WTBTS Innocent in Swaggart Case?

by troubled 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Had Enough

  Hello all again:

  Thanks DocBob for supplying the WTS's own words about discontinuing asking for a specific "contribution".

  BTW just as a sidenote: what is the difference between "asking for a contribution" and "asking if they would like to donate"? The only difference I see is that we used to say we'll "leave it for a contribution of .50" a specific amount, now they leave the amount up to the "buyer".

  Anyway here the WTS slips in the sentence:

  Additionally, many have noted that secular authorities are increasingly viewing certain religious activities as commercial.{bold added}

  Most would not catch the meaning behind that word "commercial" because the next sentence highlights what we all liked to hear:

  As in the past, the Society continues to see the need to highlight the spiritual nature of our theocratic organization and to clearly distinguish our activities from those of Babylon the Great.

  So according to the WTS, to "distinguish our activities from Babylon the Great, they say:

  To this end, the Society is pleased to announce that starting March 1, 1990, literature distribution procedures in the United States will be adjusted.(bold added)

  They gave the impression that this was a measure to distinquish us from all other "false religion" yet they followed in the footsteps of Swaggart and patterned themselves after him. But who in the general r&f would notice that.

  So many times the WTS would not get itself into this kind of situation of being called liars, if they would just be honest with its people in the first place. But I guess the gov't wouldn't have looked too kindly on them if they had come right out and said " We're no longer asking for a specific contribution because that means we'd have to pay taxes on that amount, so now we'll ask for a unspecific donation. We don't have to pay taxes on that".

  I guess being honest would get them in trouble with those that really count....the ones making the rules on commerce.

  Hmmmmmmm
• 

  Gozz

  Seeker,
  it is fine with your sense of justice to see nothing wrong with the Society availing themselves of the court system by filing a brief in the Swaggart case, but the action does not meet up with the sense of justice the Society would have us believe they posses. Most loyal JWs when presented with the case will wonder why such a step had to be taken. If it's not getting into bed with Swaggart then what is it?

  MadApostate,
  your point about misrepresentations rising to the level of lies is taken, but do you consider the Swaggart case action to be in accordance with what the Society would have us believe about being separate from the world? The Society employed deceitful tactic, not with respect to legalism but with respect to what they teach, and that includes submitting that brief.
• 

  MadApostate

  Gozz and Others:

  I don't know how to say this succinctly without sounding condescending, but to continue with the thought that the WTS's act of filing the AC Brief was somehow morally or ethically WRONG simply displays a lack of understanding of both the judicial process and how the courts "make law" via interpreting legislative-made law.

  The decision which was to be made by the USSC was to have a much larger impact than just affecting Jimmy Swaggart and the California Tax Dept. The USSC's decision would become "LAW", and would apply to EVERY STATE and EVERY RELIGIOUS GROUP. Look up the decision for yourselves. Other affected groups also file Briefs, and just not as neutral parties like the WTS chose to do. I haven't look at the case since the other day, but I believe that a Catholic group filed a Brief openingly supporting Swaggart's side of the issue. Obviously, they had no love for Jimmy. They simply knew that this was their one and only shot at appealing to the USSC before it made "law" which would also apply to them.

  The WTS has made numerous well known appearances before the USSC to protect their Consitutional rights. In several of those cases, OTHER RELIGIOUS/SOCIAL GROUPS which faced the same or similar issues would file AC Briefs to make sure the USSC saw all aspects of he issues, and to make sure that the court understood how their decision would affect other groups besides the WTS. THIS IS ROUTINE.
• 

  MadApostate

  I have been busy, and have just now relooked at the Swaggart USSC opinion. I was wrong about a Catholic group filing a brief in support of Swaggart's side. However, there were 2 church orgs that did, as well as the Hare Krishnas and others.

  Here is the exact exerpt: (Since the California Courts ruled against Swaggart, to urge reversal was favoring Swaggart.)

  [ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Association for Public Justice by Bradley P. Jacob; for the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability et al. by Samuel E. Ericsson, Michael J. Woodruff, and Forest D. Montgomery; for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., by David M. Liberman, Robert C. Moest, and Barry A. Fisher; for the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. by Douglas Laycock; and for the National Taxpayers Union by Gale A. Norton.

  Steven R. Shapiro filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

  Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Benna Ruth Solomon and Charles Rothfeld; and for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., by James M. McCabe and Donald T. Ridley. (End Quote.)

