under the radar

Joined

• started 21 topics
• posted 944 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by under the radar

• 
  18

  sooner's new job

  by BigMike in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Well done, Big Mike!  My hat's off to you, Sir.
• 
  15

  Have JW relatives disinherited you? (especially Canadian)

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  interesting court case whereby the entire will was declared void because the father was racist.. would that not also apply to jw's who disinherit their non-jw family?.

  http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/29/judge-rejects-ontario-mans-racist-will-that-disinherited-daughter-for-having-bastard-white-son/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  3rdgen:  I totally agree that it is unloving, unfair, and bigoted to disinherit family members simply because they don't share the same religious beliefs.  My point was that it should not be illegal to do so.  To let the law step in and say what a person who is of sound mind can and cannot do with their money is a patently bad idea.

  That said, older people can be easy targets if they are no longer of sound mind or are so dependent on others that they dare not resist any "suggestion" as to whom they should give or leave their money to.  Courts properly can and should review those cases to decide if there has been any undue influence or coercion.

  I think the Society is definitely encouraging an alienation of affection of family members by their shunning, almost "no contact," policies.  They even discourage minimal contact, such as email.

  I do not know this as a fact, but I have good reason to believe that the Society has certain representatives whose job it is to visit older, infirm ones to encourage them to leave their money to the Society instead of to "worldly" relatives who would just use the money for selfish, maybe immoral, purposes.  If this could be proven in a particular case, that would be a time for the Court to step in.

  I know it's unfair and hurtful for people to be disinherited because of someone's bigoted and self-righteous opinions of their beliefs or non-beliefs.  But as long as they are of sound mind and not under undue influence when they make those decisions, I wouldn't want the law to interfere.  Would you want the law to tell you who you can or cannot leave your money to?
• 
  15

  Have JW relatives disinherited you? (especially Canadian)

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  interesting court case whereby the entire will was declared void because the father was racist.. would that not also apply to jw's who disinherit their non-jw family?.

  http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/29/judge-rejects-ontario-mans-racist-will-that-disinherited-daughter-for-having-bastard-white-son/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  However well-meaning that judge was, I think it sets a dangerous precedent.  It could be a slippery slope indeed if we start allowing the courts to decide who a person in their right mind can or cannot leave their money to.

  Before anybody accuses me of being racist, let me say that while I am white, I actually do have the proverbial "black friends."  In fact, I have a black sister-in-law and a black nephew (by marriage) and several mixed race nieces and nephews.  They are treated by all exactly as any other member of the family, as they should be.

  My problem with this ruling is that the court is poking its nose in where it has no business.  As long as the deceased was in their right mind and not under undue influence when their will was made, it should be honored regardless of how odious their intentions or motivations are to others.  If some court can decide that a particular individual or group doesn't deserve what someone else wants to give them, it opens the door for the government to suppress any group it finds distasteful.  Or as in this case, it can give a decedent's assets to someone they clearly did not want to leave anything to.

  Public policy against discrimination is one thing.  But to interfere with a person's last wishes because they held unpopular, politically incorrect, or yes, even racist views is quite another.  It represents an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion in a person's private life.  The only exception I feel would be justified would be if the bequest would go to a person or organization engaged in outright criminal activities or advocating actual violence against others.

  To be clear: I think the person who made the will was a jerk and a racist and not worthy of any decent person's time or respect.  But the principle of self-determination should outweigh the fact that his hateful attitude unjustly disinherits his daughter in this instance.  I think the will should be upheld, but the other daughter should then share the inheritance with her sister out of a sense of fairness.  That way, it would be a matter of free will and not a matter of judicial political correctness.

  
  

  
  
• 
  30

  The Opal Ring: a story based on the true life of Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Julia Orwell in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's finally finished!

  it's a fictional story about an old jw.

  it is very long, about 7000 words.. the opal ring.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Julia Orwell:  Thanks for posting this story.  I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I appreciate all the time and effort you must have put into it.

  Oubliette:  While I have no doubt you meant well with your editorial comments, may I suggest that next time you offer them in a PM?  While you make some valid points and I truly believe you meant them only as constructive criticism, airing them for all to read was perhaps a bit indiscreet.  I felt your comments took something away from the power of Julia's story, treating it more like a high school composition to be graded rather than a labor of love that she wanted to share with her friends.

