by alamb 22 Replies latest jw friends
reniaa: Does the writer know the difference between supporting something and toleratiing it?
Here's the difference, reniaa. I tolerate your beliefs, but I don't support them. Yet, If we were walking together, and a rabid dog attacked you, I would do my best to save you. I would hope that you would do the same for me.
REN - NO - He simply mentioned his PREVIOUS weeks article as a preamble - but you THINK that 's what THIS weeks article is about.
This article is NOT about what you apparently think it is.
It is about the RESPONSE to the PREVIOUS article.
Get it.
This article is not discussing fighting for the country.
He says that he mentioned two court cases which show truthfully, albeit unfavorably, jehovahs Witnesses.
It is the response to this that he is dealing with. he is discussing the attitude of JW towards other faiths.
HB
LOL @ Hamster.
The writer is so correct; JW's yell loudly when their rights are being threatened, but do nothing to support the rights of others.
Selfish, disingenuous, and intolerable.
Sylvia
The previous article had said many things, and recounted this piece :
"But interestingly, in 1977, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, in Wooley versus Maynard, that the state of New Hampshire could not prosecute Jehovah's Witnesses who covered that motto on their license tags because it clashed with their ideological point of view. "
Now I have no idea what "licence tags " he refers to, or why J W's should wish to not have the State Motto on them, but does this really constitute a violation of "States interests" - He appears as intransigent in his view as were the Witnesses, apparently, in theirs.
The writer advocates a State where you either do exactly as you are told by that State or suffer dire consequences, a virtual Police State, IMHO - Is this the world we want to live in?
Is this the America that recently voted for change?
He entitled the first article "The America they fought for" - I always thought that they fought for a land of freedom.
It strikes me as a piece of deliberately provocative journalism designed to stir things up, with no real merit to it.
So Jehovah's Witnesses want to have it both ways; they actually define intolerance of other views, yet demand tolerance for their own.
I think that is his main point, not forcing people to support wars.
The jw religion is built entirely upon intolerance, yet demands tolerance.
They demand right to free speech and then go to great lengths to curtail others' rights to free speech.
etc.
The WBT$ recognises no ones rights but thier own!..They trample on the rights of thier own Cult Religion on a daily basis...............................OUTLAW
BluesBrother,
The licence plates in New Hampshire carry the state motto: Live Free or Die. Apparently at least one JW thought that this was a political statement and did not want it displayed on his vehicle.
No Apologies
Columnist response to "Tolerate This" and jw responses:
Tolerate this
By Nat HarwellMy focus last week was not the Jehovah's Witnesses. I called for Americans to honor the sacrifices of our D-Day veterans who have gone before us by preserving the nation they died to save. In so doing I mentioned two court cases, both of which just happened to involve Jehovah's Witnesses. I expressed my heartfelt belief that it's hypocritical for people - and I very clearly listed multiple denominations, not just Jehovah's Witnesses - to live in this country and refuse to support it.
So it's most interesting that although the Jehovah's Witnesses will not fight for the United States, they don't mind picking a fight with this small town newspaper opinion columnist.
Well, tolerate this: it's my opinion that for Jehovah's Witnesses to call for tolerance constitutes the very height of hypocrisy. From their Brooklyn, New York, headquarters the Jehovah's Witnesses are directed not to interact with any other Christian groups; they are taught the Jehovah's Witnesses' brand of Christianity is the only true form. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to avoid ecumenical efforts, socialize within their own ranks and attempt to proselytize and convert members of other faiths to their own.
The fact is Jehovah's Witnesses are not recognized as a religion in some countries; branded as a cult or sect, their activities were banned in Canada and Australia, for example.
So Jehovah's Witnesses want to have it both ways; they actually define intolerance of other views, yet demand tolerance for their own.
Well, tolerate this: as I said in last week's column, the day America started making policy based on warm, fuzzy, happy feelings of tolerating everything and standing for nothing is the day the problems, which threaten to overwhelm us today, began.
Tolerance is a word which, sadly, has morphed to mean this: anyone can do anything, anywhere, any time, no matter how outrageous or how dangerous, and thus render the vast majority of American citizenry impotent.
There's a big difference between tolerance and anarchy, but the line of definition between the two has become increasingly blurred of late in our society.
Tolerate this: America is a representative democracy, a Federal Republic designed to be governed of, by, and for the will of the people - as determined by the majority. And when last I checked, majority still meant one more than half.
Yet, in the name of tolerance, the vast majority frequently witnesses travesties of justice. One particularly amazing case comes to mind; I listened to the news report traveling back to college one Sunday night long ago and kept up with the appeals for more than 35 years.
Back in 1971, Iowa farmer Briley set up a 20-gauge shotgun to defend an outbuilding against repeated burglaries. Burglar Katko entered and was wounded in the leg. The burglar sued the farmer for failing to warn of the use of lethal force. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of - the burglar!
Just recently the United States Supreme Court finally reversed that decision. But farmer Briley will never know, as he died during the more than 35 years which transpired, and his farm was sold to pay continuing legal expenses and taxes.
