Posts by Fisherman

17

Two Jehovah's Witnesses congregations abolished by courts - Russia

by OrphanCrow in

two jehovah's witnesses congregations abolished by courts.

today, 11 february 2016, an administrative lawsuit by the prosecutor of belgorod province for finding the local religious organization of jehovah's witnesses in the city of belgorod to be extremist and liquidated was granted by decision of the belgorod provincial court.

yesterday the provincial court issued a decision on the administrative lawsuit of the provincial prosecutor for liquidation of the local religious organizations of jehovah's witnesses in the city of stary oskol.. the above quote is from one of 5 articles at link.. the fourth article, doctors in court: "jehovah's witnesses died after refusing blood transfusions", gives a synopsis of the hearing in the belgorod provincial court on feb 8.. two doctors were summoned into court as witnesses in order to learn whether religious convictions have affected the state of health of jehovist patients and whether they could be the cause of the death of patients.

Fisherman

marked

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

Jehovah`s Witnesses have always claimed they have no Clergy ,

Smiddy, this point was covered on another thread. JW claim they do not have a church either but they still benefit from laws that refer to clergy and church same as Moslem and Jews do. The laws that apply to the clergy of Christendom also applies to JW church officials (as far as the law is concerned). Use a little common sense.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

Mandatory reporting is in place for one purpose and one purpose only.
To PROTECT CHILDREN.

It is an outrage when any adult fails to protect a child -let alone harm a child. Who could possibly do that! It is unthinkable. And what adult could possible desire a child sexually? Yet this is what people do and there are laws in place that govern how to adjudicate these crimes and there are also laws in place that protect children from these crimes. But you are not above the law and if you take the law into your own hands or if you violate the laws you like to violate to stop crimes that you like to stop (such as child abuse) then you are a criminal and/or a law breaker.

The rest of society doesn't give a shit if the "sinner" gets absolution from their church. The rest of society puts the welfare of children above the welfare of a church.

There you go again posting nonsense. You do not represent society, the government does. In the US, the basis for society (or living in in the US) is the US Constitution. It is the Supreme law of the land and the Constitution (can be referred to sort of speak as society or vice versa) does not put the welfare of children above the welfare of the church both enjoy equal protection under the law, that is to say, that the US Constitution protects both the rights of children and the rights of the church and that being the supreme law of the land, the welfare of children cannot infringe on the welfare (or rights) of the church and neither can the rights of the church infringe on the welfare of the the children. It does not matter how you feel about that, you are not above the Constitution, neither are children and neither is the church -and neither are mandatory reporting laws if they violate the Constitution -but that is for the USC to decide not you; they haven't, that is to say they have not established that the church does not have the right to confidentiality in child abuse sinner penitent cases under the constitution, USC can do whatever they like, legalize abortion, protect homosexuality AND DECIDE THAT CHURCH REPORTING CHILD ABUSE CONSTITUTIONALITY-but they have not- knowing full well that the issue existed and exists. The last USC decision protects church sinner confidentiality privilege. That is the law and based on that law and more solidly on the 1st Amendment itself, the WT does not turn in sinners. But lnterpretation of the Constitution in the US can change as fast as fast as the Supreme Court likes to change it and since there is so many lawsuit and public hatred against the church anything can happen one way or the other and I would not be surprised if the USC rules either way. But as it stands now chuch penitent confidentiality priviledge is rooted in the 1st Amendment inspite of mandatory reporting laws, Church constitutional basis for not reporting trumps any state mandatory laws (That is church position and defense in the USA) and will continue to be the case until the USC says otherwise.

Any "church" that promotes secrecy about child abuse does not deserve to receive recognition in our culture. It should not be called a church when it is a haven for criminals that harm children.

You do not get to determine that and you are not a spokesman for "our culture" Child abuse confessions to the church are protected by church confidentiality privilge laws as interpreted by the Courts but churches base their rights to confidentiality on the 1st Amendment inspite of mandatory reporting law.

