(Baylor University, Waco, TX) – An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s prestigious Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religion’s misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.
This milestone essay critically examines one of the religion’s main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, How Can Blood Save Your Life? The peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.
*The misrepresentation of secular facts;
*The misrepresentation of historians’ writings;
*The amplified medical risks of accepting a blood transfusion;
*The misrepresentation of blood’s necessity and the medical alternatives to blood transfusion;
*The organization’s current blood policy misrepresents the scope of allowed blood products; and
*The organization’s blood policy contains contradictions about autologous blood transfusions.
If members of the religion do consent to a blood transfusion, they are shunned by the entire community of Jehovah's Witnesses including close family members.
The essay examines the State’s power to protect its citizens by allowing followers and their families to pursue legal action against a religion when it misrepresents secular facts which harmed the followers, and suggests possible avenues to apply the tort of misrepresentation to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah's Witnesses' corporate organization, and who publishes Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature.
The effect of these misrepresentations leaves both Jehovah’s Witness members, and medical staff treating them, ill-advised and Jehovah’s Witness patients more likely to suffer harm.
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ sources, thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died around the world because they refused blood transfusions; the number of Jehovah’s Witness adult deaths has never been released, but for every child’s death there are likely to be many adult deaths. There are therefore a massive number of potential litigants.
The 38-page essay, entitled, "Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," is being translated into a number of languages, including Polish, Norwegian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Italian, German, and Russian. This important essay was written by attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood after her own mother, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, died in January 2004 obeying her religion’s blood ban.
-- End --
Excerpt #1 from "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation.
A state can intrude, however, either directly or through allowing tort action, in the right to exercise religious beliefs provided the state’s action can meet a four-part test:
1. Government must have an important or compelling state interest.
2. The “burden of expression must be essential to further” this interest.
3. The “burden must be the minimum required to achieve” this interest.
4. The measure must apply to everyone, not just the questioned religion.[2]
Government intervention into religious exercise through meeting this test is rooted in legal precedent. In Reynolds v. U.S., one of the first decisions limiting religious freedom, the Supreme Court upheld a law criminalizing polygamy because of the state’s compelling interest in protection of the family unit.[3] Additionally, courts are now willing to allow aggrieved citizens to sue their church if it misrepresented a secular fact.[4] For example, one court has held a religious organization liable for misrepresenting its use of donated funds.[5]
Similarly, the Catholic Church became engulfed in a flood of tort law suits following revelations that some of its priests sexually abused minors and that the church allowed known sex-offender priests to continue their posts.[6] ......
One of the primary cases dealing with a religious organization’s misrepresentations is Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (“Unification”).[7] The California Supreme Court held that ex-followers could sue the church for fraud in its deceptive recruitment practices. ..... The California Supreme Court, however, held that the church’s deceitful recruitment practices were unprotected, religiously-motivated conduct and therefore subject to court scrutiny.[8] The court stated that holding a religious organization liable for misrepresentations is the best solution, as it does not implicate either the church or its members’ right to associate or worship, or force them to perform acts contrary to their religious belief. [9] The court concluded that allowing tort relief for misrepresentations only closes “one questionable avenue” for recruiting members.[10] The court reasoned that opening religious organizations to traditional tort liability protects persons from being harmed and is nondiscriminatory since it applies equally to religious and non-religious groups.[11]
Excerpt #2
Courts are frequently called upon to order transfusions for children of Jehovah’s Witness parents.[19] In its legal information section entitled “You Have The Right to Choose, ” the pamphlet informs parents that courts recognize parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children:
In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly: “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions . . . Simply because the decision of a parent [on a medical matter] involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the states.”—Parham v. J.R.[20]
The same year the New York Court of Appeals rules: The most significant factor in determining whether a child is being deprived of adequate medical care . . . is whether the parents have provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for their child in light of all the surrounding circumstances. This inquiry cannot be posed in terms of whether the parent has made a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ decision, for the present state of the practice of medicine, despite its vast advances, very seldom permits such definitive conclusions. Nor can a court assume the role of a surrogate parent.—In re Hofbauer[21]
