Satan and his demon hordes are part and parcel of the Christian (and Judeo Islamic) Deity structure.You cannot have one without the other. As the lyric goes,"i swear there ain't no heaven but i pray there ain't no hell". Don't forget all destructive cults instill boogieman phobias. BTW i once had full blown audio/visual hallucinations from an alcohol detox and that was just what it was chemically induced hyperactive brain cells. What a trip (pink elephants) footnote:What are demons made of?Their profile:they are pure demented psychopaths who crave anything carnal,remember they asked to be sent into the herd of swine. I am denouncing the God of the Watchtower (satan) and i have never been bugged by the demons.Why?Saint James said,"oppose the devil and he will flee from you". You demon bullys want to pick a fight with me?Come and get it! Danny Haszard has NO FEAR
DannyHaszard
JoinedPosts by DannyHaszard
-
65
Do you secretly wish for a demon attack - serious question
by stillajwexelder in.
i am not trying to compete with fmz as he has a supernatural thread going already but - do you secretlyt wish for a demon attack - serious question - the reason i ask this is because - if i had a demon attack it would mean there was a satan the devil and if there was a satan it would mean there was god.
what i am trying to say in a nutshell is "a demon attack would actually strengthen my faith" where at the moment it is non-existent almost
-
-
-
65
Do you secretly wish for a demon attack - serious question
by stillajwexelder in.
i am not trying to compete with fmz as he has a supernatural thread going already but - do you secretlyt wish for a demon attack - serious question - the reason i ask this is because - if i had a demon attack it would mean there was a satan the devil and if there was a satan it would mean there was god.
what i am trying to say in a nutshell is "a demon attack would actually strengthen my faith" where at the moment it is non-existent almost
-
-
DannyHaszard
Jesus and his disciples of the gospel narratives encountered the zombied out demon possessed with such frequency it was like a script from the 'dawn of the dead". Yet they are not so obvious today.The answer given to me by the Jehovah's Witnesses was that; "since 1914 the demons are bent on deception and don't want to tip their hand". Ya right now instead of the 'dawn of the dead' it's the DAWN of the DUBS. ----- Danny Haszard Bangor Maine
-
19
Bowen Speaks Out About Berry Case
by ezekiel3 inhttp://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/society/jehovah_witnesses_child_abuse_scandal_in_the_news_32952.html
jehovah witnesses child abuse scandal in the news
added: (thu jul 28 2005) .
-
-
DannyHaszard
A all Jehovah's Witnesses perpetrators will grow old and die (unsaved?)
B No apostate opposers 'will die at armageddon'
I try to be objective.Grow old and die all unsaved Jdubs.
------
Danny Haszard Bangor Maine
-
1
CONDO$ for the KINGDOM
by DannyHaszard inpark to house 1,200 condos.
brooklynpapers.com, united states - 12 minutes ago .
... five hundred of the condo units would be developed at 360 furman st., a former book distribution plant of the jehovahs witnesses that last year was sold to ...
-
-
DannyHaszard
Park’ to house 1,200 condos BrooklynPapers.com, United States - 12 minutes ago
... Five hundred of the condo units would be developed at 360 Furman St., a former book distribution plant of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that last year was sold to ...Read more on theBrooklyn Bridge Park Plan
‘Park’ to house 1,200 condos
By Jess Wisloski
The Brooklyn Papers
Brooklyn Bridge Park’s sponsor unveiled a double surprise Wednesday night, announcing that state officials had approved a draft plan for the 1.3-mile waterfront development — and that it would include 1,200 units of luxury housing.
Previous estimates had put the number of high-end condos in the residential, commercial, and open space development at anywhere from 700 to just over 900.
Critics have complained since a reworked Brooklyn Bridge Park plan was released late last year that planners have strayed from one of the founding principles intended to guide development of the 80 acre site — that there be no private housing developments.
But what shocked them even more about this week’s announcement from the Empire State Development Corp., was that nearly 80 percent of the housing, some 940 units, would be concentrated on the southern tip of the park west of Furman Street between Joralemon Street and Atlantic Avenue.
Wendy Leventer, executive director of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp. (BBPDC), a subsidiary of the ESDC that is in charge of the park’s planning and implementation, maintains that the luxury housing is the only way to raise enough revenue to pay the park’s annual expenses, estimated at $15.2 million.
