Posts by Justitia Themis

4

Who's got the PDF of the July 15th study Edition?

by kzjw in

i'd like to add it to my collection...also, has anyone ever considered offering it to a ms or elder?

do you think it would piss them off?

I'm sick of my instructor so much I want to quit college!!!!

by FreedomFrog in

i'm not gonna quit, though i have the strong desire to do so.

we're in week 7 and my grade sucks in this class.

i understand most of it but he is so picky that no matter how well written there is always so many points taken off.

I suggest you have your assignments reveiwed by the writing lab before you submit them. While you may be irritated with him, your instructor is doing you a favor; writing is an incredibly useful skill is today's workforce.

Justitia

35

Is Your Life THAT Much Better Off Since Leaving The Witnesses?

by minimus in

jw
friends

witnesses love to say how "miserable" the "apostates" are when they .

leave "the truth".. how would you respond to this statement from your own personal experience?

?.

Justitia Themis

I am much, much happier. In fact, when I run into witnesses and they ask me how I am doing, I respond with a hearty, "I am THRIVING!" They never seem to have much of a response.

Justitita

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Justitia Themis

Amazing, if it is so awful at Channel C, you should be glad to be gone. Who would want to waste his or her time as a site such as you described. Perhaps a more emotionally balanced response is to "quietly" leave Channel C, without looking for another forum in which to air your anger towards them.

Recommendation: move on, get over it.

280

California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage

by BenV in

jw
friends

just got this email!.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

ben (celebratin' with friends).

Justitia Themis

The state supreme court based it's decision on "civil rights" and the equal treatment to all people -- not in defining marriage. Regarding domestic partnerships vs. marriage -- it's the old smoke-and-mirrors of "separate but equal."

Re: the legislature. Two gay marriage bills passed the state assembly and senate during different sessions -- both of them were vetoed by the Republican governor.

From where do you suppose a citizen derives his or her "civil rights?" From the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In lay terms, what the Court said is that marriage is a constitutional civil right, an opinion with which I, and many others, vigorously disagree. Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Just because the concept of "separate but equal" proved untrue in Brown v. Board of Education does not mean that the concept is proscribed in every circumstance. Those separate black schools were not equal; they were grossly underfunded. However, laws protecting domestic partnerships provide equal protection. If you feel California law provides a benefit to married persons that is denied to domestic partnerships, I am open to seeing your documentation.

California law as it stands right now protects domestic partnerships and its children in the same manner as marriage. A governor, and his or her veto power, is part of our checks and balances. IF this is something Californians truly want, they can rally the numbers to overcome the veto. If not, then that means it is a Californian minority who desire the legislation, not a majority.

280

California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage

by BenV in

jw
friends

just got this email!.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.

ben (celebratin' with friends).

Justitia Themis

My youngest daughter just finished her first year of law school in California, and the students have been debating this on the discussion boards. I am against the ruling, but not because I am anti-homosexual. Frankly, the Court is overstepping its legal boundaries, which does not serve to benefit it or democracy.

California has the most lenient domestic partnership laws in the nation; married persons, and their children, have no more protection under law than domestic partners, regardless of whether they are homo or heterosexual domestic partners. For the courts to 'find" marriage in the Constitution is shameful; the Constitution does NOT speak of marriage in any stretch of the imagination. When the Court steps outside its boundaries, it serves only to constrain its stature.

This is a subject that should be reserved for the legislature.

47

Respond ONLY if you are an Elder or Ministerial Servant

by Hiddenwindow in

jw
friends

how many elders and ms are in this forum?

let's have a survey.

an elder here..

Justitia Themis

As others have eloquently scribed, you may wish to alter your authoritative tone on this DB. Please remember that your power-base and authority as an appointed man in the JW community was/is fictitious.

Regards,

Justitia (female, so neither an E or MS)

2

The Cult of the Presidency

by JeffT in

the cult of the presidency lead[-].

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126020.html.

the cult of the presidencywho can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power?

Justitia Themis

In times of war or conflict, power always flows to the executive branch. When times become more peaceful, Congress reasserts itself. One has to look no further than the extraordinary powers enjoined upon the Cold War presidents to see that this is nothing new.

However, I do agree with the premise that the public needs to be more aware and proactive. I just finished reading, "Soft News and Foreign Policy: How Expanding the Audience Changes the Policies," by Matthew A. Baum. As you might expect, more and more Americans are getting their political "information" from soft news sources, e.g., The Insider, Access Hollywood, The Daily Show, instead of the traditional "hard news" shows, e.g., Meet the Press, Face the Nation. Soft news consumers are markedly less educated and prefer 'cheap framing' and "sensationalized human drama."

This new genre is changing the political landscape. "Survey data reflect this pattern (Baum, 2003). For instance, when Gallup (1998) asked respondents to name the major problems facing the nation, soft news consumers without a college education were substantially more likely than their non-soft-news consuming or college-educated counterparts to mention issues involving foreign affairs/national security, terrorism, crime, scandal, or morality. These are the primary topics of most soft news outlets (Baum, 2003; Media Monitor, 1997)...Between 1966 and 1998, non-college-educated NES respondents grew increasingly likely to mention 'major problems' involving foreign affairs/national defense or public order--the latter of which primarily entails crime, morality, and scandal--and less likely to mention other types of political issues. This pattern weakens as education increases; among college-educated respondents there is no discernable trend (Baum, 2003). This evidence is circumstantial. Yet, these trends are precisely what one would anticipate if the rise of the soft news media had altered the content of political information attended to by relatively apolitical members of the public, while the nature and extent of information consumed by their more-politically engaged counterparts remained largely unchanged."

As a result, voting behavior has changed. People are much more interested in a 'likeable' candidate. "Millions of voters, in turn, base their votes more on candidates' personal characteristics--the predominate emphasis of soft news shows--than their policy positions, upon which traditional news outlets place relatively greater emphasis."

143

President Obama and a Democrat Congress Will....

by owenfieldreams in

jw
friends

1) raise taxes, and not just capital gains.

income taxes will be raised as well.

and if you make more than $200k/yr, you are "rich", and defined as such you will get soaked; thus, you will have little incentive to keep earning what you do now,--the opportunity to make a nice profit will simply not be there....and all of us working stiffs fortunate enough to make over $50 k/ yr, you better hold on to your wallets as well... we are going to pay for the social security bailout.

Justitia Themis

We're going to cover EVERYONE, including illegals/immigrants--guess who's going to pay for it?

NEWSFLASH!!!! We already do...it's called the emergency room. And we ALL pay for it in higher insurance premiums. You do realize, I hope, that the US is the only industrialized country without some form of national healthcare. They have adopted such plans, not because they are more socially minded than we are, but because such policies are cheaper in the long run.

63

WHAT MADE YOU LEAVE? Doctrine or people?

by chuckyy in

hi.. just wondering what made you take the final leap out of the org?

was it doctrinal in that certain things just didnt add up or was it because of the actions of people in the org.

that made you leave?

Justitia Themis

I'm a very evidenced-based person...so doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. People are pretty much the same in all organizations, religious and otherwise.