While these quotes are not in themselves inaccurate, the Society does not inform its readers that these particular cases do not involve minors of Jehovah’s Witnesses who need immediate, life-saving blood transfusions. Rather, Parham v. J.R. deals with the parents’ wish to obtain psychiatric help by civilly committing an uncontrollable minor contrary to the minor’s objections.[22] Moreover, the relevant facts in Parham did not involve the parents’ refusal to accept medical treatment on religious grounds. Indeed, concurring Justice Stewart wrote that a state would have constitutional grounds to preempt the parent’s decision, and defended this position by referring to a seminal case against a Jehovah’s Witness parent who mandated that her minor niece engage in selling Society magazines in violation of the state’s child labor laws.[23] In re Hofbauer deals with the parents’ choice of using nutrition instead of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin’s disease. [24] The Hofbauer court also differentiated its facts from cases involving parents’ religious refusal of medical treatment, including a reference to a specific Jehovah’s Witness blood case, a fact which the pamphlet omitted.[25] From these examples, a clear precedent can be seen that many courts will order blood transfusions for minors over and against the parents’ wishes.[26] Thus, Jehovah’s Witness parents may be surprised to learn that precedent denies their supposed “right” to make martyrs of their children.[27]
Excerpt #3
Most surgeries do not require blood transfusions. Some surgeries, such as coronary bypass, hip or knee replacement, hepatic resections [liver surgery], and radical prostatectomy [prostrate removal], are a higher risk.[28] The pamphlet states that bloodless surgeries are safe and quotes as support a study by Dixon B. Kaufman concerning renal (kidney) transplants: “The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah’s Witness patients.”[29] More telling, however, is the self-incriminating information that the Society omitted (emphasis on Society’s actual quote):
Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44 percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.[30]
Since the pamphlet dedicates pages to anemia, why did the Society omit that the almost double rates for organ rejection as well as the study’s clarification that “those with anemia” are a high risk group?
Excerpt #4
Summary of Survival Rates and Medical Alternatives Misrepresentations
At this point, a salient question emerges: Should the tort of misrepresentation be allowed to the victims of blood policy and their families who have come to the conclusion that the Society misrepresented the historical and medical science in its indoctrination literature? A court could conclude that each misrepresented statement is relatively insignificant. However, when taken together, the misrepresentations serve to warp the follower’s mind regarding the actual medical and historical perspective. The Society deceives its followers into thinking that blood transfusions render one’s immune system incapable of fighting cancers, when the actual link depends on the type of cancer. It builds a case that other doctors wish all surgeons would become bloodless surgeons, when in fact those doctors recognize the benefits of blood transfusions for those who are in desperate need. The Society “scares” followers into believing that accepting blood transfusions is equivalent to contracting contagious diseases, when the actual risks are one in several hundred thousand to a few million. The Society “placates” by suggesting adults and infants can tolerate low hemoglobin levels, despite medical knowledge that a healthy person has at least a one in three chance of not surviving a blood count lower than 7, with survival rates for people in high-risk groups being much lower. The Society falsely assures parents that they can legally refuse a blood transfusion for their child by citing cases that in no way substantiate such a position. The Society never reveals to its readers the actual risks of death when blood levels drop either slowly from anemia or quickly from hemorrhage. Instead, the Society gives its readers the impression that ultra low hemoglobin counts, such as 1.8, are easily survivable under the supervision of the right doctor. Only by looking at the overall effect of the Society’s literature can one determine whether there are misrepresentations that induce a follower to accept the Society’s life-threatening arguments without question.
End of Excerpts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of Church and State is read by those in the United States judiciary including the Supreme Court Justices of the United States. It is read by those in academia and professionals in 83 countries who are interested in the subject of church and state.
This remarkable article can be attained by going to the Baylor University website: http://www3.baylor.edu/church_State/jcs_recent_issues.htm and ordering a copy.
A single issue of The Journal of Church and State costs $8.00 and $2.00 for shipping. It costs more to send the Journal outside of the U.S. Remember, when you are ordering, the article discussed above is in the Autumn 2005 issue which was released 12/13/05. If purchasing the single issue, you will receive your copy by mail at the end of the first week in January. The subscription issues were mailed out today.
Probably by tomorrow the research Internet site www.highbeam.com will have the article available. This site has a 7-day free membership period and we have been told that an electronic copy can be attained by accessing this site.
Baylor University is a law school and the Journal of Church and State articles can be accessed by computer in any law school throughout the U.S. Go to a law school library and ask to buy a copy of the article. In addition, because this Journal is published by a university press, the university allows copies to be made of the Journal of Church and State articles without copyright infringement as long as the copies are not sold. However, they do not allow any complete articles to be put on any website other than research sites they have contracts with.