Opponents of the park housing, most of them long-time activists in the fight to get Brooklyn Bridge Park built, were fuming at the news.
“They keep adding on to it,” said Murray Adams, president of the Cobble Hill Association. “First it was 700, then they were talking about a thousand, now it’s 1,200.
“It’s been perfectly obvious from the beginning that this thing was set on the track from Pataki’s office, no matter what anybody did or said,” said Adams. “The fix was in, as you say.”
His main lament, Adams said, was that none of the community’s efforts or time in meeting with the BBPDC and lead park architect Michael Van Valkenburgh over the past months was ultimately valued in the final product.
“Mrs. Leventer has never listened to any suggestions from anybody — the EIS is out today, and I’ve only looked at it primarily, but it’s another Slick Willy job,” said Adams, who said he was fed up with the process and the apathy of elected officials.
“There will be public hearings again in September, and they won’t do anything either,” he said. “The only thing that can stop it now is if the elected officials do come out against it. It is unfortunately a good illustration of how the real estate developers control things in the city.”
A spokesman for the ESDC declined to comment for this story.
Five hundred of the condo units would be developed at 360 Furman St., a former book distribution plant of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that last year was sold to developer Robert Levine and his partners. Levine has been working with the BBPDC to incorporate that building into the park housing plan, which, thanks to legislation passed in June will allow all tax payments by the building’s residents to be diverted from public coffers to the park’s maintenance budget. In exchange for working with the park planners, Levine will have an expedited process of converting the industrial building to residential use.
The bill awaits Gov. George Pataki’s signature.
The Daily News on July 24 reported that Levine’s development team includes lobbyist Thomas Murphy, former head of the state Dormitory Authority, and the AIG Insurance company, which has donated $100,000 to Pataki in the past three years. Pataki controls the ESDC, which introduced the legislation, sponsored by Brooklyn state Sens. Martin Connor and Marty Golden and Assemblywoman Joan Millman.
The legislators reason that the park is getting something — the Paments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) — for a development that would have gone through anyway.
Additionally, the project plan adopted this week allows for an additional two stories to be added to the 180-foot-tall 360 Furman St. building, an addition that would likely have faced staunch community opposition were the condo conversion subject to city review due to its placement at the edge of the Brooklyn Heights waterfront, whose vistas of the East River, harbor, Manhattan skyline and Statue of Liberty are considered sacrosanct.
The fast-tracked plan has left many of the local park activists feeling like public input is being solicited merely for show and that the ESDC and other officials are going to build Brooklyn Bridge Park the way they see fit.
Kenn Lowy, a Brooklyn Heights resident who attended many of the meetings with the developers and Van Valkenburgh over the past several months, said he was surprised by the approval of the general project plan this week.
“Nobody I knew on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee [an entity comprised of community members that was mandated under the state and city’s agreement to fund construction of the park plan] seemed to be anything but surprised,” Lowy said of the announcement.
“The EIS just came out yesterday — that was a surprise. I was busy downloading parts of the EIS and trying to decipher what’s there,” he said on Wednesday.
Judy Stanton, executive director of the Brooklyn Heights Association, said the news about 360 Furman St. receiving an additional two stories wasn’t a big surprise since it had been mentioned in the ESDC’s scoping document for the EIS that the developer would gain the added height for his commitment of the building to the park plan.
“We were worried about how that would affect views that people have now over 360 Furman St,” said Stanton. “The fact that it’s ‘X’ number of more units or more people doesn’t change the equation for me,” she said, when asked about all the additional residents that would be thrust into Brooklyn Heights under the plan.
But she maintained hope that community concerns could be worked out. “At the end of the day, [the plan’s] going to change, and I’m going to just keep hoping its going to get lower,” Stanton said.
Her counterparts further south don’t think it will.
“We’re paying a very high price in return for a park that doesn’t have the elements, such as year round recreation facility, that the community has asked for all along,” said Franklin Stone, a Cobble Hill parent and advocate for recreational uses in Brooklyn Bridge Park, who is a member of the CAC.
“I also think that 360 Furman St. is a monstrosity, and I was always horrified by talk to make it bigger,” she added. “Now we’re talking about taking the hugest impediment to our park and making it bigger. My biggest complaint is the price is too high than the return for a park that that brings nothing back to the community,” said Stone.
A 30-story condo at Furman Street off Atlantic Avenue, on the uplands of Pier 6, would dwarf 360 Furman St.