  
  
• 
  31

  Arrangement to Accelerate Building Kingdom Halls

  by Socrateswannabe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't believe i'm the first one to admit going to this meeting.

  it was a 3 hour video stream from patterson.

  the first bit was used to set up the need.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Did anyone happen to record this streaming event?  Even just audio.  I would love to hear the whole thing from beginning to end.

  If anyone has a recording to share, please PM me.  I'd be happy to cover any expenses you may have in sending me a copy.
• 
  17

  WT were correct about snakes with legs all along!!

  by Splash in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/6187320/snake-with-foot-found-in-china.html.

  what does this tells us about evolution?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  If this picture is genuine and not a hoax, it's possible the snake swallowed an animal before it was completely dead (maybe just unconscious).  Then the animal, in its desperate attempt to escape, thrust its leg almost completely through the snake's side.  A necropsy would tell the tale.
• 
  53

  Display of National Flags in Kingdom Halls in Chile: WTS' Response

  by BluesBrother in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  remember this and other threads a few months back, on the subject that some kingdom halls in chile acquiesced to govt rules that every building should display the national flag on the day of celebration?.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/262505/kingdom-hall-chile-has-national-flag?size=20&page=1.

  many of us here and around the net, calling on our dub experiences cried "never would that happen!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  I personally think this letter is a rare example of the Society taking a reasonable approach to a sensitive matter, something they should do in a lot of other areas.  To me, displaying a flag on a day when every building in the land is required to display it is no different from having a car license plate with a patriotic slogan on it.  Though some individuals have done so, the Society has never required all JW's to cover up such mottos, or even formally objected to their presence.  If they would had been as reasonable in other matters, then the whole Malawi debacle could have been avoided and many unnecessary deaths and much suffering would never have occurred.

  There are many other less serious issues that the Society could and should designate as "conscience matters."  Birthday celebrations, toasting at social occasions, observing Mother's and Father's Days, etc.  Being less concerned with total control of the flock's every action would go a long way towards easing the stress of simply being a JW.

  Far more importantly, if they would just listen to the many well-reasoned discussions on why the Bible does not actually prohibit the medical use of blood, and make that too a conscience matter, many lives could be saved that would otherwise be sacrificed on the altar of the Watchtower.  I really believe they would like to do that, but they've dug themselves such a deep hole in this matter, they can't dig themselves out without seeming to accede to apostates and public opinion and thereby undermine their supposed "spiritual authority."  They are probably also worried about potential lawsuits from families who lost loved ones due to the blood doctrine.  (I don't think these lawsuits would ultimately prove successful.  The US courts never get involved in church doctrine and, to my knowledge, have never sided with anyone claiming to be harmed by a religious tenet, regardless of how silly or unjust it appears to outsiders.)  They probably would lose a certain number of members if they changed this policy, but they'd simply write them off as "not true believers in God's arrangement," just like they did those who left when the 1975 prophecies went bust.

  I welcome their seeming to become more reasonable in certain matters.  It bothers me that they only seem to do so when it benefits them in some way, usually financially.

  Just to be clear: I think the Society is a thoroughly corrupt money-grubbing enterprise, concerned only about enriching itself and maintaining total control over its members.  It is just as underhanded as any other religious organization, more so than some.  Many individual JW's I have known are genuine and sincere about their beliefs, and truly try to live what they see as a Christian life, but the organization is no more a "spirit-directed channel used by God to provide spiritual food" than any other publishing or real estate conglomerate.  It's goal is to protect its wealth and acquire more.  For a commercial business, that's fine.  But when a business cloaks itself as "God's organization" and uses its adherents' faith and trust to demand total obedience and unquestioning acceptance of ever-changing doctrine for its own ends, that's evil.
• 
  20

  East Coast Blizzard 2015

  by breakfast of champions in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  where we're at, we won't get it as bad as nyc, long island or new england.

  even so, my university is closed until wednesday morning, and we're expecting well over a foot of snow.. anyone else out there "hunkering down"?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Here in Manchester, NH (about 50 miles northwest of Boston), my driveway and the street were completely clear of snow when we went to bed about midnight.  This morning we have between 18 inches and 2 feet of snow and it's still coming down.  The temp is a balmy 16º F and the wind is whipping around pretty good.  A couple of the neighbors are out snow blowing already, but they're not making much headway.  I guess the theory is to "get ahead" of things so you won't have so much to deal with when the snow actually stops.  It's forecast to keep snowing till after midnight tonight.