If you have trouble ordering your copy on the Baylor website, call the University at 254-710-1510
AndersonsInfo
JoinedPosts by AndersonsInfo
-
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
-
328
Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'
by AndersonsInfo in(baylor university, waco, tx) an essay entitled, "jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation," found in the autumn issue of baylor universitys prestigious journal of church and state, published december 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of jehovahs witnesses religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religions misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.
this milestone essay critically examines one of the religions main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, how can blood save your life?
the peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
(Baylor University, Waco, TX) – An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s prestigious Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religion’s misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.
This milestone essay critically examines one of the religion’s main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, How Can Blood Save Your Life? The peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.
*The misrepresentation of secular facts;
*The misrepresentation of historians’ writings;
*The amplified medical risks of accepting a blood transfusion;
*The misrepresentation of blood’s necessity and the medical alternatives to blood transfusion;
*The organization’s current blood policy misrepresents the scope of allowed blood products; and
*The organization’s blood policy contains contradictions about autologous blood transfusions.
If members of the religion do consent to a blood transfusion, they are shunned by the entire community of Jehovah's Witnesses including close family members.
The essay examines the State’s power to protect its citizens by allowing followers and their families to pursue legal action against a religion when it misrepresents secular facts which harmed the followers, and suggests possible avenues to apply the tort of misrepresentation to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah's Witnesses' corporate organization, and who publishes Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature.
The effect of these misrepresentations leaves both Jehovah’s Witness members, and medical staff treating them, ill-advised and Jehovah’s Witness patients more likely to suffer harm.
According to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ sources, thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died around the world because they refused blood transfusions; the number of Jehovah’s Witness adult deaths has never been released, but for every child’s death there are likely to be many adult deaths. There are therefore a massive number of potential litigants.
The 38-page essay, entitled, "Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," is being translated into a number of languages, including Polish, Norwegian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Italian, German, and Russian. This important essay was written by attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood after her own mother, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, died in January 2004 obeying her religion’s blood ban.
-- End --
Excerpt #1 from "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation.
A state can intrude, however, either directly or through allowing tort action, in the right to exercise religious beliefs provided the state’s action can meet a four-part test:
1. Government must have an important or compelling state interest.
2. The “burden of expression must be essential to further” this interest.
3. The “burden must be the minimum required to achieve” this interest.
4. The measure must apply to everyone, not just the questioned religion.[2]
Government intervention into religious exercise through meeting this test is rooted in legal precedent. In Reynolds v. U.S., one of the first decisions limiting religious freedom, the Supreme Court upheld a law criminalizing polygamy because of the state’s compelling interest in protection of the family unit.[3] Additionally, courts are now willing to allow aggrieved citizens to sue their church if it misrepresented a secular fact.[4] For example, one court has held a religious organization liable for misrepresenting its use of donated funds.[5]
Similarly, the Catholic Church became engulfed in a flood of tort law suits following revelations that some of its priests sexually abused minors and that the church allowed known sex-offender priests to continue their posts.[6] ......
