Is anything written in writing about this new (or rather) old policy? If so, I really need a copy for something I am working on.
Thanks,
Ned
Posts by Ned
-
50College deletions?
by Collegegurl inaccording to our new co, elders nor their children are allowed to go to college.
my dad is being deleted.
evidently new material was presented at the elder school.
-
-
-
66
Today at the KH, Hopefully opens my wifes' eyes
by DaCheech inthe kids were sleeping, and one brother came up to me "is there a microphone on thats picking up some loud noise"?..
i said "all mikes are off except for the stage".
he said "there's gotta be something because the noise is annoying!".
-
-
Ned
In her book, Diane Wilson wrote her experience as a young JW mother, including the JW's child rearing philosophy. Diane wrote that the brothers "assigned" an older woman to sit with Diane and her young child. When the toddler acted up, the older woman and Diane took the offending child outside...picked a branch...and beat the child into submission.Who could beat a toddler for being skirmy in a 2+ hour meeting? That makes me super mad.
Plus, just think for a moment, this taught children to "fear" church and to have a "fear-based" relationship with God.
We did not have children, but I do remember this going on. If we did have children, I would have wanted them to love God and develop a relationship with Him and to enjoy church.
Ned
-
20
Bin Laden's niece is a hotty
by Ned incheck this out!
bin laden's niece bares much in gq spreadmy values are like yours, she says, distancing herself from al-qaida leaderjeff riedel / gq via reuterswafah dufour, niece of osama bin laden, poses in an undated photo taken during a photo session for the january 2006 issue of gq magazine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587661/
-
-
Ned
Check this out!Bin Laden's niece bares much in GQ spread
‘My values are like yours,’ she says, distancing herself from al-Qaida leader
Jeff Riedel / GQ via Reuters Wafah Dufour, niece of Osama bin Laden, poses in an undated photo taken during a photo session for the January 2006 issue of GQ Magazine. -
40
What can we do about QUOTES.COM?
by Pistoff inwords fail me in describing my anger at the arrogance and truly evil scheming by the wt against quotes.
please discuss here how this site helped you, and what we can do to set up mirror sites from offshore isp's.. pm me if necessary.. quotes really helped me in my search, and i want it to be there for searchers.. .
and this is for you, ted jarascz.
-
-
Ned
Add your own thoughts to each of the quotes, and make each of the quotes smaller. Then, you may be within your free speech rights to criticize the WTS instead of possibly violating copyright laws. Talk with your attorney about this idea.
-
36
Why do churches still make me panic ?
by Aiesha Harley ini'm really glad i've found this site a week ago.
reading some of the stories and comments on here has really helped.
there are so many out there who's lives have been ruined by the so-called truth.. i was brought up in the truth as an elders daughter, youngest of 5, a brother and sister had been disfellowshiped, other brother had left as a teenager and my other sister is still sitting on the fence aged 40 going on 15, if she'd made a decision instead of sitting on the fence i'm convinced she wouldn't be the alcoholic mess she is today!
-
-
Ned
Because you, like all of us, have been spiritually raped.
-
44
Christmas Eve, what are you doing tonight?
by JH in.
i might go over to my parents for a few hours, have dinner there, then come back here at my apartment in the evening and have a few beers and chips while i post.. i bought a christmas present for my cat...... new brand of high quality cat food which she tried and she loves..... http://www.royalcanin.ca/products/fn/indoor/mature_en.php.
.
-
-
Ned
Dreaming of Hawaii.
-
1
BIG NEWS! I read it and it is GREAT
by Ned ini refrained from talking, until i read the big news for myself.
the big news article is not just about the molko case.
the big news explains the history of the law in restraining a religion when it goes too far.
-
-
Ned
I refrained from talking, until I read the BIG NEWS for myself.