  I don't really want to get out there twice, but I guess I'll have to eventually.  If I wait till the snow is piled higher than the top of the snow blower's scoop, it'll be much harder to clear the driveway.  We have 4 wheel drive vehicles, but even they don't work very well in 2 feet of snow.

  I'm gonna give it a couple more hours and maybe then give it a try.  Meanwhile, I think I'll sit here in my easy chair with a nice cup of hot tea and read my book.

  I hope everyone stays warm and dry and heeds Simon's advice.  Take it easy if you have to shovel manually.  Having a nice clean driveway isn't worth having a heart attack over.
• 
  50

  My mother says I should just DA already.

  by Julia Orwell in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  cut the cord.

  sever all ties.

  start new.. and she's right.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Odrade makes some really good points.

  If there was an honorable way to simply resign from the organization, many would have done so long ago.  In some ways, it's like being in the Mafia.  Once in, you can never leave... alive, anyway.  With a few aberrant examples, JW's don't actually kill you when you want to leave.  But they consider you as good as dead, and even families are supposed to have as little contact with you as possible.
  

  The closest thing to an honorable departure, it seems, is to DA yourself once you come to the conclusion that the Society is not "God's organization," is teaching falsehoods, is guilty of false prophecy, or for any number of other reasons you don't want to be associated with this group.  But it will be considered an honorable departure only by you, and perhaps your true friends who understand and accept your reasons for doing so.  The Society and "good" JW's will vilify you and label you "apostate," and we know how apostates are viewed and treated, even by family members and former friends who are still in.

  Some view DA'ing oneself as making a point, drawing a line that says from here on I do not consider myself a JW and do not wish to be viewed as supporting or associated with the organization in any way.  Sort of a punctuation in one's life.  Others consider it as "playing by their rules," saying you have no obligation to cooperate with their procedures or communicate with them to any degree regarding your viewpoints or actions.  Both sides have valid points and neither is necessarily correct for any particular circumstance.  There is no "one size fits all."  Each person has to decide for oneself the best approach to take, and need not explain or defend it to anyone else.

  I am neither DA'd nor DF'd, but my family and friends all know that I do not consider myself a JW and will never return to being one.  I have not formally DA'd myself because, as it is, very few totally "shun" me and several maintain contact as they always have.  I would lose that contact if anything "formal" happened, whether by DA'ing myself or being DF'd by the congregation.  So in my case, leaving things as they are works out for the best.

  I think real conflict within oneself arises when you realize you don't believe the "Truth" anymore but have to go through the motions for whatever reason.  It shouldn't be that way.  You should be able to resign from the organization just like you can resign from a job and keep your family and friends intact.  But it doesn't work that way.  The Society uses fear, coercion, and emotional blackmail to keep people locked in when they long to be free.  That is no better than when religions of the not-so-distant past made converts at the point of a sword.
• 
  19

  I got half custody!

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so it has been quite a while since i've last been on this site.

  the jist of my story is that about 5 years ago, i started a research journey that took me 2 1/2 years to complete.

  against the advice of this board, i decided to show my wife because i mistakenly thought she valued truth.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  under the radar

  Congratulations, Clint!  Your great news will help others realize that all is not lost and they need not give up just because things look bleak at the beginning.

  It is especially generous of you to offer to share your research with others.  It's about time ex-JW's had something to counter the Society's Child Custody Packet that they send out to the sheeple.  As an aside, I have seen video of one elder denying in court, under oath, that such a packet even exists.  Liar!  What's funny is that the judge had a copy of the packet in front of him at the time.  Wonder how that worked out...

  Thanks again for posting your great news.