for anyone not also part of their organization). They helped build their almighty Kingdom Halls after Katrina so they could prey on the victims of the hurricane, but they didn't lift a finger for anyone else other than other Witnesses. The goal is transparently to get the work going as soon as possible, so they could prey on people already stunned by the hurricane before they can get the Internet back up and running and their lives back together. The whole idea of the Watchtower Society being a charity is a scam that needs to not be supported.

    Here are some charities that are worth supporting: The Red Cross (which did supply emergency aid to all without distinction during disasters from local fires to Katrina), The Salvation Army (which helps the poor in local and regional areas, especially those that are poor because of reasons beyond their control like medical issues and disasters), and the local soup kitchens that help the homeless and provide shelter for those who, for reasons beyond their reasonable control, find themselves in that position. If you are going to support a religion, I would choose one of the ones linked to www.freeminds.org or one of the other apostate Web sites that offers Christian advice. Even the United Way, with all its promotion of medical "research" that is a scam, does offer some help in keeping children off drugs and out of trouble and may provide relief in times of sudden need. But, under NO circumstances should anyone support the Watchtower Society--THEY PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE OR RELIEF TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND THEY USURP PEOPLE'S TIME AND ENERGY FOR A BIBLE THAT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH TO FIT THEIR OWN NEEDS!

  • Dansk
    Dansk

    WTWizard, thank you for your post - now please contact the commission with your evidence.

    Thomas and Gill, thanks for the support. We CAN bring the Tower down this way. It just needs more and more people to make their voice know.

    Something else we can get the Tower on is discrimination against gays. I'm pretty sure that would cause a stir!

    Ian

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit