Well, my mother is still a dub, so she will receive the same thing she has for the last 3 decades... butkus.
However, my wife is getting an hour at the spa getting various massages, and I fixed the ceiling fan in the kitchen today for her, and stuck a bow on the switch! It's her first mothers day as a mother!
POs Son
i've heard a lot on this subject, and was wondering if it's a common practice?.
can you go to a meeting and almost always see some poor kid getting a walloping in the back room for talking or misbehaving at the meeting?
or is this a thing of the past?.
No, JWs do not spank their kids in the library.
I got all my spankings in the furnace room. It had a certian echo-quality, and conveniently it made us aware of the location of the mop and vacuum for late night cleaning duty. This also prepared us for the only career we were supposed to have, janitorial duties.
Back to beatings at the hall... yeah, on a regular basis as I recall. My father spanked regularly, and it was ceremonious... not a whack at the time of the infraction, but a slow parade to the furnace room, or the bedroom at home, trousers down, and a methodical, out-loud counted spanking, followed by a sceond does if we mouthed off during the corporal punishment.
Oh, My dad was the PO. (hence the screen name)
PO's Son
the other day my wife and i were at a function and the naitonal anthem was sung.
my wife wouldnt stand because the society tells her not to.
i think this is disgusting.
AK - Jeff -- Intersting... maybe things are different out that way. I am quietly waiting to hear of a local dub that is a notary just to ask them how they got out of taking the oath.
I remember as a kid every time we went to a ball game or other event where the national anthem would be played, we were instructed to "conveniently" already be in the standing position when the tune would begin. I guess that accidentally being respectful was acceptible but intentional signs of respect are not tolerated. It seemed to be odd to me.
Its ironic, but after escaping some 16 years of JW upbringing, I now:
And none of these things are wrong... but for so many years they felt wrong. Well, this is another post in development... but back to the flag issue. Without knowing it, JWs DO salute the flag, they simply do not "Pledge Alliegance" to the flag. The act of standing out of respect is a salute. Like I said above, each person has the right to salute, sit, pledge or recite "I pledge alliegance to the flag, Michael Jackson is a ..." (well you know).
POs Son
of the Smith & Wesson Class
the other day my wife and i were at a function and the naitonal anthem was sung.
my wife wouldnt stand because the society tells her not to.
i think this is disgusting.
I think that the statement "it's because of the flag..." shoud have read "it's because of the freedoms and liberties, fought so hard for by our men and boys, that are symbolized by our flag".
I proudly pledge my allegiance to the US, I am proud of the way we can live life here. BUT - I also respect the right of others NOT to feel that way, and may respectfully decline to make such a pledge.
On a similar note, did you know that a JW cannot become a Notary Public (at least in my area) as the Notorial Oath requires a pledge to defend the constitution of the state and nation.
POs Son
the national average for publishers reporting feild service time in the untited states is just under 10 hours a month.
this has become the de facto standard for every member of the congregation.
if one fails to produce at the rate of others, he is "weak", his service is "divided", he puts the things of "this life" in "first place.".
I was amazed the other day to hear my mother (a 40+year JW) say, "Your father is out in service today. The only reason I am home is because I got my hours in this month." Clearly she has done enough to keep her ticket to the new( and improved) system
Matt. 28:19 (NIV) 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations for ten hours per month, baptizing them, on a semi-annual basis in civic centers and assembly halls in the name of the Father and of the Son (who?) and of the Holy Spirit, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
did the watchtower society ban jw's from owning handguns for self defence?.
if they did, when did they issue the ban?.
didn't some of jesus's apostles carry a sword when the group traveled, to protect agains wild animals and human thieves?
Eduardo et al:
Here are a few more thoughts for you -
"Extensive licensing" - In my area, Connecticut USA, to obtain a permit to carry a pistol, one must complete a state-approved safety course that includes the legalities of self-defense, complete a local and state-wide background check, an FBI background check including fingerprint analysis, and must have never been convicted of ANY felony or any of eleven violent misdemeanors. I would call this pretty extensive! If you don't feel that this is sufficient, perhaps you should worry, as it is MORE background checking than our school teachers complete - - and they take responsibility for our children all day!!
