Posts by GinnyTosken

13

Moscow and France cracks down on the Jehovah's Wit

by Kent in

jw
friends

hi folks;.

take a look at http://watchtower.observer.org.

the latest news is that moscow and france have decided not to accept the jehovah's witnesses after all.. a victory for common sense!.

GinnyTosken

From Cults Outlawed by the Assembly
Libération, May 31, 2001, by Daniel Licht

By this France places itself at the forefront of countries endowed with specific legislation against cultish deviances. With major innovations, such as power conferred on the legal system to definitively dissolve and to forbid the reestablishment of condemned groups. Often controlling prolific financing, cults will also be pounded in the pocketbook. The text plans to condemn at a fine of 5 million francs ( 760 000 euro) [$643,987.80 USD] and five years of imprisonment for the leaders of groups whose activities consist in maintaining or in exploiting "the psychological or physical subjection of the persons who participate in these activities."

. . . The representatives abandoned the "offence of mental manipulation," an idea which had been denounced by officials of various denominations and by the National Consultative Commission of Human Rights. By retaining the older idea--one that harks back to the Napoleonic Code--of "deceitful abuse of a state of ignorance or of weakness," the Assembly makes a success of a subtle tightrope walk between repression of intellectual swindles, attacks on the dignity of the individual, and respect for freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. "We are by no means condemning beliefs. We simply target all groups that step outside the frame of the law under various pretexts, be they spiritual, ethnological,or philosophic, and that commit extortions with regard to the penal code," clarifies Catherine Picard.

rough translation from: http://www.multimania.com/tussier/rev0105.htm#31

Ginny

NOTE: I have used the word “cult” to translate the French word “secte.” Here’s why:
There is need for some clarification on terminology. In English, the erm "cult" is widely understood to be a pejorative term, whereas "sect" more generally refers to a branch or division within a religion. In French, the term "culte" is a neutral term that refers to religious bodies, whereas "secte" generally now is employed as a pejorative term (although it also has a technical meaning). When "secte" is used by Francophone governments, whether in France, Belgium, or the French-speaking areas of Switzerland, it is understood to be a derogatory term. In German, "Sekten" generally has the same negative connotations as the French "sectes." Thus the more accurate translation of the German "Sekten" and the French "sectes," is the English word "cults."
From ttp://www.house.gov/international_relations/full/relminor/gunn.htm

8

A house for yourself or for the Lord?

by Norm in

jw
friends

how to con people.

have you built a house for yourself before building one for the lord?

i have to admit i have never taken the lord into consideration when i have tried to get a place to live.

GinnyTosken

This is too much! I can't believe "David" actually said, "Howdy, Judge!"

And, of course, these ancient worthies would show up in perfect "modern garb," speaking English. This would probably have been tough on poor ol' John the Baptist, though. "What? Corn flakes! Where's the honey and locusts I ordered?"

I can just picture Samson taking a driver's education course. One can only hope that the Judge thoughtfully removed any shaving implements from Samson's room.

Ginny

8

A house for yourself or for the Lord?

by Norm in

jw
friends

how to con people.

have you built a house for yourself before building one for the lord?

i have to admit i have never taken the lord into consideration when i have tried to get a place to live.

GinnyTosken

I think it's a hoot that if Abraham, Joseph, or David had shown up, they would have had to present legal identification to the "proper officers" of the Society:

Any persons appearing to take possession of said premises shall first prove and identify themselves to the proper officers of said Society as the person or persons described in Hebrews chapter eleven and in this deed.