Americans are outraged by these cases, when victims of crime are left out in the cold by our legal system. It's just not right - legal support for criminals at the expense of their victims should not be tolerated.
Tolerance, sensitivity and the right to a fair and impartial trial are all well and good. But a legally supported process of reverse discrimination which favors any minority at the expense of the majority is ridiculous, and borders on anarchy.
Be assured I've done my academic research backing up my own personal experiences from teaching Jehovah's Witnesses children in public school. I didn't attack any one group in last week's column, and I didn't go looking for this tussle.
But the bottom line is simply this: Jehovah's Witnesses got upset at my mention of two historical Supreme Court cases that paint them truthfully, but in a politically unfavorable light; by attacking my opinion they apparently hope to obfuscate that they demand tolerance from the majority in order to operate as they please while in turn exercising intolerance of other's views.
That's pretty much called talking out of both corners of your mouth. And down here, in the Deep South, at best that's disingenuous - and, at worst, it's intolerable.
Nat Harwell is a long-time resident of Newton County. His columns appear regularly on Sundays.
The jw religion is built entirely upon intolerance, yet demands tolerance.
I believe this is considered hypocritcal and the Bible is pretty clear about what it's position is on hypocrisy.
Yet another reason I would never join this cult.
This is the article that he originally wrote. The JWs wrote in because they were offended. Then he wrote another column which is what the original poster wanted to paste in and which Blondie did paste in. The America they fought for
By Nat Harwell
Columnist
[email protected]
POSTED June 7, 2009 12:30 a.m.
Yesterday marked the 65th anniversary of the greatest amphibious military landing in the history of the world. Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy, France and invaded Adolph Hitler's "Fortress Europe" on a date now remembered simply as "D-Day." More than 4,400 Allied soldiers perished on June 6, 1944. More than 2,500 of them were Americans.
One of the largest groups of surviving World War II veterans gathered yesterday at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va., the town that lost more men in the invasion, per capita, of any place in America. As the youngest of these veterans now approach their 80s, the rest of us Americans are running out of time to thank them.
How, indeed, does America go about thanking a D-Day veteran? Does the everyday American citizen even pause to reflect upon the ultimate sacrifice made by so many on what author Cornelius Ryan termed "The Longest Day"? In the aftermath of the "dumbing down" of America's public school curriculum - one social studies textbook covers the entirety of the Vietnam War in three paragraphs - how many young people, or their teachers, know what caused World War II, the dates, the leaders, the combatants or why it's termed "the last good war?"
It was termed that because World War II was a simple matter of good versus evil: the good guys versus the bad guys, democracy versus totalitarianism, freedom versus dictatorship, humanity versus the Holocaust.
It was simply a matter of winning. At any cost.
After the war, in 1945, the state of New Hampshire chose as its motto, "Live Free or Die," which stemmed from a toast made by a most famous Revolutionary War hero, General John Stark: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
But interestingly, in 1977, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, in Wooley versus Maynard, that the state of New Hampshire could not prosecute Jehovah's Witnesses who covered that motto on their license tags because it clashed with their ideological point of view. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority, held that an individual's freedom of expression was more important than the state's interests. Burger likened the decision to the 1943 West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnette, which ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses children did not have to salute the American flag in public school.
Currently, less than one-half of 1 percent of the population of New Hampshire declares themselves to be Jehovah's Witnesses, while more than 99.5 percent of the state's population does not belong to that organization.
Folks, I have a big, big problem with the Supreme Court's rulings in those cases. I don't care what you are - Jehovah's Witnesses or Methodist or Catholic or Holy Roller Coaster Screamer - if you choose to live in a state that says "Live Free or Die" either support it or pack your dadgum bags and leave.
If you're a Jehovah's Witness or Baptist or Presbyterian or Jewish and choose not to salute our nation's flag, please catch the next flight to Iran, Sudan, China or North Korea.
You're an American, right? Well, act like one. It constitutes the very height of hypocrisy to live in this nation and refuse to support it. If you don't like the way things are done by majority, move on. Find a place you do like. If there isn't one, perhaps you should start to realize that maybe you're the one out of step, not the rest of the folks in the whole marching band.
When America reached the point where political correctness and warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely desires not to offend anyone began taking precedence over common sense is when the problems, which today threaten to overwhelm us, began.
Thus, as I reflect on D-Day and the sacrifice borne by so many for us, it seems to me the best way we can thank those who died, those who survived, and the remaining members of our "greatest generation" is to preserve the America they fought to save. It is the only way, actually, to honor them. To let this nation deteriorate into socialism for the sake of political correctness would be to desecrate the flag the Jehovah's Witness kid refuses to salute, and to brand as farcical, New Hampshire's bold and official motto.
Many, many Americans have died so that we might live free in a democracy where the majority opinion rules. The best way we can honor their sacrifice is to assure that freedom is not shackled, and eventually usurped, by political correctness.
When I was a kid, citizens either supported our nation, went to jail or left the country. Like that good old-time religion, that was good enough for me back then - and it's good enough for me today.
May God bless, and help, the United States of America.
Nat Harwell is a long-time resident of Newton County. His columns appear regularly on Sundays.
