WTS sues Public Television

by Gayle 30 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  carla

  I agree with Lady Lee. I understand that in the minds of jw's that if one is not baptized then technically they are not a 'real' jw however, to all the outside world if they were raised, lived the life or if they even go to meetings on a semi-regular basis they ARE a jw.

  behavior is not typical for the organization members.-- I would like to see a ratio done on that, it seems to me that for such a very small org they have pretty high rates of suicide, murders, pedophilia, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc...etc..etc.. much if simply is not reported to the media or authorities.
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  Remember now kids, not baptized = NOT A WITNESS. You can say he was around it all his life but that doesn't make him one. Its all about baptizm. We know that. You can't be DF'd or DA'd unless you are a witness. Unbaptized publishers are people who have expressed and "interest" in being a witness and not a witness. This is the party line, we all know it, some just want to change the rules to pin this on a "member". Remember, these sort of people are considered a "person of good will". Kind of ironic, eh?
• 

  Band on the Run

  Free speech is a good value to the WTBTS. Free speech for others means a lawsuit. In common-law countries, truth is an absolute defense to libel. Armenia may not be the most enlightened nation. We don't know the facts but I don't see why reporters and producers would place themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit unless it were true.

  The press here comments on notable's religion. For instance, so many Supreme Court justices being Roman Catholic is frequently discussed. I wonder who approved the lawsuit?
• 

  carla

  Well if they want to use the 'not baptized' thing to get out of this negative publicity then it should go across the board and extend into the blood regulations for minors. ALL jw youth (and older) who are not baptized should be given blood automatically without any regard to jw rules re: blood. They should not be allowed to tell Dr's or any authorities that the child is even associated with jw's. If a jw is not baptized then they should not be allowed to shun them, get in trouble for holidays, etc...etc..etc.. They can't have it both ways.
• 

  wannabefree

  Obviously the man is mentally ill. To attribute his actions as being a result of the JW religion is slanderous.

  If the problem the Organization has is simply that he was referred to as a JW and it makes them look bad, then they are obviously extreme in the damage control of their image.

  Now, if the man was associated with the religion and was discouraged to get professional help for his mental illness, that is another issue about the wrongness of the religion's m.o.
• 

  designs

  Its the same mindset seen in Christians posting here, a Christian does a horrible act- Presto they aren't a Christian.

  Gee that's easy.
• 

  Black Sheep

  They haven't sued the Telegraph for calling serial killer, Delroy Grant, a JW.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6584005/Delroy-Grant-charged-over-night-stalker-serial-sex-attacks.html
• 

  Earnest

  Not to detract from the point you are making, Black Sheep, but Delroy Grant is accused of serial rape not serial murder.
• 

  Hoffnung

  They might be correct that it is not a typical JW behaviour, but it is not a unique event in the JW history. Remember the bethelite recently killed in a KH by another witness in Frankfurt, Germany. The Society admitted in a letter sent to all congos in Germany the killer was a baptized JW for 2 years . For those interested I have a scan of that letter. It is in German though.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Whoops. My bad.

  As long as he's sincerely repentant he'll get off with a reproof and won't have to sit in the back row with the DF's when he gets out of jail.