Please sign the petition to remove tax free status from religious cults that shun!

by garbonzo 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  Would you sign a petition that eliminated all religious organizations from receiving tax exemptions?

  If it was universal, yes I would.

  Can non-religous organizations be dangerous cults? (HInt: According to Steve Hassan, this is possible.)

  Absolutely.

  1. According to what I have written so far, If no member or employee of an organziation files a complaint with the IRS, would the IRS be able to revoke that organization's tax exempt status?

  No.

  1. Which scares you more, a democraticly elected politician, who must run again every 2 to 6 years, or a religious leader, who is appointed by other religious leaders and cannot be removed from serving by rank and file members of the religion?

  It depends more on the leader than the method of appointment. But it doesn't matter. Religious leaders are not bound by democratic principals, nor are they required to run their organization as the government is run. And even if I DID have more faith in elected leaders, that STILL would not give elected leaders the right to make rules regarding religion. So it does not matter.

  1. If you were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal (i.e., being shunned) to religious leaders about their hellfire speeches and birthcontrol doctrines, would you publicly disagree with the leaders of that religion?

  1. I already disagree with religious leaders---I don't care about reprisals. There are always consequences to free speech. The government does no enforce such (or shouldn't) but our peers do. They are allowed to. That's the way it works. I have a right to speak freely, and they have a right to react. If someone used their free speech to spout racial hatred, I have a right to cut all ties with that person and never speak to them again. No one could argue that I have violated that person's rights, because I have my own rights.
• 

  garbonzo

  Policies against birthcontrol and abortion also leads to death. How can you say this is not in the same category as Manson? I know of a woman with one kidney that was warned not to get pregnant. She did, and now she and the fetus are dead. IT IS THE SAME THING! And if not, I would like to know your reasonings . . . .

  My reasonings are simple. Certain criteria need be met before classifying things together with the blood policy.

  Critera #1: Did the doctor say that the pregnancy will almost certainly bring about death, or was it more of a cautionary warning? Witnesses are not allowed transfusion of blood even in the most urgent cases, where blood is absolutely needed for survival.

  Critera #2: Did the religion tell the woman that she were to get pregnant to be pleasing to God or face everlasting death even knowing for almost certainty that she would die if she did so? I believe most religions recognize that God does not want anyone to die!

  Regarding abortion... yes, I suppose some religions say that you should not abort even if it saves the mother's life, but I believe critera #1 needs to be met before we classify this together with the blood policy. I'm sure you get where I am getting at. Even so, this scenario is extremely extremely rare, if at all in today's modern medicine. This make bringing something like this to court silly.

  I welcome points against this reasoning.

  It is obvious to me. Witnesses make an individual choice to refuse blood. The ultimate decision belongs to them, not the WT. Just b/c we disagree with it does not give us the right to stop them. I truly don't believe the actual intent of the Witnesses is to kill anyone. The direction causation of a death from refusing blood is not the WT doctrine but the individual actor.

  Rutherford was insane. This is no doubt about this in my mind. One has to be crazy to ban vaccinations and organ transplants and calling most of the medical community evil pyramid worshippers from Satan? Only taking "the occasional surgery". That is insane, and even though he most likely believed the shit, doesn't make him any less guilt. And those leaders after him that went along with these blood stained teachings are just as blood guilty as him. As I've already said, are you saying that it is okay for me to coerce someone into committing suicide? I would not be held liable?

  Scenario 1: A person dies because they refused to recieve a necessary blood transfusion after being persuaded to by the WTS by making them think that if they do, they face everlasting disfavor with God and condemned to everlasting death instead of seeing their dead loved ones come back to life in an eternally happy paradise life.

  Scenario 2: A child dies because their parent(s) refused them to recieve a necessary blood transfusion after being persuaded to by the WTS by making them think that if they do, they face everlasting disfavor with God and condemned to everlasting death instead of seeing their dead loved ones come back to life in an eternally happy paradise life. How is this any worse than persuading a parent not to give a diabetic child insulin when it is readily available to the parent and the child dies because of it?