It would have been great to be alive back then and show up at the doorstep of Beth Sarim dressed like Abraham and Sarah! I can just picture it:

Abraham: Howdy, Judge! Thanks for takin' care of my house. After you take our bags up to our rooms, can you put the camels in the garage and give them a little feed?
Da Judge: Ummm, Abraham, I'm afraid I need to see some identification. Do you have a driver's license? Social security card? Birth certificate?
(Abraham feels around in his pockets and saddlebags.)
Abraham: I have this marriage license. (Hands it to Da Judge)
Da Judge: (Puts on his glasses and looks at the document) This is in Hebrew! Freddieeee!
Freddie: (in Peter Lorre voice) You called, boss?
Da Judge: What does this say?
Freddie: It says that Abram married Sarai in 1984 B.C.E.
Da Judge: Obvious frauds! You, sir, claim to be "Abraham," not "Abram."
Abraham: Jehovah changed my name.
Da Judge: Can you prove it? Do you have documentation?
Sarah: (Tugging on Abraham's sleeve) Hagar says she has to pee again.
Abraham: (To Sarah) Tell her to go off in the bushes! (To Da Judge) Well, uh, it's in the Bible.
Da Judge: I'm afraid I need an official Certificate of Name Change, dear man.
Abraham: Sarah and I did file them. I didn't keep copies, though.
Da Judge: I see. Where were you living at the time? Perhaps we can check the court records?
Abraham: Well, we were near Sodom . . .
Da Judge: Ah, I see. Those records were destroyed by a divine conflagration. How convenient. Now you get yourself and your women and your camels off of my--I mean Jehovah's--lawn before I am forced to call the authorities! And be sure to clean up after those camels as you leave.

Ginny

60

jws hassle 3 yr old

by Blackcat in

jw
friends

seems the jws are getting desprate for recruits, an article from a localpaper....... http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/story3.html thought you all would be interested!

!

GinnyTosken

I am trying to understand the varying opinions in this thread. It would help me if we replayed the newspaper scenario. I'd like to hear what you think should have happened.

The children are pictured in the article as sitting on a brick wall. I assume they were playing in what we in America call the front yard. Their mother was inside, upstairs. Apparently she felt it was safe to leave her children unattended in the front yard.

The article says:

Little Bethany Groom, six, and three-year-old Jim Herring, were playing on their own in their mother’s Hartlepool front garden when the two women approached. They talked to the youngsters before handing them literature from the fundamentalist Christian sect.

Should the women have skipped that house to avoid speaking to unattended children in the yard? Should they have knocked on the door without saying anything to the children? Left the magazine in the door, too? What did the women say?

The article also says:

Jane was upstairs when she spotted the two Jehovah’s Witnesses – both women in their 40s – talking to her children in the front garden. She immediately ran downstairs and jumped in her car to catch up with the pair.

This raises questions in my mind. How did the two women get so far away by the time the mom came downstairs? Did it take her awhile to question her children, figure out who these women were, strap the children in the car, and go after them?

From reading the article, the mother's main concern is that the women approached children playing in their own space. She also seems to dislike the idea of anyone proselytizing from door-to-door. What does the mother want? For no one to come up her front walk while the children are outside playing? Or is it okay to come up the front walk as long as you say nothing to the children?

I just don't know what to make of all this. On any given day, my son may be playing out front and meet Mormons, the exterminator, the guy who mows the lawn, and neighbors walking by. It seems a bit extreme to be offended if any of these strangers speak to him.

Maybe I'm not cautious enough. I just don't know.

Ginny

15

Jezebel Spirit

by rodnico in

jw
friends

my mother was labeled as having a jezebel spirit.

although she regular pioneered most all of her life.

she was out spoken and remained unmarried so she had no spiritual head.

GinnyTosken

While I was a JW, only one JW man was brave (or stupid) enough to ask me out on a date. My father desperately tried to coach me in toning down the Jezebel spirit.

According to Dad:

I should always let this man drive my car when we were together. A woman driving a car with a man as a passenger is a sure sign of a Jezebel. Never mind that this guy once forgot that my car was an automatic, parked it in neutral, and I returned to find that it had rolled down the hill in the parking lot.
I should never make any sarcastic remarks to this guy, no matter how funny or witty. Sarcasm, especially directed at males, is a sure sign of a Jezebel.
I could, however, pay for dinners occasionally when we went out. That was helping support a poor pioneer, not a sign of a Jezebel.
When this guy asked me, I should take his suits to the dry cleaners and pick them up for him. Not helping with laundry is a sure sign of a Jezebel.
I should never correct this man publicly. To do so would completely shatter his fragile male ego, a sure sign of a heartless Jezebel. However, he was free to tell our whole car-group that my dress made me look like a schoolmarm.
I could never, never admit that I might be more knowledgeable on any subject than he was. Instead, I must cleverly phrase my statements so that it would appear he knew them all along. Being smarter than a man on any subject is a sure sign of a Jezebel.
No weeping or nagging. Definitely no haircuts.
Practice looking up at him admiringly, as does the woman in yellow on page 243 of the You Can Live Forever in Paradise book. Keeping your head lower than his is not a bad idea either. (Last tidbit gleaned from the movie "The King and I.") Looks of irritated disgust and mumbling "what an idiot" are sure signs of a Jezebel.