My post above really apples to the US but in all of the world freedom of religion and confidentiality is a trumping human right. We will see how this child abuse / church controversy plays out

Personally though, if I had any knowledge or even a suspicion of any child being hurt in any way whatsoever (and if I did not know, I would like to know about it) unfortunately I could not provide any spiritual help for such a person. I would have to report the crime because I could not be able to have any emotional peace knowing that a child is being hurt with me keeping it secret. But that is just something that I would do IF I HAD ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE but other than that I would support and defend the US Constitution which protects human rights, and I would not take it upon myself to attack on encroach upon constitutional rights others, or advocate guilt or liabilty of such based upon news reports or allegations or accusations of which I had no personal knowledge of.

DO not attack my choice of words or my form of expression to jump to conclusion as to what I mean to say. If you don not understand ask but do not misrepresent what I post as I have shown OC does.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

You are certainly right that there is a difference - the JWs' problem is more far reaching than the Catholic Church - it concerns all the congregants in addition to the clergy.

You are wrong more- erroneous thinking. Your conclusion assumes that there is no child abuse being confessed to catholic clergy and because of that JW is more far reaching because it involves clergy and congregants in JW ONLY. I continue to show error in your logic and that just about sums up ALL of your arguments in all of your posts.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

Address the way that JWs (and you) regard child abuse a "sin" instead of a crime

When you speak of the Catholic priests you call them "ministers doing the crime".

Yet, when you speak of JWs, all of a sudden those "crimes" become "sins"

You are using deflection, fisherguy.

Love Aristotle

My previous posts have shown falsehood and erroneous thinking in your conclusions above. First you accuse me of deliberately choosing the word crimes to apply only to sins connected with the catholic church and not to JW, misrepresenting what I said even though I have used the words sins and crimes interchangeably to apply to both religions on a previous thread where you also was a poster, and the context of my post on this thread clearly shows no prejudice between the right to sinner penitent confidentiality for both religions, in fact that is what my post was about: same right to both religions as the context of what I said shows, and yet you base false accusation and logic on your false conclusion about what I stated. And you focus on what you conclude is the reason for my choice of words and not on the context of what is being stated and you malign my choice words concluding too much with no basis.

Then you also accuse me of regarding child abuse is only as a sin instead of crime when it is an axiom that it is both a sin and a crime and although I have never stated that child abuse is not a crime and again you malign me.

Then you accuse me of using a red herring to deflect from issue discussed when that clearly was not my intention at all as the context of my posts prove.

If you are intentionally using logical fallacies as a device in order to convince others of your agenda, then your integrity is challenged. If you do not know how to think correctly basing your arguments on assumptions and erroneous conclusion and guesses of people's intentions then you are ignorant. Either way, I have shown falsehood in what you state in you posts.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

adultery and lying.

In the US, adultery was in the Penal code and so was homosexuality and other forms of sex until a few years ago.They might still be classed as misdemeanors in some States So adultery was a crime and may still be a prosecutable crime in some states and in some countries. Because adultery violates the marriage contract and is a basis for a divorce in the US it is unlawful conduct. Lying on your taxes and other forms of lying are crimes

Worshiping God is integrated with spiritual help because people sin all of the time. The WT publishes that over 40,000 people are DF every year and besides that, all the people that confess private stuff. If you can visualize a church reporting sinners to the bobbies, ok. But that is what I am talking about. The Catholic church requires people to confess every week and they would not do so if they had to fear the police. Try to understand what I mean. How can you worship God with a guilty conscience and how could anyone get spiritual help if there was no freedom of communication -but fear.

Church's still operate in places where mandatory reporting currently exist.

And you think they are calling the cops on poeple? or are they breaking the law and the state is looking the other way -until now. I stand by what I say. The church cannot exist with mandatory reporting. At least if the state enforces it or if the church starts calling the cops - goodbye charlle.

Could you please stop all your name calling and belittling of people?

Granted. I get carried away.

Anyway , I made my point on this topic. No point in repeating everything I said.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

It is my feelings fisherman that you are a fanatic.

