Well I agree to disagree A-1914, but that is just my opinion as meger as it is. There are still many cases that cite the cases involving JWs and their stand against saluting the flag. This is still an issue today for atheists. Or the boy scott who did not want to salute the flag. Also, the issue of the freedom to gather and speak. Yes, there is case law out there that was furthered by JWs.
Guys, before I get lynched by this mob, I am not saying JWs are the group that will hearld the presence of the king. What I am saying is that people are quick to stand up and scream and bemoan the religion without giving the religion credit for certain things. Do independent research - go into Westlaw or Lexis do research and see what comes up. There is still law on the books that JWs put there and is still being cited by non-JWs to this day.
But again, why do I have to say it is all or nothing. Why can't I say ... this religion has provided for laws that are on the books that support freedom to gather in a public place; freedom to go door to door; freedom to not salute the flag; freedom to refuse a medical procedure unless I otherwise consent to it. These are all aspects of human life that affect us all.
And again, before people are all up in arms over the "medical procedure" comment, I am not saying I agree w/ the no blood issue, but what I am saying it that the fact that I have the RIGHT to refuse any medical treatment, is a right I am glad I have. There was a case medical malpractice law firms (plaintiffs and defense) followed closely that argued whether an HMO had the right to refuse to pay for what is deemed as alternative medicine, the case started when a JW went the no blood route and the HMO decided it was not an "approved" method of treatment under their policy and they rejected payment. The matter went to court and was won on behalf of the plaintiff. I am glad that JW did that, why because I don't want my medical provider to tell me what is right for ME and my body. I get the final say, not them and my insurance should cover it regardless.
I studied Freud and I think he was a perv, but that does not mean that I do not agree with many of his theories or studies that he performed. I guess to me I like to try to think outside the JW box. I am sure there are situations where you may not agree with a person, but you are able to separate out the person from the idea. There are people or organizations that I do not agree with, but if they have allowed for the beginning steps towards other freedoms, then I give that group credit for it. That does not mean that I agree with the group and/or practice of the group.
LL - I agree there are aspects of the religion that are hideous. That is why I am not a JW and do not participate in their activies. There are people in the religion that are horrible humans for the things they either participated in or had knowledge of. Those people should be held up and in particular people who held a position of authority should be held to a higher degree of responsibility and criminal action should be taken against them. I am not down playing any of that.
But before I buy into another man's rage against the machine, I want to know the historical factors involved and I had assumed that was Ak was trying to do as well. I would still encourage anyone to look into the historical background of anyone who is trying to tell the "history" of something. Why, because if someone has an ax to grind, they may miss the history of it all.
To me it is like when I was in school and I was taught the American Indians were all wicked and all they did was skin the white man. Why did I think that, because it was in my history books in school, was it historical, well I have come to believe something else. After reading other historical books (not those pushed in the American school system) and using my brain I came up with my own opinion. There were groups that were warriors and they were fighters, there were groups that were slaughtered by the white man. Was I around to know that history, NO. Could I find anyone around to give me that history, NO. But I read all I could to figure it out for myself. I am not trying to sway a person one way or another. I am trying to say, read all you can from all angles and make up your own mind.
Further, it was my understanding that the thread was started by asking if Schnell's works were in some ways fictionalized or truthful and how to confirm those things. One person responded by saying - you should read my writings. I thought AK was asking for eye witnesses to these allegations. Not what other people's impressions were, but then again, I could be wrong.
As a side note - please do not take anything that I say here as a discredit for any position or personal experience that another person has had. I do not wish to minimize anything that is posted here by another poster.
Peace to all.
