Steven Unthanks case . . . this might help fill some gaps.

by sizemik 36 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  sabastious

  Weasel words, anyone? What is the distinction? Is that like saying the papacy or ecclesiatical hierarchy of the RCC don't exist because they are a mere "theological arrangement?"

  The way I look at that statment is that JW Spiritual Food is a bona fide product, like Kellogs Frosted Flakes. The cereal has a spokesperson of a talking tiger named Tony. He thinks that Frosted Flakes are Grrrrreatttt! It would be like if someone choked on a too many flakes and tried to sue Tony the Tiger for their damages. The appropriate response would be, "You can't sue him because he's not real." And if the cereal company was strategically broken up into a web of corporations the common person who eats the product regularly would not be able to touch them legally and therefore might be forced to sue a legal construct.

  -Sab
• 

  Knowsnothing

  It would be like if someone choked on a too many flakes and tried to sue Tony the Tiger for their damages. The appropriate response would be, "You can't

  sue him because he's not real."

  Hmm... it would be interesting if the Unthank case mentioned the GB as well. Or, is the GB also "non-existent?"

  Corporations are given way too much latitude in the U.S. The WT smarted up on this and took advantage long ago.
• 

  sabastious

  Corporations are given way too much latitude in the U.S.

  Corperate personhood needs to go. The Watchtower are a corperation AND a religion. That's a double whammy, Oy!

  -Sab
• 

  steve2

  At one level I cannot understand why the lawyer's weasal words surprised anyone, JW and ex-JW alike. Lawyers are notorious spin-doctors who will say almost anything, or frame an argument in unusual ways in defence of their client. It's over to the judge to declare whether it's tosh or not.

  I'm also sure that even if devout JWs do believe the lawyer's words were uttered in court, the JWs will say to one another, if not themselves, "It's all part of theocratic warfare."
• 

  Londo111

  Usually, the Society's tactic is not to mention something, and let it die down. They rarely, rarely refute anything specific. Of course, they cannot. However if this got out and they were forced to comment on it, likely they would say, "Some, in the past, have presented the Faithful and Discreet Slave as a theological arrangement and even nonexistent. However, this refutes the words of Jesus found at…" They can easily disavow the content of whatever the legal team has said on the subject, while obscuring that is was their lawyers who said it. Thus, the Society always comes out triumphant.

  I agree: religious organizations are given carte blanche freedom, often at the expense of religion/spiritual individuals. Such was the case of the Unthank case.
• 

  Azazel

  How right you are steve2 they will make any excuse to cover whatever is needed to defend this cult and it's leaders. I would wager Vin didnt believe that the judge was deserving to know the real truth so its ok to be deceptive.

  Would i be suprised?

  NO

  Az
• 

  Gayle

  at least Unthank caused quite deeply an impact to the WTS than from any one former, or ex-JW. Maybe more impacted than from Ray Franz? Even, for long run,,as more countries around the world get their own WWC laws going, that the WTS has learned when these governments say "jump" at least on this issue that the WTS, branches and congregations better not dilly-dally but "jump" quickly.

  Unthank didn't 'lose' the battle (the WTS didn't 'win' the battle, nor the war).
• 

  steve2

  at least Unthank caused quite deeply an impact to the WTS than from any one former, or ex-JW. Maybe more impacted than from Ray Franz?

  Well, as they say, time will tell. New Zealand is right "next door" to Australia, and to my knowledge there's been absolutely no mainstream media coverage at all over this case. Also, my relatives who are still in do not know anything about it either, nor do they seem even remotely curious about what's taken place in the state of Victoria, let alone elsewhere in Australia. They're as sleepy and one-note as ever.

  By contrast, when Ray Franz's case was featured in Time, New Zealand JWs not only knew about it, but openly discussed it (albeit from the Watchtower spin's point of view).

  Unthank can be credited with putting an extraoridinary amount of his own time, money and effort into the legal proceedings which have yielded more thana little satisfaction that the Watchtower Society has communicated with bodies of elders about this matter and making it a conscience matter. YOu cannot fault a man who is so motivated and committed to a worthy issue (children's safety).

  Whether this is the effect Unthank hoped for is unlikely. He was going for the spiritual jugular and the courts toned it down big time. I suspect - but have no way of knowing at all - that the Watchtower Society will "quietly" regard the outcome as not only a relief but as a muted victory. But, who knows, this could develop further and, while I have not heard of any active witnesses being disturbed by this isue enough to re-think their faith the way Franz's departure did, this is 'still early days.
• 

  fahrvegnugen

  I don't think the arguments of a lawyer in court have any bearing on their official doctrine. I vaguely remember a discussion of Jesus telling some that he was not going up to a festival, then attending it contrary to his assertion. The question was whether Jesus lied and if so how would one justify it. The answer was something along the lines of it not being a lie to withhold correct information from those not entitled to it, especially opponents seeking points of attack. From the Society's perspective, they probably feel that they are justified in making any legal argument necessary to defeat those who seek to interfere with "kingdom interests". Truth be told, back in my JW days that would have been sufficient explanation to satisfy me.
• 

  wha happened?

  That's exactly how they feel. ANY legal argument, regardless of how it contradicts their own policy or doctrine. That's when it stops acting like a religion of truth, into a corporation just trying to maintain a bottom line. Most dubs will never get that