You are full of bolony zeb. Business as usual for the WT. Dummy, a civil Court (Conti case) does not determine guilt, it decides liabilty. Guilt is decided in criminal court and must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Stop posting trash!

The Plaintiffs (Conti) wanted money that is what they got.

You post trash.

I am not responding to any more of your posts. And you do not have the intelligence to refute my posts and your lame excuse is that I should not post to you and all you can do is to remark about my post but you CANNOT invalidate what I post.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

you speak of child abuse a sin? That's funny so does the wts.

It is not funny. Most sins are crimes. Can't you see that dummy? Killing stealing adultery lying , etc. The government knows this. Cant you think! The government also knows and wants and understands that people need and should be allowed to get spiritual help and because government has also deemed that is a human right, like privacy, and the right for confidentiality between lawyer and client are human rights and that is just one reason WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! government allows religion to EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that is why government also allows confidential communication between church and "penitent" (or "alleged" criminal -a person must be found guilty in the US before he is deemed a criminal) so they can get the spiritual help which is a human right. When government mandates the reporting of crimes or sins by the church to the police it means (if you can think just a little bit -but try) that government does not allow the church to exist because the church is all about sin and repentance (spiritual help) and you cannot have that if the church fears the police or the sinner fears the church will turn him in. What does that mean then: 1 The church must break the law or 2 the government must destroy the church. If God exists as he claims he does in the Bible, He must protect " the church" (and I don't'mean BTG), if he does not -as we say here in the US -goodbye Charlie.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

Candice Conti case

Plaintiffs failed in legally forcing the WT to change anything. All they wanted was money and that is what they settled for - money.

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

Rather than address a defect in the JW's

Einstein, how many times should the WT proclaim that they do not turn in sinners to the police? This is not a new church doctrine (100 years! Can't you read doctor or is your degree honorary only?) and it is not a new issue with the Courts in the US (100 years). In spite of all of the attempts to force the Courts to force the WT to report sinners to the police in the US, It is business as usual -they ain't doing it although you like it and think that it is a defect.

It ain't a defect to do what they continue do because the US Courts have not determined that, prodigy or forced the WT to change their doctrine to report sinners or criminals or penitent or whatever you like to fix -to the police. They ain't doing it in the US and nobody has been able to LEGALLY force them to do it. Got it genius? On the other hand the WT does obey the law. When the law mandates, the WT complies with the law. That is what they teach and that is what they practice.

The Catholic church also asserts the same rights under the law. They ain't reporting sinners to the police either. (They are part of Babylon the Great, and the UN charged the Vatican with protecting their (alleged) pedophile ministers but that is another matter, but a church that is made up of (alleged) child abusers -which is the real UN issue with the RCC- is different than when the a sinner parishioner goes to the RCC church for help.)

No one condemned Babylon the Great for exercising church penitent confidentiality. It ain't about that and you know it, Aristotle. The outrage that was being expressed about the RCC was that their ministers were the ones being accused of engaging in child abuse without being censured by the church -NOT THE PARISHIONERS confessing sins. Stop lying.

( True JW believe that RCC is part of Babylon the Great and they will incur God's wrath ,) but my link shows the RCC asserting their rights of confidentiality in-spite of challenge SAME AS JW continue to do so. Stop lying about my intention of posting the link.

The RCC proclaims in my link that no one is stopping victims or their families to go to Caesar directly -but THEY AIN'T DOING IT!

AS far as I know, the RC is still investigating allegations against the WT and the investigation is still ongoing without you helping the RC beforehand to reach their determination or rule or whatever it is that they do after they consider all of the facts and come to a decision. But I trust very much in the integrity of the RC and I am confident that they will do what is just and proper in-spite of what vitriolics like you want.

The WT is afforded the right in Australia to defend themselves legally and that is what they are doing and you may not like what WT lawyers advise WT to do -but as Marvin Shilmer would say:"TOO BAD!" They haven't gone to jail for defending themselves and if you do not like how WT is defend themselves, again, too bad for you and for anyone that does not like it.