  Individual responsibility remains. We live in a marketplace of ideas. Witnesses choose to be Witness. We did not live in compounds. There was interaction with the world. The Nuremberg trials asserted that even tho the Nazis were coercive, individuals had criminal responsibility for their acts.

  I don't know what in particular about the trials you are talking about. Care to clarify? I doubt it is relevant to the WTS' blood policy, if it even reflects current law. Why bring up trials from 67 years ago when we are talking about modern day justice? Were the Nuremberg trials an absolute deciding factor on how all trials should be done after it? I don't understand the relevancy here. Thanks!

  Now I have provided by reasonings. Why defend the WTS on this matter? This doesn't break the Constituation or anything like that.
• 

  garbonzo

  Also, JWs do not teach blood as a conscience matter. They will dissassociate themselves from you if you willfully take blood. They believe you would no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you did that and all the consequences that comes from that. That is proof enough. They are coercing parents to not give life-sustaining blood to their child that can result in death. This is tantamount to manslaughter. There is no hiding for an organization that does this!

  A legal case with people that know what they are doing needs to be made against the WTS! I have no doubt that they will win.
• 

  blindnomore

  grabonzo said, "Why defend the WTS on this matter?

  I am stunned by the comment which said,"thedirection cusation of a death from refusing blood is not the WT doctrine but the individual actor".

  How many time have I told that very same twisted propaganda from the Watchtower publications and the elders!

  For example, it said in the 'Question from Readers' on neutrality issue that it wasn't the WTS but indivisuals made personal decision. I was hard core witness then but didn't buy it. Any sane mind could see its dishonesty BS. The WTS wasn't going to take responsibility for their actions but dumping on to their loyal followrs.

  Would he have gone to prison hadn't he abused and thretened with disfellowshipping unless he abide by their polices? what is more, thousands young men unnecessarily went to the prison because the GB refused honor alternative service. Young men from all over the world wrote letters to the GB and tried to reason with GB. The GB replied back and told young men that they will be DF'ed if they take alternative. You are saying it wasn't the WT doctrine but the individual actor? Was it why young men found themselves in the prison? ( so was the case with all other doctrines, including blood doctrine. In fact the WTS has been a lot more aggressive with blood doctrine)

  Why do you reasoning and talking like the GB? You willing to go that far in order to make your point?

  It is person's constitutional rights petitioning to the Goverment for what he believe to be unfair.

  Besides, the freedom of Religion is not 'OF' BUT ' FROM'
• 

  ABibleStudent

  ABibleStudent - If you will reply to the following questions, I may be able to better understand your concerns and respond to your comments better:

  1. Would you sign a petition that eliminated all religious organizations from receiving tax exemptions?
  2. Can non-religous organizations be dangerous cults? (HInt: According to Steve Hassan, this is possible.)
  3. If all organizations did not receive tax exemptions (religious and non-religious organizations), how would motivate a dangerous cult to stop victimizing its members?
  4. According to what I have written so far, If no member or employee of an organziation files a complaint with the IRS, would the IRS be able to revoke that organization's tax exempt status?
  5. Which scares you more, a democraticly elected politician, who must run again every 2 to 6 years, or a religious leader, who is appointed by other religious leaders and cannot be removed from serving by rank and file members of the religion?
  6. If you were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal (i.e., being shunned) to religious leaders about their hellfire speeches and birthcontrol doctrines, would you publicly disagree with the leaders of that religion?

  Hi NewChapter, Thank you for answering 5 questions out of 6, but question #3 needs to be answered. From your answers it appears that you have a predisposition to remove tax exemptions for all religions and are less concerned with protecting Americans from dangerous cults.

  The intent of the White House petition is to protect Americans from dangerous cults. Removing tax exemptions for all religions, does not protect Americans from dangerous cults for two reasons. Non-religious dangerous cults will not be discouraged from victimizing their members and employees. Religious dangerous cults would have no incentive to stop victimizing their members. What you view as the government choosing to favor one religion over another is in my opinion a way to motivate a dangerous cult to stop victimizing its members or to risk an uncertain future. It is the fear of an uncertain future that will encourage a dangerous cult to stop victimizing its members. It is not the realization that an organization has an uncertain future and must find ways to survive.

