i just joined overeaters anonymous to deal with my eating issues.
has anyone joined aa & did it help you?
i just don't like how they tend to talk about god all the time.
I am in AA, sober for 3 years. It does work, though i had issues with the god thing at the beginning i soon came to learn that athiests and agnostics can work a 12 step program too.
My suggestion would be just to concentrate and read around step 1 before trying to comprehend the rest of the program.
i have had to make some very difficult decisions in recent days.
in one way i feel good about takeing care of myself and my mother who is on her dead bed in the room next to me.
mom has live with me since 2005 and started to make her journey to the other side on christmas day.
Roberta, my apologies if i spoke out of turn. You now whats best and sounds like you have her best interests at heart. I wish you well at this time.
i have had to make some very difficult decisions in recent days.
in one way i feel good about takeing care of myself and my mother who is on her dead bed in the room next to me.
mom has live with me since 2005 and started to make her journey to the other side on christmas day.
If it's what your mother wants and you think there may be some arguing or tension between her and her grandchildren, or you feel that by them discussing religion around her it isn't what she wants and would create further tension then you are doing the right thing.
But your posts seem to come from the angle that it is about you and your rules, along with your feelings on the way you have been treated by them. I may have it wrong and its just the way i read it, but to me not allowing them in (if she wants it) is stooping to their level of conditional love for family, maybe its a way you're gaining the upper hand or power over them again. Personally i believe there is more power in being dignified toward them.
One of my greatest memories is seeing my grandmother in her last few days surrounded by family, many children and many, many grandchildren. There is a split in our family, not JW related, but a split nonetheless ... yet in front of her this split was put aside for her. It was different in another part of the house where the split was evident, but in front of her, in her room, we all knew it was her last days and wanted to spend our last moments with her. Many of those moments she was laughing.
I'm sorry if i come across as harsh, that isn't my intention and i'll not post anymore on the matter or this thread as its obviously a difficult time, I just think in moments like this the focus should be about her last days and her family, rather than the focus being about whats going on between yourselves.
i have had to make some very difficult decisions in recent days.
in one way i feel good about takeing care of myself and my mother who is on her dead bed in the room next to me.
mom has live with me since 2005 and started to make her journey to the other side on christmas day.
I am sorry to hear of your situation.
My viewpoint is that you should allow the family to see her, unless she has stipulated that she doesn't want to see them. By doing that you would be rising above the way they have treated you in the past. I think you should examine your motives as to why you will not allow them to see her, whether it is out of concern for your mother or revenge and a way to get back at them for the way they have treated you. By having your mother living with you for the few years that she has, then surely there should be an expectation that she should see her grandchildren on her deathbed.
I really feel in this most difficult of times that you should put your anonymosity to one side and rise above the way have treated you in the past. At present you are just giving them the justification for the way they have treated you.
If i were on my deathbed i'd want to see my grandchildren.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
What about my tax that I've paid? Do I have a choice as to how it gets spent?
You do with GiftAid.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
You obviously haven't read my posts. The WTBTS of Britain and 1,400 congregations have charitable status, not the Jehovahs Witness religion to which the petition question refers. Not your imagination, just a lack of understanding.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
Blabaman, I'm not going to repeat myself, you've obviously not read my posts or you wouldn't be asking the questions you have.
The fact that you have quoted all of the public benefit requirements, rather than highlight the relevant ones shows that you have misunderstood. Further, the fact that you cannot understand how GiftAid works even though Ernest has explained to you also demonstrates a lack of ability to grasp basic points.
I rather suspect these misunderstandings are based on emotion which is understandable, however Parliament works on objectivity which is lacking in the petition.
I wish you and Cedars well with attempting to get Jehovahs Witnesses charitable status revoked, even though they do not have one.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
Cedars, you continue to misquote me.
I have not said that the advancement of religion automatically is considered to be in the public benefit. I have also not said the 'public benefit' requirement does not exist, but rather that it does not exist under the Charities Act 2006.
I don't know what's not to understand, I have stated that the public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006 as stated in the petition question, you then proceed to quote me from the Charities Act 2011 to show that it is. By quoting from the Charities Act 2011 can you not see that this replaces those words in the Charities Act 2006? You then provide a link to 'prove' the public benefit exists in the Charities Act 2006 by providing a link to the 2011 Act. Which is the very thing i said in the first place, that the Charities Act 2006 should not be used.
If you wish to research this further as I have no inclination to seeing that I am continually being misquoted, then you may also wish to consider Charities Act 2011 s3(m)(i) and rather than make a presumption of whether a religion is in the public benefit, check 'under the old law' Thornton v Howe (1862) that publications of a religion (in this case that she was impregnated by the Holy Ghost) are construed to be in the public benefit by mere fact that they are available to the public and ask whether this is applicable to the WTBTS of Britain.
As I am being misquoted I have no interest to further this discussion and wish you well in this endeavour.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
"public benefit is no longer in existence"
Care to clarify the above statement?
Public benefit is no longer in existence under the Charities Act 2006.
That's a very narrow interpretation of what public benefit means. Care to back it up with, er... I dunno - references? I doubt you will be able to.
Charities Act 2011 s2(1)(a) and s3(1)(c)
Again, can you provide evidence or confirm actual experience in the parliamentary process to confirm that petitions are regularly thrown out if the wording doesn't precisely specify the legal entities against which the petition has been made, i.e. (in this case) entities representative of Jehovah's Witnesses? It seems I would credit MPs with more intelligence in determining the subtance of the petition and acting upon it than you would.
Taken from HM Government e- petition Terms and Conditions ...
"If an e petition does not include a clear statement explaining what action you want the government to take, it will be rejected."
If you care to look at the e petitions rejected there have been 15,772 for one reason or another, though how many for not including a clear statement I haven't the time to go through.
not long left... closes 20/02/2013 @ 08:01am.
vote now!.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29949 .
I didn't say public benefit is no longer a consideration, I said it is no longer in existence under the Charites Act 2006. Please read my words you have cut and paste and not put them in your own words. The Charities Act 2011 now applies which also has a public benefit requirement (hence why it's on the website). To confirm this read the piece of legislation itself.
In this instance however, we are talking about the public benefit of advancing religion which English Law sees as a good thing, better than no religion is it's view.
The assumption that MP's would be 'getting the gist' is wrong. They will not debate a different issue (however minor in your view) as to what's been petitioned. Parliamentary time is tight and they will not alter incorrectly worded petitions, you cannot have on the one hand 100,000 people petition one set of facts, but on the other MP's debate something different, that is not how Parliament works.
As for me 'nitpicking', being 'vehemently opposed' or 'trying to undermine the petition for some unknown reason', an ad hominem does tend to shift the focus from the mistakes that have been made here.