  It should also be noted that the USSC also discussed several of the old WTS Constitutional cases in its opinion. Swaggart used such as part of his arguments, but the USSC said that the issues/decisions in those cases did not bar states from requiring religious orgs to collect sales tax on "sales" of religious materials.
• 

  Utopian Reformist

  In this particular instance, with all deference and respect to the entire forum, according to the information in LEXIS-NEXIS, WestLaw, MAD is on the right track.

  While we may desire certain inferences to be truthful, it does not lend support or validity to the "cause", reformist or otherwise.

  IL TEMPUS DEVENE VERITAS, ET VERITAS DEVENE IURIS!
• 

  Room 215

  Again here, the point being obscured is the Society's propensity to count on the ignorance of the rank and file and their uncritical acceptance of everything Brooklyn says.
  It's obvious that the Society would have much rather preferred that the facts of their Amicus Curaie filing be kept from the rank and file, and the wording of their document -- in which no reference whatever is made to the California case.
  What I really find disturbing is that they failed a great opportunity to take the ``high ground'' on this moral issue by simply being honest about the reasons for the change, by simply saying something like ``look, friends, tax evasion is illegal and unethical, but tax avoidanbce isn't. If we handle our finances in this new, entirely honorable way, we can retain these monies for use in advance Kingdom interests.''
  No, they resorted to their tried and true dissimilation, and descended another couple of steps toward the abyss.
  In all too many cases, the hand their enemies the sticks with which they get beaten. ``Oh what a tangled web we weave...''
• 

  MadApostate

  Room:

  The only people who are "obscuring the issues" are those who TAINT the legitimate issues (some which you mention) with the horseshit about "the WTS jumped into bed with Jimmy Swaggart."
• 

  Room 215

  Point taken, Mad....
  But why do these buggers find it so hard to tell the simple, unvarnished truth?
• 

  Utopian Reformist

  In my PERSONAL opinion, since the WTBS leadership, legal corporations, and largest number of members are located here in the United States, then several reasons may reveal why the WTBS does not simply disclose such decisions/maneuvers:

  1. Despite the rank and file behavior of most JW's, they are still americans, meaning that this population is not known for being very forgiving to organizations, while it sympathizes with individuals.

  Example: the tobacco industry is in trouble, while Bill Clinton approval increases after lying and then repenting publicly--figure that out!

  2. The critics of WTBS would pounce on the information so quickly that campaigns would surface everywhere, causing many to "stumble" thus decreasing memberships.

  3. It might draw some additional unwanted attention from political and governmental agencies who are already ctitical of religion and non-profit entities.

  4. It would send shockwaves through all Bethel homes and Branch faciltites. Overseas, it would be very difficult to explain in a reasonable manner to countries where a federal republic allowing free enterprise does not exist.

  Just my opinion. I feel honesty is the best policy, however there are always consequences in the reactions of the recipients.
• 

  AlanF

  To MadApostate:

  I agree that the Watchtower Society did not "get into bed with Jimmy Swaggart". However, their actions were questionable in terms of their own stated policy about "keeping separate from the world". That they were embarrassed about admitting to the rank & file about having filed an amicus curae that supported Swaggart's position is proved by the fact that in the letters to congregations announcing the new "donation" arrangement, they failed to say a single thing about the fact that the loss of the Swaggart case, or of any case at all, directly precipitated the change to the new arrangement. That the Society could have done so is proved by the fact that the same set of letters contained one addressed exclusively to bodies of elders, which mentioned a little more clearly a connection with a recent court case. I don't have access to the letter right now, but I believe that even this letter to elders failed to explicitly mention the connection with the Swaggart case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. That the change was precipitated by the failed case is proved by the fact that on the day it was lost, a mad scramble began in Bethel to put in place the new arrangement. Anyone who in 1992 was above the level of Bethel janitor knows this.

  You claim you're not a Watchtower Society troll, yet you ignored Gozz's clear question and comment to you:

  "Do you consider the Swaggart case action to be in accordance with what the Society would have us believe about being separate from the world? The Society employed deceitful tactic, not with respect to legalism but with respect to what they teach, and that includes submitting that brief."

  Gozz is absolutely correct in statement and implication. The fact that you, MadApostate, conspicuously failed to answer proves to me that you cannot answer without telling direct lies -- something that even the most hardened of WTS Legal people would be hard put to justify in their own minds.

  AlanF