The BIG NEWS article is not just about the Molko case. The BIG NEWS explains the history of the law in restraining a religion when it goes too far. It is about other cases including Reynolds (Mormon's bigamy case), the Catholic Church sex cases, the PTL case, etc. These cases rule that religious "freedom" goes only so far, and no more. The BIG NEWS is about where government should draw the line on what a religion does - between a religion's actions and the government's interest in family unity, preservation of life, etc. Reynolds, Molko, the Catholic Church sex cases, and the PTL all hold that when the government has a compelling interest, such as family life/saving lives, it will step in to stop the religion in some way. The article discusses how the government should stop a religion. Should it ban the religion or put them in jail? The BIG NEWS does not advocate criminal law or jailing or losing tax exempt status, but advocates the government allow harmed WTS victims to sue the WTS for MONEY for their lies. The WTS will be able to continue, go door-to-door, tout its "no-blood"/Acts arguments, and can even continue misrepresenting medical doctor's words, as long as they are willing to pay MONEY. The BIG NEWS article quotes summarizes Molko on this point, "The California Supreme Court, however, held that the church's deceitful recruitment practices were unprotected, religiously -motivated conduct and therefore subject to court scrutiny. 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 The court concluded that allowing tort relief for misrepresentation only closes "one questionable avenue" for recruiting members. The court reasoned that opening religious organziation to traditional tort liability protects persons from being harmed and is nondiscriminatory since it applies equally to religious and non-religious group."
It's a balancing test between the religion's first amendment rights and the government's right to protect its citizens. The Misrepresentation tort means that when an actor lies and the actor knows or reasonably knows that people will rely on the lies, the actor can be sued...regardless of whether the actor is the WTS ("Dr. X says blood is no good") or the Catholic Church ("Priest Mulhaney is a good family counselor") or the head of Enron ("Enron is financially sound").
The BIG NEWS article then centers on the Tort of Misrepresentation and how the WTS culture plays into why JWs easily accept the WTS's words without question. The BIG NEWS article then concentrates (pages and pages and pages) on 18 or so MISREPRESENTATIONS that are in How Can Blood Save Your Life. Most of these misrepresentations were from medical doctors, but two are court cases. (This discussion is really technical, and I think Marvin should comment on it. I understood some, but not all of it. But, I was just an average JW). The issue is whether the WTS can misquote medical doctor's words, dupe JW's into a false security surrounding those lies, and get away with it. It's not about the JW's right to believe in no-blood, it's about whether the JWs can falsify other people's words on non-religious subjects (history, science, medical journal articles, and court cases).
The BIG NEWS then talks about the whole fraction and antologous blood transfusion issue, and shows just how much the WTS partakes of blood and their reversals of policy. This part really makes the WTS look stupid. It talks about the Factor VIII scandal in Crisis of Conscience and the current confusion about hemoglobin and "current therapy" blood procedures. In the end, Ms. Lauderback writes, "Courts look at the sincerity of the religion's belief. The Society purportedly believes that blood once it has left the body is not to be used again. Contrast this belief against the Society' allowance of blood fractions, hemodilution machines, and "current" therapy transfusions of blood. It is a misrepresentation for the Society to state that it and its followers "abstain from blood." (POWERFUL )
Thank you, Miss Kerry Lauderback-Wood for my Christmas present. (closest I could get to an Xmas tree) The article is right on time given the new blood card and such.
Ned
-
33
The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue?
by Jourles inif you were to ask any witness whether or not the blood doctrine is scripturally or medically based, you would receive the same answer 100% of the time.
"scripturally, of course.
there is one component in particular which shows the wts uses medically based information to cement its postion on what is and what is not allowed for a witness to accept.
-
-
Ned
I refrained from talking, until I read the BIG NEWS for myself.
The BIG NEWS article is not just about the Molko case. The BIG NEWS explains the history of the law in restraining a religion when it goes too far. It is about other cases including Reynolds (Mormon's bigamy case), the Catholic Church sex cases, the PTL case, etc. These cases rule that religious "freedom" goes only so far, and no more. The BIG NEWS is about where government should draw the line on what a religion does - between a religion's actions and the government's interest in family unity, preservation of life, etc. Reynolds, Molko, the Catholic Church sex cases, and the PTL all hold that when the government has a compelling interest, such as saving lives, it will step in to stop the religion in some way. The article discusses how the government should stop a religion. Should it ban the religion or put them in jail? The BIG NEWS does not advocate criminal law or jailing or losing tax exempt status, but advocates the government allow harmed WTS victims to sue the WTS for MONEY for the lies. The WTS will be able to continue, go door-to-door, tout its "no-blood"/Acts arguments, and can even continue misrepresenting medical doctor's words, as long as they are willing to pay money. The BIG NEWS article quotes summarizes Molko on this point, "The California Supreme Court, however, held that the church's deceitful recruitment practices were unprotected, religiously -motivated conduct and therefore subject to court scrutiny. 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 The court concluded that allowing tort relief for misrepresentation only closes "one questionable avenue" for recruiting members. The court reasoned that opening religious organziation to traditional tort liability protects persons from being harmed and is nondiscriminatory since it applies equally to religious and non-religious group."
