http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/c/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html
just wondering if anyone was planning to watch this tomorrow?.
a lot of religious and right wing sites have already criticised it.
Bearing in mind that this is a science thread - do you have empirical evidence for that?
probably as much as whoever said in that article that there were 66 cures at Lourdes. besides, i said "if one put in the effort," meaning, "someone less lazy than me."
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/c/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html
just wondering if anyone was planning to watch this tomorrow?.
a lot of religious and right wing sites have already criticised it.
Lourdes has had 66 authenticated cures, huh?Interesting
i'm sure if one put in the effort, it could be authenticated that trips to Times Square or the Eiffel Tower have cured more diseases.
.
don't forget to give in your time sheets?
"Screw this. let's get outta here. who's hungry? i feel like i haven't eaten in years."
a friend of mine showed me as interesting scripture, ex.
4:24 that talks about jehovah showing up in person to kill moses, but was talked out of it by moses' wife because from what the bible says she circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at his feet.
she then called him a blood-smeared bridegroom, referring to the circumcision and the lord left him alone.
Not all of the Bible we have is inspired and infallible. Only part of it.
i don't mean this as rudely as it's going to sound, but this is the funniest thing i've read in awhile.
it was fun!
the only thing that sucked about it was the fact that i had no idea how to wrap a gift... late 20's and i've never wrapped a present before????
hahaha only in the jw faith is that possible!!!
i have a couple years under my belt, but trust me, it doesn't get any easier. it's not like it's the kind of thing you practice throughout the year or anything (at least i don't...). my girlfriend and i have a TON of presents under our tree right now (we buy for her whole family and then bring the gifts to her parent's house christmas eve) and it's painfully obvious which ones i wrapped and which ones she did.
i just try to get at least one side and the top of the present looking presentable and then tape the crap out of the back.
oh, and i don't think not being able to wrap is an ex-JW thing, i think it's a guy thing, so no worries.
note: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.
supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.
the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.
skeeter1:
The Moonies’ lies about their identity actually happened ON THE 12 TH DAY (Mr. Molko) and on the 23rd Day (Ms. Leal - another Plaintiff) of the intensive indoctrination.
in the info you posted i see misrepresentations on day 1 for each plaintiff. in Molko's info it says of the initial contact:
Molko asked the two their occupations and was told they did social work and worked with environmental programs. He asked if Bush and Patton had a "religious connection." They said "no."
in the section describing Leal's case, the Moonies probably left themselves more wiggle room but there is still misrepresentation on the initial contact:
They said they were part of the "Creative Community Project," described as a group of socially concerned professional people involved in good works such as giving food to the poor. [...] Leal asked if Zielinski and Parker were part of a religious group, and said she did not want to get involved with them if they were. They replied only [*1106] that the people in their group "all came from different religious backgrounds." Leal accepted their invitation.
i'm not trying to dismiss the entire article and i hope that someone is successful in court with this info. i'm just agreeing with others who have said that the similarities between the Moonies and the JWs with respect to this case are limited.
note: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.
supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.
the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.
this is just a side-thought, but in reading this thread i was thinking of something and i didn't see it mentioned anywhere else (if it was, please forgive me). to me, it seems that there is a major difference between the Moonies' "heavenly deception" (or whatever they called it) and the crap in the blood brochure:
for the situations to be comparable, the society's misrepresentation would've had to occur before the indoctrination began (perhaps if they told potential 'recruits' that they actually DID accept whole blood transfusions in certain circumstance (or something of similar disingenuousness [is that a word? ]), just to mislead them into allowing the actual indoctrination to begin.
the moonies in this instance deliberately lied about their identity in order to trick the potential recruit into beginning the indoctrination process. i'm sure you'd all agree that it's extremely likely that they also lied or misrepresented secular facts once that indoctrination process had begun, but the suit was about the misleading statements that took place BEFORE the indoctrination began. (in other words, the court didn't touch any of the moonies' warped beliefs, just the lies that tricked the new recruit into allowing the moonies to teach their warped beliefs.)
i will give the witnesses this: they never shy away from flaunting their warped 'NO BLOOD' doctrine (the farce that it is). in all likelihood, if a person newly involved with the JWs knows anything about them, he'll probably know about the NO BLOOD policy (ask any Joe Shmo about the JWs and he'll probably say, "aren't they the ones who don't celebrate birthdays and let their kids die without blood transfusions?", or he'll say, "they're the ones that don't believe in electricity, right?"). On the other hand, if JW's were instructed by the society that if someone asks about the blood policy at the door, to tell them that witnesses actually DO accept whole blood when it's a life or death matter, just to keep the householder talking, THAT would be a major misrepresentation in a similar vein as that described in the suit against the moonies.
i'm not criticizing the essay, i'm just saying that (unless i'm missing something) it doesn't seem to me that the moonies' case and the blood policy are that similar because the society never really misrepresent their goofy beliefs BEFORE the indoctrination begins. the moonies lied just to have the chance to teach people about their goofy beliefs. as was stated by Eduardo (i think), the fact that the Society's lies are in indoctrination literature AUTOMATICALLY makes them part of the indoctrination process and thus, extremely different than the moonie case (and maybe untouchable in court?).
so my english class just got handed (yesterday) 1984, by george orwell.
its a book i've been wanting to read for a long time, but haven't been able to (i read non stop for english class).. so i was really excited when i got the book.
from what i've heard about it, it seemed like it would be really pertinent for people in the watchtower.. all i can say is wow.
i read it for the second time while i was at bethel. i was already on my way out and i remember telling some guys that i worked with about it. they all wanted to have a look so i lent it to one of them and just told him to give it to whoever when he was done. he started reading it and he wouldn't stop talking about it at work. he loved it. i never got it back and i like to think that the copy is still making the rounds out there.
who knows? the irony probably went way over their heads, but it's a nice thought. my little timebomb that i left at bethel.
sorry...there are just so many threads related to the "big news", reaction to the big news, and lastly reaction to the reaction to the big news...just couldn't help myself.. how about some fluff...just for a few minutes.
fluff can be good.. so, whatcha all doing today?
xmas shopping?
My small news is that I get off work NOW!!! So I'm outta here!!!
you have under-hyped your news! this disappoints me!
sorry...there are just so many threads related to the "big news", reaction to the big news, and lastly reaction to the reaction to the big news...just couldn't help myself.. how about some fluff...just for a few minutes.
fluff can be good.. so, whatcha all doing today?
xmas shopping?
I plan on watching some porn and eating some cheese curls later on.
how ironic! tonight, i'm planning on watching some cheese curls and eating some porn!
