by Simon 33 Replies latest jw friends
JWS:
Very thoughtful comments. However, when the Jws go "Door to Door" and publicly express their rightness before all, should that not allow a public rebuttal?
Also, how can the "wrongs be righted" when the Jws do not even acknowledge a problem? Legal recourse seems reasonable...
Edited by - thichi on 16 September 2002 19:4:9
There is a link back to this site for support etc. Thats nice for this place. Interesting to see if the Class Action can get going!
ISP
Very thoughtful comments. However, when the Jws go "Door to Door" and publicly express their rightness before all, should that not allow a public rebuttal?
I don't know that a court is the place to determine a religion's "rightness". Just because their door-to-door work is public, it shouldn't, in my opinion, make them any more or less of a target to lawsuits than any other religion. There are those that broadcast on TV, those that put up billboards, those (other than JWs) that hand out leaflets, and others that hold up signs outside events. These are all public methods of prostelyzing that reach outside the walls of the church.
Anybody who answers the door to them has the opportunity to debate them. Or at the very least, ignore them and close the door on them.
Public websites such as this one and many, many others address their claims and debunk their claims to rightness quite well. At least in the religious theory category. These sites are a public rebuttal.
As for the child molestation issue, that's where I say go ahead, go after them. Crimes should be reported. I draw the line at, "I suffered because I was disfellowshipped, pay me money". Or, "I was a drug addicted loser so I got DFed and my JW friends stopped talking to me. Sure, I lost most of my other friends due to my addiction and behavior, but the JWs should pay me for DFing me. It's not MY fault". Boo-hoo. (BTW, not my personal experience, only a hypothetical one)
Also, how can the "wrongs be righted" when the Jws do not even acknowledge a problem? Legal recourse seems reasonable...
You have a good point. But go after them for the true wrongs that endanger lives or safety, not just differences in religious beliefs. Give them some room to practice religion as they see it should be praticed.
At this point though, I can't see how they can ignore their wrongs, lawsuit or not. They may not publicly acknowledge a problem, but internally, they know it exists and must acknowledge it.
What happens if they address it in their own way to prevent future events? Like, say, encouraging anyone molested to go to the authorities? Or encouraging elders to encourage children to go to the authorities? This is a step in the right direction. But is it all the class action suit seeks? Will that satisfy? A suit seeks to dictate one solution to the problem, whereas others may exist and be preferable to the defending party.
I'm not saying lawsuits in the areas of endangering lives and safety is a bad thing. And maybe even some monetary punishment might be in order. But this suit is a lot broader than just these issues. Issues that, to me, border on telling a religion how it should believe.
-j.w.s.
Doesn't a religion have the right to interpret the Bible/Koran/Torah/<anything else> as they see fit and create a religion with practices that they interpret to be in sync with their own holy book? What right does the government have to say "you can't believe that, you must do it this way"?
I suspect the argument is not over a religions right to express itself in worship, but of a Government's duty to protect its citizens from dogmas that are dangerous to the individual and to Society as a whole.
For example, the WTS are quite free to interpret the Bible where 'shunning' is concerned, but when that shunning results is suicides, depression and ocasionally murder, does the government not have the right to intervene?
Best regards - HS
What about the minor children raised in self defeating, shame based dogma just because the parents thought it was truth? Even if one is never baptised it seems they still suffer ramifications due those who are df. It's all sickening to me. I detest religion, period.
Granny
My biggest problem with the Watchtower is that they deceived me with their unfair recruiting practices. If the Live Forever book would have mentioned that they failed to predict the end of the world many times, that they banned organ transplants and vaccinations, etc. etc. etc., than I would have never become one of Jehovahs Witnesses.
Sincerely believing something what is false is not the same as knowingly, deliberately, deceiving someone. They are cone artists and as such they should be held responsible. They hurt people and that is wrong!
Class action law suits and publicity must go on in order to protect the naive and uninformed from joining and destroying their lives. If they still want to be a JW after knowing the whole truth about the organization thats fine with me.
Doesn't a religion have the right to interpret the Bible/Koran/Torah/<anything else> as they see fit and create a religion with practices that they interpret to be in sync with their own holy book? What right does the government have to say "you can't believe that, you must do it this way"?
How about the terrorists? Do they have the right to murder because their religious leaders tell them to do it? Don't they just practice what they believe?
Edited by - Apostate on 17 September 2002 0:32:50
Edited by - Apostate on 17 September 2002 1:6:26
Religions are free to teach what beliefs they want and practice how they like within the framework of the law.
If people know the rules and decide to break them then yes ... I don't think they have much complaint.
But what about when the rules are changed to suit or they are treated unfairly or they never had a choice? The WTS bears the responsibility for the pain and suffering it inflicts just as companies do if they sell a defective product.
They are selling a defective religion!
While i believe they have a right to make rules as any club or org has a right i feel that they should be liable if they change these rules in mid stream and then try to judge a person on that. or if their assemblies are preaching love understanding and trying to help people in the congregation and then when it comes to the judicial meeting there is no love no caring for the truth of what went on just put you out THEY changed the rules not me not you When you agree to join its on the basis that love of truth and jehovah is the foundation When it is not they are at fault and it is about time that they are made to face that fact.
jws wrote:
"If they feel the need to have a policy of disfellowshipping, isn't that their right?"
since this is AMERICA, the only place WT could have been born and allowed to flourish, YES.
If the df'd ones or their surviving family feel the need to SUE over damages caused by misapplication of the policy, uneven application of the policy, ones df'd who were baptized when minors, then because this is AMERICA, YES they can sue and HOLD THEM LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, religious freedom or not.
beautiful, huh?
actions and consequences
But when government or the courts start to try to change a religion's beliefs, I have a problem with that, no matter who the religion is.
I agree with Simon and Sister Grace.
Also, their child molestation Policy is VERY COMPLICATED, because they claim that it is the BIBLE that is telling them they must have this POLICY (which is not true at all)!
So, you see, they claim that their Pedophile Policy is a Religious Interpretation.