Judi Francis, who lives in the southwest section of Brooklyn Heights known as Willowtown, said she was angry about the 1,200 units of housing announced this week and charged that the BBPDC had lied about the number of condos in the plan.
“The outrage is that there is still no admission that the height of 360 Furman will go higher,” she said. “Now it’s a reality — it’s going higher.” Francis said none of her neighbors’ concerns had been addressed, including the requested closing of Joralemon Street to through-traffic onto Furman Street, methods of sound mitigation from the park and adequate parking to facilitate park patrons.
While none were sure of what the next step would be, other than preparing statements to submit for the EIS hearing, which is expected to be scheduled for mid-September, Lowy said he is coordinating a group to serve as advocates and stewards for Brooklyn Bridge Park.
“We’re going to be meeting with all our elected officials to discuss the current plan, the EIS and going forward,” Lowy said.-------------------
Related below:
Watchtower 'creed of greed' Jehovah Witnesses fleece the flock
Pressbox.co.uk (press release), UK - Jun 30, 2005
Cave Of Robbers-Properties owned by the Watchtower Society are massive, yet more and more contributions are expected from Jehovah's Witnesses, no matter what ...
Jehovah Witnesses Conflicting Environment.End of the World Near? ...
Pressbox.co.uk (press release), UK - Jun 27, 2005
... Curbed.com states in their Dec. 6, 2004 article, "Jehovah's Witnesses On Track to Colonize Dumbo": "Despite the vigorous protestations ... http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=watchtower+condo+conundrum&spell=1 More links -
51
It's 98 degrees, put on your suit and go to Yankee Stadium
by IronGland inanyone go to that convention in ny back in the 50's?
remember when they lasted until 8pm?
in the summer?
-
-
DannyHaszard
We never could have a family dog,we had a cat and chickens as they could be set up with feed,water litter box for extended assembly vacation.My elder dad would not have spent kingdom money on kennel fees.We had no worldly friends to dog sit.
Yes,the WT controled every facet of our lives.
-
51
It's 98 degrees, put on your suit and go to Yankee Stadium
by IronGland inanyone go to that convention in ny back in the 50's?
remember when they lasted until 8pm?
in the summer?
-
-
DannyHaszard
YUP! Born JW 1957 went to the week long ones been to Yankee Stadium several times with severe Ulcerative Colitis for 28 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcerative_colitis
-
18
Millions living now will never die, due to SCIENCE!!!
by Bas insince the rise of biotech, the possibility of eternal life and an easy cure for cancer have been widely discussed and speculated about.. .
now, however, it looks like the cancercells themselves are teaching scientists how to stop the agingprocess and bringing us closer to eternal life.
millions living now will never die!!!.
-
-
DannyHaszard
The quick-Humans are genetically preprogramed to live 120 years cells run out of replication capability no more teleomerese (sic)
Snapping turtles live 300 years because they are sloooow we need to slow down the rate at which our cells divide that is the first hurdle to emortality
The fable of the turtle vs. the rabbit has some science to it.
-
32
End of the World Near?
by love2Bworldly ini am wondering how many people out there still believe that in the next 100 years or so that this world/earth is going to be destroyed?.
my husband is a christian, and sometimes he is obsessed with world events in the middle east and he thinks one day soon all the christians are going to be raptured away to heaven while the antichrist rules here on earth.
i am extremely uncomfortable when he talks about it because it reminds me of the jws.. any thoughts out there?
-
-
DannyHaszard
Always do a regression analysis just where did it all come from? http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/neapolitan/article/0,2071,NPDN_14939_3469539,00.html .... The problem with Millennialism Naples Daily News, FL - ... time sneered that it was a "Great Disappointment." Nevertheless, millennial expectations persisted, leading to Seventh-day Adventism and the Jehovah's Witnesses .. In 19th-century America the preacher William Miller was persuaded that the Second Coming of Christ would take place on the night of Oct. 22, 1844 . When Jesus failed to keep that date, newspapers of the time sneered that it was a "Great Disappointment." Nevertheless, millennial expectations persisted, leading to Seventh-day Adventism and the Jehovah's Witnesses. --------There you have it folks backup confirmation that Jehovah's Witnesses are "mutated millerites" a spinoff of second adventist.LOOK and open your eyes!! Why even the "Will fall in month of october" false prophecy time line comes from William Miller a civil war army captain. Listen up?Growing up born JW (1957) I have heard/read that Armaggedon will come in OCTOBER at least a hundred times,(WWI started & satan cast out in OCTOBER) There is nothing that made me gasp in horror of all WT/JW falsehoods more then this finding! Footnote from Danny Haszard-to his credit ole Captain Miller went back to farming and never made another prediction.