"Fully automatic, large caliber, etc" - There really is no need for such weapons to be in private ownership (this coming from a card carrying NRA member, registered Republican). However, the liberal legislators in our natoin are trying to redefine these terms to be broad and sweeping, to include handgun ammunition, andy gun with a "clip" or a grip handle that resembles a military weapon, or any weapon that the military does or HAS used. This could, potentially outlaw a .45 - - a very common handgun caliber! This would be like saying that "drugs are illegal", then saying that "drugs" are now redefined as including Tylenol, Advil and aspirin.
"99.9%" - Well, hyperbole - yes. But should one use hyperbole when attempting to persuade others by using false statistics? Most likely not.
Make guns hard to get, and criminals won't get them - Nope. Not really. It's illegal to hijack an airplane, but its done. Its illegal to speed on the interstate, but it's done daily. A more appropriate view of the situation would be: "Make guns hard to get, make victims more vulnerable." When a criminal knows that his victim is unarmed due to government control, he has the upper hand. I make it known to all that I own guns, and am often armed when entering questionable situations (city at night, carrying sums of money, etc.) My wife once felt the same as you... and even complained that I went to the movie theater armed. She changed her mind when I walked her to the next theater from ours to show her where a teenager was shot and killed with an Illegally acquired gun... right in our little town. Now, she feels better that on the slight chance that someone does choose to threated our lives, we have a chance at survival.
Here are some interesting facts gathered from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action
Handguns, Self-Defense and Public Opinion
** By an 8:1 margin, Americans believe you have the right to use a handgun to defend yourself in your own home. By a 3:1 margin, people believe that to fight crime, getting tough with criminals is more effective than banning guns. (Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998.)
Defense Against Criminals** Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. (Kleck, "The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use," in Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, S.F.: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997.)
Handgun Ban Failures** Washington, D.C.`s homicide rate more than tripled after the city banned handguns. D.C. consistently has the highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)
** Chicago banned handguns in 1982 and in a decade homicides with handguns more than doubled. (Chicago Homicide Dataset) Chicago has the fourth highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)
Regarding guns being taken from victims and used against them:
"At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim"- (Gary Kleck, analysis of General Social Surveys, Targeting Guns, 1997)
Well, I have grabbed a few quotes from outside sources, and I am sorry to make you read them, but when an anti-gun liberal presents false data or pure opinion as fact, the truth must be made known. Firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a GOOD thing. Let's enforce gun laws that exist, prosecute the criminals, and encourage more self-reliance rather than government reliance for safety. If you have faith in the government protecting you, keep in mind that In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."... only you have the duty to protect yourself. (My comments in italics)
POs Son...
did the watchtower society ban jw's from owning handguns for self defence?.
if they did, when did they issue the ban?.
didn't some of jesus's apostles carry a sword when the group traveled, to protect agains wild animals and human thieves?
In reply to Eduardo and the others that feel that the individual right to bear arms in the United States is not what the founding fathers had in mind, I propose several thoughts for your consideration.
If the founding fathers indeed did not intend for modern day citizens to bear the arms of the modern day (that is revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns) but rather single shot musket-loaded black-powder guns (as you have previously postulated), then how would those fine men feel about the following blanket statements? Note: I have italicized these invented blanket statements.
Regarding the First Ammendment - granting the people freedom of speech and that of the press: The freedom of speech is only granted to those speaking to groups without electronic amplifiers, without electronic media (such as the internet you are currently viewing), without mass production, without immediate translations, without worldwide or nationwide communications abilities. This is because in the 1700's these technologies were not available. Also, press shall be defined as "an old man with a printing press in his attic or sleeping chamber who does distribute a printed paper to at least twenty-five and not more than two-hundred fifty persons on a given day".
