Not Breaking News: Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Under Police Investigation

by Scott77 23 Replies latest social current

• 

  Scott77

  At least the JWs are predictable...we we know they are gunna lie to the media...oh, hope the police screw em'
  Aussie Oz

  I have no idea if they were screwed or not. It was last year. That is why I said, 'not breaking the news'

  Scott77
• 

  glenster

  Rick Fenton, the Witness spokesman quoted in the article, said,

  "Any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is free to express their feelings and to ask
  questions," he said. "If a person changes their mind about Bible-based teachings
  they once held dear, we recognise their right to leave."

  I don't think I need to explain at this site that the harmful, at times fatal,
  efforts of the GB to affect exclusiveness for marketing involves discouraging JWs
  from research that would lead them to realize the dubious methods the GB uses.
  The GB has a dozen or so distinctive rules, or methods for teaching fairly dis-
  tinctive rules, and among those rules is that JWs who show persistent disagreement
  with them will be shunned as directed by GB policy.

  The issue here is that the GB (ironically) characterizes their critics as people
  to be avoided like disease. This is clearly to keep the paying customers away
  from unsatisfied customers who may provide such research and discourage payments.

  What is religious hated if not unfounded trumped-up contempt for people to the
  degree you must avoid them?

  Notice that the spokesman's spin on the GB puts the blame everywhere else: the
  claim is that the GB shunning rules, and characterizations of those to be shunned,
  represent Bible requirements that JWs can take or leave (simply leave--not be
  shunned for in notable and unfounded contempt). The misdirection attempted is
  that the issue is simply that you should have the religious freedom to accept the
  Bible or not, and that the GB recognizes that right--a right covered by the UK
  Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006.

  All that's left out is a Rutherford-type claim that the GB is being unduly per-
  secuted and an ironic request for protection by the R and RH Act.

  Supporters of the Bill responded that all UK legislation has to be interpreted
  in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion
  and expression, and so denied that an Act of Parliament is capable of making any
  religious text illegal.

  The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have
  the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or
  behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends
  thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting
  concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring
  up religious hatred.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

  The act was meant to allow people their religious texts and distinguish efforts
  to divide people beyond them. All that's left out is for the accusers of the GB
  to provide the evidence of them as guilty of that. I can join others to do my
  part to supply that:
  http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
• 

  Paralipomenon

  Interesting how they don't recogize their right to have conflicting opinions and stay.
• 

  Scott77

  bttt