Despite my father's tireless efforts, the genetic legacy of my red-fingernailed mother won out. I drove my own car, didn't pick up the dry cleaning, and made one sarcastic comment too many. My pioneer suitor dumped me for a more tractable blonde.

Ginny

60

jws hassle 3 yr old

by Blackcat in

jw
friends

seems the jws are getting desprate for recruits, an article from a localpaper....... http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/story3.html thought you all would be interested!

!

GinnyTosken

I am torn on this subject.

My first reaction after reading the thread was, "Would these folks have reacted as strongly if the article had been about two Pentecostal women handing out flyers to invite children to Vacation Bible School?" This has happened in our neighborhood, and while irritated, I didn't want to beat up these women for talking to my son.

I very much dislike the bus that comes around on Sunday mornings to pick up children for church. It is painted with cartoon characters and looks like an ice cream truck. As I see it, it is my responsibility to explain how this works, just as I've explained that junk cereal is bad for him, even if it comes in a cool box with a prize inside.

When I was a JW, I spoke to children in their yards and at the door. I often asked, "Are your parents at home?" My intentions certainly weren't evil, and I had no idea I was violating one of the guidelines about strangers, such as those I found on: http://www.safechild.org/strangers.htm

To me, a lot depends on what the JW women said to the children. Did they knock on the door? Ring a doorbell that didn't work? Maybe the mom didn't hear? As I once ignorantly did, did they ask the children, "Is your mom at home?" Was she busy vacuuming? Did the women give the children a magazine or tract to give to the mother later? I could see myself doing all those things.

Did the women not ask for a parent? Did the women try to actively recruit? "Would you like to live in paradise some day?" If so, I don't like this at all.

I am torn because I grew up with a fear of strangers. As I was walking home from school when I was six, a man motioned me over to his car. "Come here. I have something to show you." I imagined he had bought a doll as a present for his daughter and was so happy and eager that he just had to show some other little girl this wonderful present. I walked over to the car window and looked down at the seat. There was no doll; only the man's unzipped pants and penis.

What is ironic is that I fled from this man only to be helped by other strangers. Back then, stores and offices would put a sign with a red hand in the window to designate a safe place for children. I found a helpful adult stranger, and she called the police.

This experience coupled with the JW indoctrination about the evils of worldly people led me to distrust just about everyone for the next 20 years. I was constantly wary and on guard at the park, at the beach, anywhere. I envied my friends who seemed relaxed, confident, and secure in their surroundings. I knew perverts and "carnies" (as my mom called the transients who came to town with the carnival) were everywhere.

I don't know the answer to the dilemma of helping a child to be aware of the dangers in this world without making him fearful and paranoid. I wish there could be some balance. I don't think it was good to be as tense and afraid as I was growing up. I don't want to paint any group of people black. Catholics sometimes harbor pedophiles, too, but I don't keep my son away from all Catholics.

As for religion, I don't bar my parents from speaking to my son about their beliefs. I've talked with him about my once being one of Jehovah's Witnesses and why I left. I've even considered taking him to a meeting, so he could see what it is like. If I didn't work weekends, I'd make the rounds to many different churches, mosques, and synagogues. If he gets a religious education, I'd rather he get it from me. I'd rather talk about these ideas than censor any of them. I trust that when he is old enough, he will choose wisely.