One of the primary cases dealing with a religious organization’s misrepresentations is Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (“Unification”).[7] The California Supreme Court held that ex-followers could sue the church for fraud in its deceptive recruitment practices. ..... The California Supreme Court, however, held that the church’s deceitful recruitment practices were unprotected, religiously-motivated conduct and therefore subject to court scrutiny.[8] The court stated that holding a religious organization liable for misrepresentations is the best solution, as it does not implicate either the church or its members’ right to associate or worship, or force them to perform acts contrary to their religious belief. [9] The court concluded that allowing tort relief for misrepresentations only closes “one questionable avenue” for recruiting members.[10] The court reasoned that opening religious organizations to traditional tort liability protects persons from being harmed and is nondiscriminatory since it applies equally to religious and non-religious groups.[11]
Excerpt #2
Courts are frequently called upon to order transfusions for children of Jehovah’s Witness parents.[19] In its legal information section entitled “You Have The Right to Choose, ” the pamphlet informs parents that courts recognize parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children:
In 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly: “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions . . . Simply because the decision of a parent [on a medical matter] involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the states.”—Parham v. J.R.[20]
The same year the New York Court of Appeals rules: The most significant factor in determining whether a child is being deprived of adequate medical care . . . is whether the parents have provided an acceptable course of medical treatment for their child in light of all the surrounding circumstances. This inquiry cannot be posed in terms of whether the parent has made a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ decision, for the present state of the practice of medicine, despite its vast advances, very seldom permits such definitive conclusions. Nor can a court assume the role of a surrogate parent.—In re Hofbauer[21]
While these quotes are not in themselves inaccurate, the Society does not inform its readers that these particular cases do not involve minors of Jehovah’s Witnesses who need immediate, life-saving blood transfusions. Rather, Parham v. J.R. deals with the parents’ wish to obtain psychiatric help by civilly committing an uncontrollable minor contrary to the minor’s objections.[22] Moreover, the relevant facts in Parham did not involve the parents’ refusal to accept medical treatment on religious grounds. Indeed, concurring Justice Stewart wrote that a state would have constitutional grounds to preempt the parent’s decision, and defended this position by referring to a seminal case against a Jehovah’s Witness parent who mandated that her minor niece engage in selling Society magazines in violation of the state’s child labor laws.[23] In re Hofbauer deals with the parents’ choice of using nutrition instead of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin’s disease. [24] The Hofbauer court also differentiated its facts from cases involving parents’ religious refusal of medical treatment, including a reference to a specific Jehovah’s Witness blood case, a fact which the pamphlet omitted.[25] From these examples, a clear precedent can be seen that many courts will order blood transfusions for minors over and against the parents’ wishes.[26] Thus, Jehovah’s Witness parents may be surprised to learn that precedent denies their supposed “right” to make martyrs of their children.[27]
Excerpt #3
Most surgeries do not require blood transfusions. Some surgeries, such as coronary bypass, hip or knee replacement, hepatic resections [liver surgery], and radical prostatectomy [prostrate removal], are a higher risk.[28] The pamphlet states that bloodless surgeries are safe and quotes as support a study by Dixon B. Kaufman concerning renal (kidney) transplants: “The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah’s Witness patients.”[29] More telling, however, is the self-incriminating information that the Society omitted (emphasis on Society’s actual quote):
Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44 percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.[30]
Since the pamphlet dedicates pages to anemia, why did the Society omit that the almost double rates for organ rejection as well as the study’s clarification that “those with anemia” are a high risk group?
Excerpt #4
Summary of Survival Rates and Medical Alternatives Misrepresentations
At this point, a salient question emerges: Should the tort of misrepresentation be allowed to the victims of blood policy and their families who have come to the conclusion that the Society misrepresented the historical and medical science in its indoctrination literature? A court could conclude that each misrepresented statement is relatively insignificant. However, when taken together, the misrepresentations serve to warp the follower’s mind regarding the actual medical and historical perspective. The Society deceives its followers into thinking that blood transfusions render one’s immune system incapable of fighting cancers, when the actual link depends on the type of cancer. It builds a case that other doctors wish all surgeons would become bloodless surgeons, when in fact those doctors recognize the benefits of blood transfusions for those who are in desperate need. The Society “scares” followers into believing that accepting blood transfusions is equivalent to contracting contagious diseases, when the actual risks are one in several hundred thousand to a few million. The Society “placates” by suggesting adults and infants can tolerate low hemoglobin levels, despite medical knowledge that a healthy person has at least a one in three chance of not surviving a blood count lower than 7, with survival rates for people in high-risk groups being much lower. The Society falsely assures parents that they can legally refuse a blood transfusion for their child by citing cases that in no way substantiate such a position. The Society never reveals to its readers the actual risks of death when blood levels drop either slowly from anemia or quickly from hemorrhage. Instead, the Society gives its readers the impression that ultra low hemoglobin counts, such as 1.8, are easily survivable under the supervision of the right doctor. Only by looking at the overall effect of the Society’s literature can one determine whether there are misrepresentations that induce a follower to accept the Society’s life-threatening arguments without question.
End of Excerpts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Journal of Church and State is read by those in the United States judiciary including the Supreme Court Justices of the United States. It is read by those in academia and professionals in 83 countries who are interested in the subject of church and state.
This remarkable article can be attained by going to the Baylor University website: http://www3.baylor.edu/church_State/jcs_recent_issues.htm and ordering a copy.
