Using Illegal Means for Righteous Activism

by John Davis 103 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I'm not a great follower of laws, I think weigh all the options and it seems to be worth the risk by all mean do it, that's what you got a brain for to look at the best option laws considered as an option not an absolute for better brain function and a more deprogramed man be it religion, or government indoctrination. Your mind works better when free from these shackles.

  And lets not get me started about the mind shackles of a bronze age Deity,, can do to make the mind punch out worthless information of no real value steeped in superstition.
  
• 

  scratchme1010

  I understand the desire behind it is to bring justice to the people who have been hurt by Watchtower and to protect other people, but do you think it is right to willfully break the law to get this accomplished?
  

  My two cents: My policy is that not everything legal is just or fair. The WT has no interest in following the law, and has no problem having their members break the law over their interest. They have led people to believe that it's OK to die, to make their most important life decisions regarding career, work, marriage, sex, education, and health care based on lies that they tell, and assume no responsibility when people suffer the consequences of their bad decision making because of them.

  They are dirt bags. They do as much as they can get away as possible. So you tell me, are you ok with them bending the rules (at best) and doing as much as they can get away from?

  Now, about activism, thinking of the activism I've gotten involved, without civil disobedience and doing acts that are illegal, many times change doesn't happen. That said, it really depends on what kind of illegal act we're talking about. Opening fire in a public space to make a point, nope. Entering the White House naked with my coworkers to raise awareness, yes. A friend of mine proposed a massive poop-down in front of Trump Tower here in NYC, nope, but not necessarily because I'm against it. Going late at night to areas where gay men have anonymous sex to give them condoms, yes. Marching in protest of something, yes. Blowing a building full of people, nope.

  Under the word "activism" falls a lot of actions, event and things that people do, and not all of those involve illegal activity, and some of it does but it depends on what kind of infraction one is committing. Then there are the number of ridiculous laws that have been passed that people may not even know that they are breaking. Just google "dumb laws".
  
• 

  jp1692

  This is an undeniable fact with over 100 years of legal controversies to prove it: The WTBTS uses the LAW (Read: legal system) to serve its own selfish ends every time. But they even more easily disregard what is MORAL and/or RIGHT every time if it might cost them $$$.
• 

  jp1692

  JD: Please provide more examples

  I gave you one. You didn't like it.

  Research it yourself if you REALLY want to know: If you care and if you dare.
• 

  venus

  No means is illegal when the aim is to help the victim from the unscrupulous elements. It is not action that determines what is right and wrong, but is the motive.
• 

  John Davis

  JP is the example you are referring to is the Lopez case where Losch did not attend the deposition. While yes Losch did defy the trial court's decision there is Due Process in the US and part of that is the fact that someone has the right to appeal to a higher level of court. If you don't think that it is right to appeal matters, that don't go in your favour, then I can't argue with you on your belief but it is the reality that is the way it is supposed to happen.

  The 4th District Court of Appeals is also not the only court that has ruled that there is a distinction in the corporations and managing directors of those corporations used by Watchtower. There was also a Federal Court in the south that also ruled in that way. Watchtower provided the PMQ to answer questions so I am not sure what Mr Losch would have been able to offer, other than to attempt to humiliate him, which is a violation of California state law.
• 

  Londo111

  There is a continual tension in the human condition: Society needs laws--but sometimes a law is wrong. Legal doesn’t always mean good or right.

  Also, sometimes individuals and organizations can use the law to cloak themselves, and if they have the resources, they can become untouchable.

  At one time, slavery was the law. And those who helped slaves escape were breaking the law. Today we praise these people as heros.

  At one time, segregation was the law. And law enforcement acted against those who broke this law. Today, we hail the individuals who engaged in civil disobedience for the greater good.

  If it were not for whistleblowers, we would not know about immoral and unethical behavior of organizations, corporations, powerful individuals, or even entities within governments.

  If Watchtower was indeed the force of good in the world it claims to be, it would welcome transparency. It would have no problem having its hierarchy recorded, its documents leaked. It would open its computer files. It would welcome itself to be audited. It would itemize everything and make it public. After all, what would there to be to hide?

  As John 3:20 says, “For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. “

  With all that said, that is not to say every act of breaking the law in order to work for the greater good is okay. The ends don’t always justify the means. But sometimes it might be the only way.

  Assassinating Watchtower officials or their hierarchy...that would definitely NOT be okay. Burning down Kingdom Halls or Watchtower buildings...that would NOT be okay.

  Protesting in the Kingdom Hall...it would be counterproductive to the cause, but it would not cross an ethical line.

  Whistleblowing, turning over documents, secret recordings, leaking information...I'm all for it.
• 

  jp1692

  JD, I am very familiar with both the purposes and the process of the judicial system in the US.

  Rather than get sidetracked in a pointless discussion of the morality of legal maneuvering I just want you to consider one simple question: Why don't the WTBTS' leaders simply just cooperate when asked to by judges via court orders?
• 

  John Davis

  I agree with you that people have committed crimes in order to get people's attention but ultimately it was not the illegal actions that cause changes to happen. it is when people go through the proper means that is what causes the changes to happen.

  You give the example of those that helped slaves, while that was illegal, those individuals were ready to go to prison for their actions. I think that they didn't try and find ways to justify it to avoid prison, they were willing to suffer the consequences of their illegal actions. And if people today who are doing illegal actions for their activism are ready to go to prison, then that is commendable. I am not willing to do that personally but if other people are that is their choice.

  Also, you use whistleblowers as an example, for the most part in the private sector whistleblowers are not committing any crimes, in fact, that they are protected by the law, as long as they do it within the law. Government employees are usually barred from releasing classified or sensitive data, but there are legal means for even these people to report to people that can make needed changes. I just believe you have to do things within the law and how the law prescribes.
• 

  John Davis

  JP do you feel the same way in the Lewis v Bellows Falls case where Lewis and her counsel refused to turn over all discoverable evidence because they felt that the information was not relevant and encroached on her rights to privacy even though she was ordered to do so by the court. I am not saying that you do or you don't. But obviously Lewis felt that it was inappropriate to turn it over and refused to do so and asked the court for relief from it, the court denied the relief, but she could have appealed that decision.

  Just because a court rules something doesn't make it right, that is why there are appeals and if you think it is a big enough deal then you refuse to turn over that information till you exhaust your appeals and you comply with the highest court's rulings.