Ginny

33

Song parody: Beverly Hillbillies

by Seeker in

jw
friends

[sung to the tune of the beverly hillbillies].

come and listen to a story about a man named chuck.

a rich presbyter, he was about to lose his luck,.

GinnyTosken

In my wanderings on the net this morning, I happened upon yet another parody called "Heavenly Killbilly":

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/kill.htm#10

Of course, I immediately thought of this thread.

Here are two sample stanzas. The web site is more fun though, since you get to actually hear the music while you read.

Ginny

Well the first thang you know He’s got a garden with a pair
O’ critters in the spittin’ image of Hisself, and also bare.
But a snake said, "Eat the apple and you’ll be so heavenlee",
So they both took a bite and made God so utterlee...
(mad that is, snortin’ fire, throwin’ thangs)
So He moved ‘em out the garden and he told ‘em to have kids,
And He thought, "It's good I fixed their private parts the way I did."
Soon His earth was full o’ people, but them folks was mighty bad
And it didn’t take too long before the Lord was good and mad.
(agin that is, plum steamed, hissy fit)

12

Red Religion and the Lawless Man

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

ive been sorting through my old jw books and found one published in 1951, what has religion done for mankind?.

skimming through it, a few sections caught my eye.. the societys comments about the dangers of the totalitarian red religion of communism are hilarious, since they easily apply to the society itself.

substitute russell, rutherford, knorr, and franz for marx, engels, lenin, and stalin, and brooklyn for moscow, and voila!.

GinnyTosken

Bill,

I grew up with the orange Paradise book, published in 1958. I vividly recall several pictures showing people of many races, including one depicting an Afro-American couple outside the Kingdom Hall.

As I said, I saw no evidence of prejudice at my Kingdom Hall. Thus my surprise when I found the quotation from What Has Religion Done for Mankind?, published a scant seven years earlier, in 1951. At the very least, this is a vestige of racial attitudes from the Russell/Rutherford days. I found it surprising because I thought the Society was always enlightened about racial equality; I had no idea the Society ever expressed racist views.

I'm still reeling from Russell's idea that dark-skinned people would turn white. From Russell's standpoint, Michael Jackson would be a sign that kingdom rule is at hand.

Ginny

12

Red Religion and the Lawless Man

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

ive been sorting through my old jw books and found one published in 1951, what has religion done for mankind?.

skimming through it, a few sections caught my eye.. the societys comments about the dangers of the totalitarian red religion of communism are hilarious, since they easily apply to the society itself.

substitute russell, rutherford, knorr, and franz for marx, engels, lenin, and stalin, and brooklyn for moscow, and voila!.

GinnyTosken

I must say, I never paid much attention to charges of racism against the Society simply because I never saw such attitudes among my own congregation while growing up. In fact, I prided myself that lack of prejudice was one of the few good things I carried away from my JW experience.

After finding this quote, I did a search on the net for "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "racism." I found a very good article on Randy Watters' site called "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks and Discrimination" by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. at: http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm

I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

The subject of race is not a topic the Watchtower has spent an enormous amount of time discussing. Nonetheless, a large number of official statements in their publications clearly reflect their racist attitudes. For example, an October 15, 1919, Golden Age article about prohibition (p. 44) stated, "from a criminal viewpoint the desirability of sobering the southern negro speaks volumes for national prohibition." Another article refers to Orientals as "coolies" who were "cutthroats and murderers" (Golden Age, March 10, 1926, p. 374). Many articles, though, are much more direct. One states that the British Empire nations are all ruled by Whites, whom the Watchtower describes as having "superior mental, moral, or physical force" and that this superiority is disappearing because the "powers of the colored races are expanding" (May 5, 1926:483). A Golden Age article vehemently condemned a book sympathetic to blacks, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which it called "the work of Satan" and they even once stated that the Spaniards were a "backward" race (Bolling, 1927:141). The racism is also obvious in statements such as "careful observations in a London school showed that children enjoyed the heartiest laughs, not from slapstick comedies, but from [such activities as] ... watching a negro miner enjoying a square meal" (Golden Age, 1928:684).

