jimmy swaggert - gasp! (page 2)

seesthesky

you, apparently, do not understand the function of an amicus brief and are thus concluding on a false premise that the wts supported swaggert because it filed an amicus brief - here, this may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curi%E6

i don't know how to make the link live so you'll need to cut and paste

FMZ

lol Odrade, it's all good. :)

Seriously... think about it long term... it really is ALL good.

FMZ

seesthesky

my last message was to ordade not euphemism - sorry - i aint good at this forum stuff

yet

Odrade

Not that the WTS would extend a similar courtesy to its own critics, of course.

and that is the essential component. WTS holds its adherents to ridiculously "high" standards, yet they are fraternizing with the harlot (and the wild beast, it might be added.) By their own standards, this is completely unacceptable. Under no circumstances would a local congregation be allowed to work hand in hand with, say, the local Mormon stakehouse for a common and essential cause. Yet we are expected to think NOTHING of the WTS filing a "friend of the court" brief, working in tandem with Christendom the Harlot.

How is this not a double standard, and why should any of us dismiss it as a "red herring?"

O

Odrade

sees, I do understand the function of an amicus brief. It is a petition to the court saying "we have a special interest in this case, as your ruling will also affect the way we operate."

The conflict, TO ME, is NOT that they used an amicus on a particular case, but that they used one on THIS particular case, under THESE circumstances, with a lying-scheming-con-man masquerading-as-a-man-of-god-to-make-millions-of-dollars, not to protect their religious rights to worship, but to protect their financial assets in the book selling business.

Euphemism

Odrade... I think that you hit the core of the issue in your second post. Personally, I wouldn't care if the Watchtower filed amicus for the Ku Klux Klan or NAMBLA, if they had a good reason. The real issue is that that they're not actually any different from Swaggart or the other quacks out there.

seesthesky

ordade - the aclu has filed amicus briefs which, if followed, (and they were) would benefit the actual litigants of a case who were racists - that does not mean that the aclu condoned the racism of those litigants - it just means that they saw the broader implications of a ruling against the racist litigants - i think the case is RAV

Odrade

and yet, the ACLU won't shun contributing members if they do something in support of an organization they don't approve. So... anyone who wants to test this theory that it's all the same, why don't you host a learning event for the local Boy Scouts chapter and see what the local elders say.

The problem I have is NOT that they are using the system the way it is set up to be used-- filing an amicus. My problem is that they have such double standards, and that the WTS organization exempts itself from those standards when they feel it is "necessary." Yet if the rank and file use their conscience, and do something unsanctioned, it could very potentially result in the breakl-up of households, and untold mental anguish for the lowly adherent.

My problem is not with the letter of the law, but with the application of said law. (Not the courts, but WTS law.)

seesthesky

odrade -

i don't disagree that the wts has 2ble standards - but the anger over the amicus brief in the swaggert case seems misplaced to me insofar as it gives rise to anger because it exemplifies a 2ble standard -

indeed, the filing of the brief does not, in any way i can see, = a double standard - if i knew how to post it (the amicus brief) here, i would - nothing in it (the brief), as far as i can tell, argues to support the alleged money grubbing of swaggert - but argues against the taxation of religious literature

by stating, "and yet, the ACLU won't shun contributing members if they do something in support of an organization they don't approve," it appear that you are still viewing the filing of an amicus brief as the equivalennt of supporting a litigant - on either side - that is not the case yet i have found, unfortunately, numerous claims that it is - i say unfortunately because flawed conclusions rarely, if ever, lead to truth

if i had to speculate as to any bad conduct by the wts with re to the swaggert case, it'd be that the wts, as far as i know, nerver gave the full details of how the swaggert case influenced it (the wts) to give away its literature on a donation basis

Odrade

I have a problem with this particular case because, were it turned around and an individual JW filed an amicus brief in a court case concerning a local religious organization where the outcome (should it prove unfavorable to the church) would affect them, it would very likely result in problems for the individual in that instance.

Can you imagine the local elder body saying to the lowly publisher, "oh that's okay that you are involved peripherally with this case affecting the Baptist church in your neighborhood. We understand you have valid reasons..." NO. They would say to the publisher, "you need to separate yourself from Christendom or we will hold a Judicial Committee."

That is the issue I have with the J.S. amicus. More double standards. More manipulations. If I were certain that lowly Joe Blow publisher would be viewed the same way as the WTS expects to be, I would have no issue with this brief.

jimmy swaggert - gasp!

Share this