Countless hours of work? When will you quit patting yourself on the back? I have to sift through several layers of self-congratulatory comments about your 'research', experience, and educational background before I even start to get to your underlying argument. You don't need to dumb down for anyone. You are already there. Your writing skills are subpar and you have a particular method of circular logic that you never fail to demonstrate. You don't impress me. You boastfully claim to be qualified enough to be a professor at Harvard or Yale, yet I can't even see you being an adjunct faculty member at a community college. How you can even begin to author a law review article with such woeful grammar, spelling errors and poor cognitive writing skills is beyond me.
Will the IRS Investigate the Watchtower Society?
by ABibleStudent 44 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
mind blown
spelling? writing skills? you must be talking about me....LOL......I'm the worstest
I'm under the impression, unless the WTS hails a Red Flag or someone points out specifics the IRS won't really dig. A full out investigation is expensive and time consuming.
Well, there could be a trade off. Government taxes religion and in turn uses that money to infuse additional community services. But in all honesty that's not going to happen. Government thinks religion contributes to the well being of communities as well as the great divided between church and state.
-
mP
Wake up sunshine, governments rarely turn against religion because ultimately they are partners. The government often uses churches as one of its many tools in manipulating the masses. Lets not forget in the past the church was often used to brain wash the masses to fight for the king or government on many many occassions, the crusades, practically all wars up until now. Take a look at modern america, and ask a simple question how many young americans joined the fight because some minister told them it was gods will. Im not saying the political machine would still not have achieved its final goal, but one cant help admit that the church is mightily efficient. You cant get more efficient than religion in motivating the masses to do the will of god sorry the government.
This of course leads back to the question of taxes, the government needs to keep church alive for this purpose without making it seem to obvious that the two are partners. Today the government loses some money, but when times are tough the church will be there to help and pay back its debts many times over.
Its not an accident that America lets churches thrive, simply because im guessing here that religious types are the first to join the army when theres a call.
-
144001
Hi 144001, based on JWN members' opinions expressed in this (and other) threads you are probably more of a prophet than the GB.
Hello Robert,
As I said, I don't mean to be a pessimist. I was born and raised a JW but during my teen years, went through an extreme rebellion that left me with a lot of anger for the WTBTS corporations and those who run them. I've been out for 30+ years now. Some of my family is still in. The anger I harbor because of my upbringing in this cult has waned but remains. I doubt it will ever entirely go away.
I am also a highly educated individual who has, over the years, looked for ways to get "revenge" against the Society for the hell that was my childhood. My pessimistic comments are based on what I've learned over the last 3 decades. I express them in the hopes that you will pause, brainstorm some other ideas, and continue your fight against the WTBTS in a manner that has a greater probability of impacting them.
I wish you the best of luck in your efforts!
-
ABibleStudent
144001 - As I said, I don't mean to be a pessimist.
Hi 144001, You are being realistic and not pessimistic. There are a lot of challenges to overcome to get the IRS to investigate the WTBTS as many posters have already mentioned. Just because there are challenges does not mean that people should give up.
Hopefully, I encourage everyone to succeed to the best of the capabilities, and not put them down. Sometimes the line between encouragement, and intimidation and/or coercion can be crossed unintentionally. As has been pointed out to me by Band on the Run, my writing is not always interpreted as I intended. May be I should try more humor like Mind Blown.
Thank you to everyone, who has expressed their opinions on this thread.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
-
Band on the Run
Sic Semper,
Saying nasty things about me personally, none of which are true, only highlights that you cannot attack the content of what I reported. Your comments deflect onto you. They reveal your shortcomings, more than any of mine.
A Bible Student - I merely wanted to let you know the legal and political realities of tax exemption. I agree that religion and government often combine with political ends. Certainly this has been the ongoing case with the Pope and Roman Catholic Church. I'm watching the Borgias on SHO with Jeremy Irons as the Borgia pope. Rick Santorum's candidacy emphasizes this trend.
I agree that all exemptions should be revoked. It is sad that ugliness emerged on this thread. I write spontaneously here. My resume has the hard proof that I have qualifications. Focusing on me rather than the content is ugly. People are free to post here.
We need prophets in society. Nonreligious prophets is probably a more correct term. Once entanglement in religion is eliminated as an impact of taxing religion, I feel the vast majority of posters here agree with your assertion about exemption. I certainly do. Yet another instance of how this medium can hurt situations.