I guess this means that when any actor lies and the actor knows or reasonably knows that people will rely on the lies, the actor can be sued...regardless of whether the actor is the WTS ("Dr. X says blood is no good") or the Catholic Church (Priest Mulhaney is a good family counselor) or the head of Enron (Enron is financially sound).
The BIG NEWS article then centers on the Tort of Misrepresentation and how the WTS culture plays into why JWs easily accept the WTS's words without question. The BIG NEWS article then concentrates (for pages and pages and pages) about 18 or so MISREPRESENTATIONS that are in How Can Blood Save Your Life. Most of these misrepresentations were from medical doctors, but two are court cases. (This discussion is really technical, and I think Marvin should comment on it. I understood some, but not all of it. But, I was just an average JW - high school and no more). The issue is whether the WTS can misquote medical doctor's words, dupe JW's into a false security surrounding those lies, and get away with it. It's not about the JW's right to believe in no-blood, it's about whether the JWs can falsify other people's words on non-religious subjects (history, science, medical journal articles, and court cases).
The BIG NEWS then talks about the whole fraction and antologous blood transfusion issue, and shows just how much the WTS partakes of blood and their reversals of policy. This part really makes the WTS look stupid. It talks about the Factor VIII scandal in Crisis of Conscience and the current confusion about hemoglobin and "current therapy" blood procedures. In the end, Ms. Lauderback writes, "Courts look at the sincerity of the religion's belief. The Society purportedly believes that blood once it has left the body is not to be used again. Contrast this belief against the Society' allowance of blood fractions, hemodilution machines, and "current" therapy transfusions of blood. It is a misrepresentation for the Society to state that it and its followers "abstain from blood." (POWERFUL )
Thank you, Ms. Kerry Lauderback-Wood for my Christmas present. (closest I could get to an Xmas tree) The article is right on time given the new blood card and such.
Ned
-
35
Brand New Blood Card meeting - Your Blood will run cold.
by hamsterbait ini first noticed that no scriptural discussion of the choice is made, so it all appears to be solely the decision of the signatory.. when choosing alternatives of treatment, the witless merely initials his choice under clauses 3 and 4. since this simply indicates choice, full signature and witness are not required.. .
now clause 6:.
"i consent to my medical records ands the details of my condition being shared with the emergency contact below (cong secretary recommended) and/or with member(s) of the hospital liaison committee for jehovah's witnesses.. .
-
-
Ned
The BIG NEWS is not just about the Molko case. It is about other cases including Reynolds (Mormon's bigamy case), the Catholic Church sex cases, the PTL case, etc. These cases all hold that religious "freedom" goes so far, and no more. It's about where the State should draw the line on what a religion does - between a religion's right to worship and the State's interest in harmony, preservation of life, etc. Only when the State has a compelling interest, such as saving lives (including its citizens & children [i.e. future citizen's]) will it step in to stop a religion. If the WTS quoted medical doctors who mostly agreed with the JW's position, this would not be an issue. The issue is whether the WTS can misquote medical doctor's lives, dupe their followers into a false medical security surrounding those lies, and "get away with it"...when the lies "contribute" to deaths, comas, organ failure, etc.
-
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.
-
-
Ned
The BIG NEWS is not just about the Molko case. It is about other cases including Reynolds (Mormon's bigamy case), the Catholic Church sex cases, the PTL case, etc. These cases all hold that religious "freedom" goes so far, and no more. It's about where the State should draw the line on what a religion does - between a religion's right to worship and the State's interest in harmony, preservation of life, etc. Only when the State has a compelling interest, such as saving lives (including children's [i.e. future citizen's]) will it step in to stop a religion. If the WTS quoted medical doctors who mostly agreed with the JW's position, this would not be an issue. The issue is whether the WTS can misquote medical doctor's lives, dupe their followers into a false medical security surrounding those lies, and "get away with it?"
Jeff Riedel / GQ via Reuters Wafah Dufour, niece of Osama bin Laden, poses in an undated photo taken during a photo session for the January 2006 issue of GQ Magazine.