I was also surprised to learn that "formal segregation of blacks was once rigidly enforced in their organization, both during the rule of their first president, C.T. Russell (1852-1916) and their second, Joseph F. Rutherford (1869-1942) and even until the late 1950's." It was even thought for awhile that in the New Order, dark-skinned people would be changed into whites. Arrrgghhh.

Ginny

12

Red Religion and the Lawless Man

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

ive been sorting through my old jw books and found one published in 1951, what has religion done for mankind?.

skimming through it, a few sections caught my eye.. the societys comments about the dangers of the totalitarian red religion of communism are hilarious, since they easily apply to the society itself.

substitute russell, rutherford, knorr, and franz for marx, engels, lenin, and stalin, and brooklyn for moscow, and voila!.

GinnyTosken

I’ve been sorting through my old JW books and found one published in 1951, What Has Religion Done for Mankind?. Skimming through it, a few sections caught my eye.

The Society’s comments about the dangers of the totalitarian “red religion” of communism are hilarious, since they easily apply to the Society itself. Substitute Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, and Franz for Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and Brooklyn for Moscow, and voila!

To give you a little background, in 1951 McCarthyism was hot, J.D. Salinger had just published The Catcher in the Rye, The African Queen and A Streetcar Named Desire were new movies, and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine" was a popular song.

From the chapter, “Red Religion and the Lawless Man”:

One totalitarian system fears another such. One modern development that has thoroughly frightened the totalitarian religious system of the pope, yes, and all Christendom too, has been the rise of totalitarian political power in Eastern Europe. . . .
Because they deny his existence, the Reds may deny they worship the Devil. But they have set up a state religion by requiring the people to give their unquestioning obedience to the political state as their highest counselor, guide, provider and protector. In this they attribute to the state what really belongs to the living and true God, Jehovah. For him they have substituted a man-made visible organization. . . . As its Holy Scriptures Communism has the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, who are spoken of as inspired writers. “Inspired” by whom?
Carrying our comparison farther, we note that Communism has its missionaries . . . It has its priesthood or hierarchy, that Politburo with all its lesser orders of functionaries for the guidance of the people in Communist orthodoxy and with power to demand and hear confessions and to issue excommunications, to forbid heretical literature and to censor and expurgate books, magazines, movies, stage plays, poetic and musical compositions. It has its shrines and pilgrimages. Moscow parallels the Mohammedan Mecca.
[bolding mine]
pp. 317-318

I was also rather shocked to discover that the Society evidently still believed in 1951 that African-Americans were a race cursed by God:

The infant Krishna, or black god, is represented in India at the breast of the goddess Devaki and is shown with woolly hair and marked Negro features. How well this matches Nimrod who was the son of Cush, whose name means “black”!
p. 194

In a chapter called, “Compromise with Demonism a Snare,” the Society explains that when you know you have the truth, killing those who don’t believe as you do is not genocide or intolerance:

[Previous paragraph quotes Deuteronomy 7:1-5, about how the Israelites shall utterly destroy the Canaanites.]
But was this not the rankest kind of religious intolerance as well as genocide? Is this not the kind of intolerance that is practiced in lands today under totalitarian and dictatorial rule? Not at all! This was the divine command and it was in favor of keeping the pure religion alive in the land God gave. The pure and the false could not exist side by side without hurt to his people and danger to their opportunity for eternal life in the new world. They had agreed to worship only Jehovah as God, and he was giving them the Promised Land to possess. Hence he had the sovereign right to determine what should be done to demon religion in the land. . . .
Hence the extermination of the demon worshipers in the Promised Land was no case of religious intolerance. It was not an authorizing of them to go outside the God-given land and invade the outside worldly nations and destroy their idols and wipe out their false religion and all those who practiced it. Neither is this any Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic religion to torture and kill so-called “heretics” in lands where it dominates and to forbid other religious sects to carry on there. In doing so Catholics are not copying the Israelites example. History shows that in the lands they have invaded they have not obeyed God’s commands to the Israelites to smash the idolatrous images there and to destroy the demon worshipers.
[bolding mine]
pp. 155-157

I was aghast that they fault the Catholics for not being harsh enough!

Ginny