-
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I simply expressed my incredulity that someone with such exaggerated claims of intelligence and education can write so poorly and with little reason. Your content is never anything that couldn't be gleaned from a wikipedia page. It's simply a fact that your subpar writing distracts from what you are trying to say. It's so circular in nature that your arguments lead me to believe that you have a pre-existing bias towards almost anything. I'm sorry if you take it as a personal attack. I'll let you speak what you want with impunity if you just lay off the reciting of your resume. It lacks real professionalism to do so, and you should know better if you are who you say you are. But I can't stay silent when I see such an obvious fraud. All I heard from you is some babble about the First Amendment and Constitutional Law and how you know what you are talking about. No real argument was presented. Only credentials. You might as well have just cut and pasted from wikipedia. No one else has confronted you on this until now. I kept my mouth shut for the most part and let things be. When you tried to hijack a thread and tried to put A Bible Student in his place, I felt the need to give him advice to just ignore you. You say that your resume is proof of your qualifications, but there is no way to verify this information. We have to take it on your word. So I'll say it again. Your style and level of writing actually does more to discredit you than provide any real "proof" of your claimed credentials. This is a forum for discussion and debate. If you wanted to hear nothing but your own echo, then you can speak into the mirror.
-
Band on the Run
One would think that someone critizing another's writing skills would have more than mediocre skills themselves. The pot calling the kettle black scenario. If my reasoning were circular and inaccurate, you would criticize or correct the content. YOu are unable to so b/c I am very confident in my reporting. I presented plenty of argument and Supreme Court analysis. I could name case names and even indvidual opinions from both majority, concurrences, and dissents. I believe that doing that this is not an appropriate forum to do so.
It would be the rare nonlawyer and perhaps historian who grasp the complexity of these decisions. You would not be one iota more satsified. Also if my reasoning were so circular and vapid, you would not be so triggered. You are pouting the way a little child would.
Attack my reasoning in particulars, not me personally. Such a post could be respected.
If people are truly interested, I suggest they try to get permission to visit a local law school library or access Lexis or Westlaw.
Your thinking cap is not on straight. Prove my content is wrong. I dare you. Ah, I miss a literate crowd. Many here are literate. Should I pretend that I am a kindergarten drop out or a window washer? Get real. I receive large sums of money for my writing and research skills. Unlike others here, I will never give legal advice. As a boundary to not do so, I do not research every legal topic here but present general legal information. Discuss Madison's remonstrance with me. Discuss British const'l history. I would love to have such a debate.
People in glass houses should not throw stones is an old adage. Attacking me does not prove me wrong. Let us see you discuss these cases and prominent writers in the field. Perhaps we should move this discussion to a more appropriate forum, such as a Supreme Court or First amendment blog. Someplace where you can see that I accurately report content. Heck, I was a bit shocked and disappointed with what I found doing my research. Call others' writing vapid and circular.
-
Sic Semper Tyrannis
This is so pointless. It's like a cop pointing to his badge as proof of being such a good cop. If you were a doctor, you'd be handing out copies of your medical degree in your office as proof that your medical opinion is correct and incontrovertible. I did call your argument circular because it simply is. What does James Madison have to do with this subject? What about British Constitutional history? Already you have brought out two red herrings designed only to distract from what was previously discussed. True to form, you delve no deeper into the subject. Just by mentioning Madison and British Constitutional history, you seek to impress and intimidate people by the very mention of what you obviously consider a very significant subject. You throw these subjects out there as puerile way to intimidate people. Do tell me more. Did you even know that there is no written "British Constitution" and that it is based on Acts of Parliament? I bet you are hitting wikipedia right about now to think of something clever to say in response. Call me a child all you want to. At least I don't write and reason like one would. You got exposed for what you are and you don't like it. You are a fraud. Nothing more, nothing less. This is dimestore logic and boilerplate know-it-all bullshit. Attacking your credibility as a claimed expert due to poor argumentational and writing skills is not the same as a personal attack. But I obviously struck a nerve here and you seem hell-bent on screaming out as loud as you can that you are so scary-smart. Have fun with your wikipedia sessions, and maybe a glass of wine will help take the edge off.
-
Band on the Run
You are not interested in dialgue. YOu are a petulant little boy having a temper tantrum.
My arguments are well honed. You are the one who lacks knowledge and compensates with personal attack. If you do not know Madison's Remonstrance or that British Const'l history directly affects this discussion, you show your ignorance, not mine. I understand a nonprofessional in the field not knowing the significance. I don't know much of the hard sciences or math. This is my knowledge area.
As I said, we can transfer to a forum where many people will know this subject matter. We can whose reasoning is attacked there. Intelligent discussion is impossible with you. I made a mistake. NO discussion is possible with you. The OP knows when to reach out to other people. YOU do not.
I stand by all my statements. Also, I am very well aware of the British Constitution for an American. I studied English legal history. Most constl law discussions start with British const'l history. It starts with the Magna Carta, which is not an Act of Parliament. It may not be written as the U.S. Const'n is. American likes to mock it b/c it is unwritten. Our laws derives from it and British common law. When I read British history, the actors of history are very cognizant of it. Unwritten const'ns do exist.
Choose a case not summarized in wikipedia. Perhaps I will scan and post my writing sample which deals with the Establishment Clause and recent Supreme Court cases defining its scope. You don't even raise the three prong test set forth in Lemon/Agostini. YOu don't mention Helm, McCreary, or Van Orden. You do not discuss Hein v. Freedom From Religion. If you ever in your entire life read a Supreme Court decision, I would be suprised.
Cite the leading constitutional law treatise authors.