-
10
Marci Hamilton comments on the Berry girls case.........
by loveis in.....(as well as on the wisconsin supreme court one.
stung by 2 high court defeats just 2 days apart, marci fights back, showing where she believes the justices erred and what the state legislature now needs to do in each case.
the question for the new hampshire supreme court was whether the elders had a duty of care toward the girl.
-
-
DannyHaszard
Commentary
FindLaw's Writ
When your message is added to the discussion, it will appear as follows:
Danny Haszard - 06:59am Jul 25, 2005Culpability comes with the Power
The point is either the Jehovah's Witnesses Elders are ordained ministers (don't forget that they say they are,in fact perform weddings and assert that they are APPOINTED BY HOLY SPIRIT) OR they are just 'good ole boys' with no ecclesiastical privilege you can't have it both ways culpability comes with the power trip.
Danny Haszard: Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation. My home page, WATCHTOWER WHISTLE BLOWER: http://www.DannyHaszard.com
-
11
updated Berry Verdict WT LOSES PUBLIC OPINION
by DannyHaszard inthe first thread got scrambled i post again.
[they carried the same bold concord monitor management editorial.
] state's child abuse lawneeds improvement.
-
-
DannyHaszard
---- Wisconsin and New Hampshire Supreme Courts Rule Against Clergy Abuse Victims:
Two Decisions That Illustrate Why the Law in This Area Must Change
By MARCI HAMILTON [email protected]
---- Monday, Jul. 25, 2005In two recent cases involving clergy abuse - in Wisconsin and New Hampshire -- state Supreme Court rulings left victims out in the cold. Neither decision made new law, but that is why they are worth noting: The law in this area is desperately in need of amendment, if we are to prevent children from being sexually victimized in the future, and provide remedies to those who have already been traumatized by abuse. (Full disclosure, I represented the victims in each of these cases.)
As I have discussed in previous columns (such as this recent one), the legal system has fallen well short of doing justice to the victims of clergy abuse. Why? In part the explanation is that, as I document in my recent book, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law -- Americans are naïve when it comes to the actions of religious individuals and institutions.
Many of us find it very hard to accept even clear proof that these individuals and institutions have done wrong. This attitude, while understandable - we want to look up to our clergy and houses of worship - must change. The proof is there, and it is irrefutable. We cannot ignore it. Yet until recently, courts, in particular, have been slow to hold religious institutions accountable for the harm they have done.
In this column, I will explain the ramifications of the Wisconsin and New Hampshire decisions, and the way the state legislatures ought to amend their laws, in the wake of these decisions.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision
First, let's look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, John Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
The case arose when a man alleging he had been sexually abused as a child in the Sixties sued the Milwaukee Archdiocese - alleging that it knew of the priest's pedophilia and did nothing to protect him. (He argued that the statute of limitations did not bar his claim, because while the events occurred decades ago, he had not discovered the wrongdoing by the Archdiocese until recently.)
The plaintiff pointed, in his complaint, to specific evidence suggesting the Archdiocese knew of this wrongdoing as early as 1980. But the court held that this was not enough: Because the plaintiff did not point to specific evidence suggesting that the Archdiocese knew of the wrongdoing in 1960, it dismissed his claim.
But how was the plaintiff supposed to find such evidence, which almost always resides exclusively in the employment files of the Archdiocese, before the process of civil discovery had even begun? Archdioceses in general have been arguing that it is unfair to subject them to suits involving abuse going back decades, when they know full well that their employment records go at least that far back and typically include detailed information on the pedophiles within their ranks.
Conceivably, the plaintiff might try to find another victim, who preceded him, who also reported the abuse to the archdiocese, prior to 1960. But again, without discovery, finding such a person would be a matter of chance and luck.
And the chances of finding a fellow victim, in a case like this, are even smaller than in, say, a fraud case: The nature of the abuse makes it extremely difficult, psychologically, for victims to tell even their own families, let alone to make their abuse public enough that a fellow victim could track them down.