A single issue of The Journal of Church and State costs $8.00 and $2.00 for shipping. It costs more to send the Journal outside of the U.S. Remember, when you are ordering, the article discussed above is in the Autumn 2005 issue which was released 12/13/05. If purchasing the single issue, you will receive your copy by mail at the end of the first week in January. The subscription issues were mailed out today.
Probably by tomorrow the research Internet site www.highbeam.com will have the article available. This site has a 7-day free membership period and we have been told that an electronic copy can be attained by accessing this site.
Baylor University is a law school and the Journal of Church and State articles can be accessed by computer in any law school throughout the U.S. Go to a law school library and ask to buy a copy of the article. In addition, because this Journal is published by a university press, the university allows copies to be made of the Journal of Church and State articles without copyright infringement as long as the copies are not sold. However, they do not allow any complete articles to be put on any website other than research sites they have contracts with.
If you have trouble ordering your copy on the Baylor website, call the University at 254-710-1510 -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
Thank you to everybody who has posted. It's been an extremely interesting past few days although I never dreamed that my thread would garner so much speculation. To those who are annoyed, I'm sorry. Please go on with your life and come back later and we'll fill you in.
Thank you belbab for your observations. I teared up!
Barbara -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
When I mentioned the "Given Ones" essay, I never thought that someone would paste it on this thread. Oh well, I guess I should not have mentioned it but my words at the end of the essay contain a special thought from me to Jehovah's Witnesses so let me paste those words here:
"Accordingly, all Jehovah’s Witnesses should be irritated by the facts regarding this strained analogy. They should be embarrassed by this deceitful presentation of a nugatory subject and ask themselves, What was the rationale behind the Watchtower writer, with the approval of the Governing Body, to use such a flawed analogy anyway?
I THEN WENT ON TO SAY THIS:
"Furthermore, this author suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses give some thought to how the following words may apply to the men who are responsible for this exegesis and also of the more critical tenets of their faith, some of which could be life and death matters:
“The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much and a person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.” Luke 16:10
--------------------------
That last point with the cited scripture matters very much when we carefully read the material that will be coming our way in a few days. Remember, if the Watchtower lied to us in this silly non-essential "Given Ones" analogy, we should have suspected that they would lie in very important matters too. They have proved to be unrighteous in what is least and unrighteous also in much."
Please be aware that I am not giving you more clues, I'm just stating a fact to think about.
Barbara -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
Hey, some of you guys, please don't make me into an ogre. When you find out this week what this news is and from where it's coming from you'll understand why the secrecy. First of all, the author of the "Big News" wanted the Watchtower to be surprised. ;)
Second, and most importantly, the publishers of my so-called "Big News" do not allow information to go out to the public before the publishing date. Watchtower was the same way. Nobody in Bethel who knew about a soon-to-be released publication or article was permitted to jump the gun, so to speak.
You know I could have just kept quiet until publishing date and then the news would have spread oh so slowly across the world. But this way, we have a jumpstart thinking and planning what we might do with an expose' about Watchtower's lies.
I'll give you a little hint. Think about the lies in my "Given Ones" expose.
Remember, together we will make a difference.
Barbara -
18
Together, we will make a difference!
by AndersonsInfo inwhile we wait for the release of "big news" please consider this:.
severus's new thread suggesting "big news email clearing house" is excellent.
and here is what it support suggested on page 18 of the huge "big news" thread:.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
While we wait for the release of "Big News" please consider this:
Severus's new thread suggesting "Big News Email Clearing House" is excellent. And here is what IT Support suggested on page 18 of the huge "Big News" thread:
"I'd like to suggest how each one of us can take an active part in publicizing BBN (Barbara's Big News)...
Someone mentioned early on in this thread (sorry, whoever you are, I couldn't face hunting through all the pages again to try to find who you are), that we need to prepare for the Big News. I totally agree with this comment, but how can we prepare?
Whatever the news is, we all want it to have maximum impact. To achieve that, we must publicize it as widely as possible. We can start NOW to compile a list of email addresses of people and organisations in our state / county / country who should be told about our Big News.
No doubt Barbara will give some suggestions what to say. But what kinds of people and organisations would we want on our email distribution list?
News agencies, journalists (including religious correspondents) in 'serious' newspapers and news magazines.
If the Big News is about blood, include medical associations and organizations and medical 'trade' magazines and journals, journalists who specialize in medical matters (medical correspondents).and don't forget government health departments. Remember also lawyers who have handled blood or child abuse cases or who specialize in family matters.