  Unless a great answer is discovered for question #3 that would not violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I feel that removing tax exemptions for all religions will not protect Americans from dangerous cults.

  Since you seem to believe that removing tax exemptions for all religions is a good idea, I encourage you to write your Senators and Representatives, create a White House Petition (if you feel it would help), write threads on JWN, create a Facebook page, etc. to promote it. If you create a White House petition, please let me know because I would sign it. I would sign a petition to remove tax exemptions for all religions for the following reasons: it might promote public debate about the value of supporting religions, and may be it would open people’s minds to other ways to protect Americans from dangerous cults.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  144001

  While I fail to see why taxing religions is unconstitutional -

  James,

  I don't think there's a court ruling that holds that taxing religion is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it's ok to impose sales and use taxes on religious entities that engage in activities that would otherwise be subject to such taxes (Jimmy Swaggart Industries v. California State Board of Equalization). In fact, the WT filed an amicus brief in that case, but to no avail.

  Given the reasoning of the Swaggart case, it appears that religions could be taxed, but I doubt our current Supreme Court would go for this. In any event, no politician is going to be crazy enough to push the concept of taxing churches, so it's unlikely that this question will be answered any time soon.
• 

  NewChapter

  If all organizations did not receive tax exemptions (religious and non-religious organizations), how would motivate a dangerous cult to stop victimizing its members?

  So you would like to use the tax code to enforce your religious ideals? Lot's of people would like to do that. A nice little dance you did there to let religions off the hook when it comes to birthcontrol and abortion. Take a look at it. Study it. Because if you ever get your way, this is exactly the little dance that we will all get to watch. As far as I'm concerned, most religions victimize their members to some degree. So I ask again, may I have the keys?

  Also---I don't accept your criteria for what is a dangerous religious teaching and what is not. I have a different criteria. May I have the keys?

  NC
• 

  botchtowersociety

  May I have the keys?

  *BTS grabs the keys and runs out of the room*
• 

  ABibleStudent

  NewChapter - So you would like to use the tax code to enforce your religious ideals? Lot's of people would like to do that. A nice little dance you did there to let religions off the hook when it comes to birthcontrol and abortion. Take a look at it. Study it. Because if you ever get your way, this is exactly the little dance that we will all get to watch. As far as I'm concerned, most religions victimize their members to some degree. So I ask again, may I have the keys?

  Hi NewChapter, If you are willing to write your Representatives and Senators, build consensus with a majority of other Americans, and help to promote a law that does not violate the Constitution and 1st Amendment, you already have the keys. The keys are worthless without working for them.

  Do you hate religions so much that you are more interested in reducing donations to all religions or in protecting Americans from dangerous cults? If any law that is inspired by this petition permits you to file a complaint with the IRS about the WTBTS, than you can have another key. If you are willing to get other JWs to also file complaints, than the other JWs will receive keys also. Once enough keys are collected, the IRS would be able to revoke the WTBTS’ tax exempt status. I know that this will not be as satisfying for you as all religions losing their tax exempt status and donations, but sometimes a little is better than nothing.

  Also, I do not understand why you write that "So you would like to use the tax code to enforce your religious ideals?" Can you clarify why you write this? The only ideals that I'm promoting are freedom of religion and speech for individuals. I'm trying to understand your intentions and/or motivations without assuming anything.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Thanks a million to the 84 people, who have signed the White House petition at http://wh.gov/Er4 !!
  
  Unfortunately there are only 13 days left for 24,916 Americans to sign the petition before it will expire. Does anyone have ideas about how to inspire Americans to sign this petition?
  
  I realize that this petition does not have the same emotional and political appeal to politicians as same-sex marriage. I do feel that protecting Americans from dangerous cults is a more important issue than same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriages do not victimize anyone but dangerous cults do!!
  
  Currently, I am working on a Facebook page to promote the current White House petition as well as any follow on petition. Please visit http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protecting-Americans-from-Dangerous-Cults/264002310365016 . Does anyone have comments to improve this Facebook page, as well as, Facebook members liking it?
  
  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
  Robert