Our system is not supposed to ask plaintiffs to depend on a fluke of luck, combined with costly investigations. We don't place on plaintiffs arduous investigative burdens, that even private investigators would find immensely time-consuming and challenging, when the answers are right there to be found in a party's - here, the Archdiocese's, own files.
Discovery into the Archdiocese's employment records would have easily proved, one way or the other, just how much knowledge the Archdiocese had regarding the priest perpetrator before this victim was abused. The court should have allowed that discovery, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
In so holding, the Court reached a procedural holding, and avoided addressing the more difficult constitutional issues brought before the Court. It is unfortunate that the Court would use a technicality to tilt the balance against the abused.
But that's far from the only legal change needed to protect Wisconsin clergy abuse victims. Well before John Doe 54 brought his case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a series of cases, employed the First Amendment and narrow interpretation of the discovery rule to protect religious institutions from tort liability. As I've noted in a prior column, such arguments are specious. The First Amendment is not - and should not be construed to be -- a haven for scoundrels.
The good news is that the Court did not defend its prior decisions in this arena and instead left the door open for the victims already in the court system who have proof positive of the Archdiocese's complicity in the abuse. One can only hope that the Court will at that time follow the reasoning of dissenting Justice Bradley, and reverse or distinguish its prior, draconian rulings that made it so difficult for victims of clergy abuse to go forward and far too easy for religious institutions to avoid liability for their wrongdoing.
As Justice Holmes rightly observed, experience must inform our laws. And in light of what we now know about the practice of religious institutions hiding child abuse by their clergy, thereby increasing the chance of abuse exponentially, Wisconsin's earlier decisions simply make the problem worse.
If justice and fairness are to be achieved, however, legislative reform is also needed -- especially regarding the statute of limitations for past victims and the application of the discovery rule in all childhood sexual abuse cases.
New Hampshire Rejects a Duty To Intervene For Clergy Who Know of Abuse
Soon after the Wisconsin court issued its ruling, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an equally disturbing clergy abuse decision.
In Berry v. Watchtower, a woman who was abused as a child sued the elders of her church, the Jehovah's Witnesses. She alleged that her father - an elder in the Jehovah's Witnesses - was sexually abusing her. She alleged, too, that though her mother repeatedly asked the other elders to intervene, they not only refused -- demanding two witnesses before they could level such a charge against a fellow elder -- but they also instructed the mother, in no uncertain terms, that she should not go to the police, because going outside the church was contrary to religious teachings.
The girl's mother, the girl alleged, obeyed. It is common within the Witnesses' faith to treat all outsiders as representatives of Satan. Allegedly, as an obedient member of the religion, based on the elders' instructions, she did not go to the authorities. According to the complaint, the abuse then continued for years. (The statute of limitations is not an issue, because, as in the Wisconsin case, the discovery of the church's role came later: The girl did not know that her mother had asked for the elders' assistance in stopping the abuse until recently.)
The question for the New Hampshire Supreme Court was whether the elders had a duty of care toward the girl. The Court held that they did not. It was clearly worried about a slippery slope - fearing that a contrary decision would have made anyone who knows about some harm, liable in tort for failure to stop it.
Typically, it's true that American law does not recognize "Good Samaritan" duties to prevent crimes where one is only a bystander. But declining to impose duties on strangers to break up street fights - as our law chooses to do -- is a far cry from what is at issue here.
Child sexual abuse is an egregious crime. It is done against the most vulnerable of victims and the damage typically lasts a lifetime. In this particular case, the church not only failed to intervene, but actually prevented the mother from seeking police aid. If ever there were a case for recognizing a duty of care, this was the one.
This slope doesn't slip: A ruling for the plaintiff could easily have been cabined to cases involving institutions with knowledge of minor victims, or even (though I think this is the wrong ruling) to cases involving active discouragement of reporting to the civil authorities.
As in Wisconsin, in New Hampshire, too, the state legislature must now act - or it should face public ire for its refusal to do so.
The State Legislatures May Often Be the Better Forum for Reform
Make no mistake about it, these cases are tragedies for these individual victims.
It takes an enormous amount of courage to file such a case and to have one's sexual abuse revealed to the public. When a court rules that the case or the law is inadequate, the message to the victim is that here is one more instance where society is going to let you down.
There are important lessons to be learned, however, from these two cases.