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from establishing laws regarding "an establishment of religion": The freedom of religion is reserved exclusively who worship God in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and who follow Christian teachings. This freedom is only available to these believers, because in the 1700's, many of the currently practiced religions were not common in the colonial region of the newly formed US. Further, religious freedom shall not be extended to newly formed faiths (including JW's) as there was no anticipation by the Constitutional authors that new faiths would develop.
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from making any law respecting the right of the people to assemble peaceably: The people may assemble, on street-corners, in the town grange, in the city market place and in meeting houses, however, they may not have electric lighting, nor signage, neither sound amplification, nor computer generated graphics. Tickets to such events must be produced on paper by printing presses as listed above and credit cards may not be accepted. These technoligies were not available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from making a law restricting the person's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances: The citizen may only petition the government by means of a letter written on parchment paper with a quill pen and ink, sealed in wax, and delivered by the Pony Express. Such a grievance shall be read by candle light in the chambers of the congress during the next session (which may be months away since congressmen travel by covered wagon). These rights are so regulated as the modern postal service, telegraph, telephone, internet, automobile, train, airplane and other modern luxuries had not yet been invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
Do these statements outrage you? They should, in just the same way that assuming that out American founding fathers were so myopic as to think that the freedom to bear arms is restricted to a single-shot pistol. If this were true, we would also only be able to speak freely without TV, radio, internet or other modern media, petition congress by quill pen, worship only in a Christian way and publish newspapers locally.
POs Son
who still find it strange years on to dive straight into your mail meal without 'giving thanks'?
i say main meal, because dad's prayers were always considerably lengthy before a main meal, and are an institution in every jw household.
even now after a few years i'm just about ready to tuck in when i find myself saying a simple thanks under my breath.
Now being grown, married and a father myself, I found it interesting that my father stopped praying over meals when he visits my home. We have been respectful at his home, when he prays over dinner, and even invited him to pray at our home, as a sign of respect of their beliefs. One day, (I forget the circumstances) he announced that he would no longer pray at my home. Strange....
No problem with me!
have i heard the universal life church mentioned here?
(search isn't working.
) they are opening a church in our neighbourhood so please tell me they aren't those guys with the long gray beards and robes that someone posted the picture of....
I am ULC ordained also. Their only creed is "Do that which is right." Back in the 70's, ULC was harassed greatly by the IRS adn other government agencies because you (the newly ordained minister) were able to claim blanket coverage by their church status, and take questionable tax exemptions. This was put to an end, and now, while you are still 100% ordained in the eyes of the law, if you plan to play the tax game, you have to go through the IRS hoops on your own.
In the US, a minister is allowed to avoid the social security system (old age and disablility money) by not depositing in to the system, and therefore not withdrawing at the age of maturity. Some feel this is a good plan (personally, I am no fan of social security).
To be a minister, one must simply say "I am a minister". In the US, our "freedom of religion" prevents the government from questioning our beliefs, though as proven with ULC ministers, and Jdubs, they still have the power to investigate religious activities that may be illegal or unacceptable by the public. That is to say, I have the explicit right to believe in child sacrifice or aliens or Kool-Aid, but I do not have thr right to actually sacrifice or force other to drink the Kool-Aid.
Beign ordained by ULC is mostly adventageous for several groups of persons:
Well, none of these reasons is wrong (except the last). I appreciate that ULC allows those who feel the need to have a title, position or other advantage can secure "legal" ordination. We took this a step further, and have established a legally recognized religious society, a church of sorts, that has the ability to "ordain" and perform the ceremonies or sacrements when someone needs it. It is not a tax matter, since we have not handled a single dollar at all. But when a friend wishes to be married, and they do not want to have a religious ceremony, or they want a specialized spiritual ceremony, we are there to help... no dry Justice of the Peace involved. No elvis minister either.
POs Son
wouldn't it be nice if we could beat the wts at it's own game?
basically set up a fake "religion" and use their books and lit., rewritten so there is no copyright.
basically say that we are a new form of jws who have been told by jehovah that there is new light and he has chosen a new voice to say it.
I feel that I am one of your new annointed. Oh, nope, I just had to pee. Sorry for the false New Light.
POs Son