If the Big News is about a legal matter, include legal associations and organizations, lawyers' 'trade' magazines and journals and journalists who specialize in legal matters (legal correspondents).
If the Big News is about a medical legal matter, we'll have struck gold and will be able use all our researched email addresses.
For what it's worth, after a bit of digging around on Google and loads of web sites, I've got over 100 email addresses so far, from government ministers to news agencies to... You get the idea.
If everyone--of the thousands of people, from all over the world, who so far have viewed this thread--each compiled a similar email list, we would be certain our emails really would be like scorpions, inflicting massive pain and suffering on Watchtower! And don't they deserve it?
To our emails...!
Thank you everybody for joining the "activist" class.
Barbara -
18
A little bit of news about the "Big News"
by AndersonsInfo ini just learned about the release of the "big news" and was told that what i've been calling "big news" won't be released today or tomorrow but hopefully sometime this week.
if anyone is saying the 15th it is because we were told months ago that it would be mid-december when the big news would be released.
as soon as i know the day, you will know.
-
-
AndersonsInfo
I just learned about the release of the "Big News" and was told that what I've been calling "Big News" won't be released today or tomorrow but hopefully sometime this week. So please don't say the 15th. If anyone is saying the 15th it is because we were told months ago that it would be mid-December when the Big News would be released. As soon as I know the day, you will know. Please be assured I'm not playing with your emotions.
Barbara -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
I just learned about the release of the "Big News" and was told that what I've been calling "Big News" won't be released today or tomorrow but hopefully sometime this week. So please don't say the 15th. If anyone is saying the 15th it is because we were told months ago that it would be mid-December when the Big News would be released. As soon as I know the day, you will know. Please be assured I'm not playing with your emotions.
Barbara -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
In the coming months remember these definitions:
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
Lie: 1. To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression
Lie: 1. a. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive. b. an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker.
2. something that misleads or deceives
Deceive: 1. ENSNARE; 2. to be false to; 3. CHEAT; 4. to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid; 5. to practice deceit; also: to give a false impression
syn: DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment or helplessness; MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional; DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth; BEGILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving.
Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair
Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus
Misrepresent: to give a false, imperfect, or misleading representation of. syn: belie, color, confuse, distort, falsify, garble, miscolor, misstate, pervert, twist, warp, wrench, wrest.
Misrepresentation: syn: LIE, canard, falsehood, falsity, fib, prevarication, story, tale, untruism, untruth -
1093
THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.
by AndersonsInfo inif i told you that something bigger is on the horizon than dateline, bbc, cbc, sunday (australia), and all other tv programs which exposed the sexual child abuse cover-up by watchtower in 2002-2003, would you believe me?
have i ever misled you?
i'll answer that--no!
-
-
AndersonsInfo
I'm so tired. You have plum worn me out reading, up to this point, 355 posts. Plus, along with the 55 PMs and many phone calls, I think I've had quite a day. Wow, I never expected such a response to this thread which I started early in the morning on Dec. 10th. Here it is 8:30 PM on Dec. 11th and I can hardly believe what happened. Nearly 15,000 views and going up quicker than I thought possible.
No more clues or hints here. Actually, there were some suggestions made that were right on target about the subject, but that's all. However, this is not a game and wasn't meant to be one. I just wanted to try to call attention to what I feel is an exceptional event that will take place soon and couldn't figure out any other way to do it but post on JWD. Yet, I had to abide by my promise not to mention names and specifics until things happened.
I believe that what happened in the past 24 hours shows we really are a community. And it will take a community to use what is soon going to be available to us to make the whole world aware that the Watchtower Society has no credibility at all.
Someone told me last year that to organize XJWs is like trying to herd a roomful of cats. I agreed then, but I don't now. I see that you all desperately want some justice and want your families back, just like Joe and I do and are willing to do something about it. Well, shortly you can participate in a protest movement the likes that WT has never seen. Along with the Big News will come information and suggestions as to how to effectively use what we will be provided with. (Yikes, I sound like a Kingdom Ministry. Ugh! Forgive me?)
Well, that's it for tonight. I hope that tomorrow or the next day I will have permission to pass along information that will surely please you all.
Sincerely and with much affection for all those in this community.
Barbara