For victims in pain, the court system seems like a tortuous road that works far too slowly - but it is that way by design. The common law, especially in the tort arena, is subject to lurches and starts. Courts gradually assess old rules, gingerly test new rules, and, in this era, are always conscious of opening the floodgates to new claims.
Regardless of the degree of harm, and there is tremendous harm when one's own clergy sexually abuses one as a child, courts creep, rather than leap, toward justice.
The state legislatures, however, stand in a very different position. They have the capacity to create new causes of action, to abolish the statutes of limitations for future victims, and to open windows of opportunity for past victims. They can delineate duties of care in this arena explicitly, and they can abolish the statute of limitations in the civil context for a set period of time so that victims whose meritorious claims were foreclosed by scandalously short statutes of limitations can have their day in court.
In 2005, for instance, California laudably opened a statute-of-limitations "window" - a short time period during which previously time-barred complaints could be filed -- for past victims. Over a thousand such victims came forward.
Similarly, Illinois has opened such a window. Moreover, after the Ohio Senate unanimously approved a window, the House Judiciary Committee is actively considering the issue.
Citizens of every state who care about their children need to let their representatives know that these reforms should be at the top of the legislative agenda.
Strict Liability: A Viable Option to Truly Hold Religious Institutions Responsible
Brainstorming is needed in each state legislature if we are to have the laws that will effectively deter institutions (religious or secular) from permitting childhood sexual abuse. A key evil in the clergy abuse cases has been the willingness of religious institutions to hide abuse by their clergy for the purpose of protecting the institution's reputation. To counteract this willingness, strong medicine is clearly necessary. In close-knit, secretive, hierarchical institutions, such conspiracies of silence easily breed.
It is well worth considering strict liability - that is, liability even in the absence of proof of fault -- for any institution that hides childhood sexual abuse by an employee, when that employee molests even one more child. The legal system needs to institute zero tolerance for those who craft the conditions for such abuse.
When institutions learn of abuse, and don't act, no more proof than this should be necessary to hold them liable for additional abuse by the same perpetrator. They have already been negligent. They should be held legally responsible for what follows, for they have already aided and abetted it through their cover-up.
In a praiseworthy and moving development, the survivors of clergy abuse have started a political movement to find better legal protection for those who are sexually abused as children. The laws they have been advocating are not limited to the victims of clergy abuse. Rather, they are leading the charge for all childhood sexual abuse victims. Plainly, these victims are willing to work to ensure that future children are not subjected to the kind of abuse that has marked their own lives forever.
Typically, the barriers to these reforms, sadly enough, are the religious institutions themselves. In California, the Catholic Church has been claiming that the window that aided all child abuse victims was an unconstitutional form of religious persecution.
Meanwhile, in other states, the Catholic Conference is floating the proposition that statutes of limitations should never be altered retroactively, because it is just "unfair" to the defendant. What both sides know, though, is that there is little hardship to any institution being sued for abuse by its employees, because the files themselves will usually tell the story and foreshorten both discovery and any trial. And it is hardly unfair to subject an institution to liability when the proof is right there.
Each state legislature has a clear choice before it: Either abolish the statutes of limitations, create "windows," and/or introduce new tort causes of action, or permit the same regime to be perpetuated that compounds the misery already inflicted by the sexual perpetrator. This is not a choice between victims and any church. It is a choice between justice and legal neglect.
Lady Justice, fortunately, is blind. She has two sides to her scale. On one side, sits the accumulated suffering of all such victims - the mental breakdowns, the divorces, the substance abuse, and the suicides. On the other, are the defendants who may now be forced to take responsibility for knowingly placing pedophiles in positions with access to children.
She does not need to know the identity of the parties to know which side is the side of the angels.
What Do You Think? Message Boards
Commentary
FindLaw's Writ
When your message is added to the discussion, it will appear as follows:
Danny Haszard - 06:59am Jul 25, 2005Culpability comes with the Power
The point is either the Jehovah's Witnesses Elders are ordained ministers (don't forget that they say they are,in fact perform weddings and assert that they are APPOINTED BY HOLY SPIRIT) OR they are just 'good ole boys' with no ecclesiastical privilege you can't have it both ways culpability comes with the power trip.
Danny Haszard: Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation. My home page, WATCHTOWER WHISTLE BLOWER: http://www.DannyHaszard.com
