Posts by DT

40

My article on Russia's ban of JW's

by honorsthesis in

i am a columinst for cornell university's "the diplomacist".

i recently wrote an article on the various troubles jehovah's witnesses are facing in russia.

i try to make the point that, even if you do not support the witnesses (and most don't) you should support freedom of thought, expression and religion.. if you are interested in checking it out, here it is: "snuffing out religious freedom in russia".

DT

Honorsthesis,

Thanks for the link and your efforts to inform people about this important topic. I hope the passionate reaction to your post doesn't hurt your feelings. The problem is that most of us do greatly value freedom of religion and conscience to the point of sacrificing our entire family and social network for the privilege of thinking for ourselves.

I have trouble hiding my satisfaction at seeing the Watchtower Society punished for it's crimes. (I do, however, hate to see the members who are under the influence of mind control persecuted.) I realize that there are legitimate concerns about how the Russian government is handling this. I would rather see the Watchtower Society legalised and taxed while provisions are made to make it easier for former and current members to sue for violations of their rights. I can't think of a better way to convince them to start withdrawing from a country.

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

DT

"I watched a short film on AMC that I enjoyed. The Red Balloon, about a baloon that befriends a child."

That is a great film. We can agree on that at least.

I'm sorry this thread has caused you so much distress. It has caused me some distress too. I feel like innocent victims have been blamed for what is the result of callous decisions of a large corporation and I feel compelled to defend them. I'm sure others who have responded feel the same way. Of course, there are other issues about litigation and when it is necessary. If this thread wasn't about a specific case where I feel the issue of liability is very clear, I might tend to agree with those who are passionate about that subject.

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

DT

"It just kills me how quick people are to sue."

At least in this case, they waited a few years. Oh, but that fact also irritated some people. I guess this thread is just bound to generate controversy.

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

DT

I'm surprised at how willing some people are to blame the victim. Yes, there are nearly always things that the victim could have done to reduce or avoid injury. However, people have limitations. They can't be hyper vigilant all the time. It's neither possible nor desirable, since this would cause a great deal of unneeded stress. Furthermore, if someone pays too much attention to one danger, then it's easy to miss others. In this case, I can imagine the girl trying to move quickly and quietly across the hall in order to not incur the displeasure of elders or busybodies. It would be impossible to focus on every single possible danger that was involved. It's true that they all knew that the wires were there, but this doesn't make it easier to avoid them because people will naturally get used to a hazard that they see all the time.

It's easy to look at a single situation and think if only the victim did this or that. Maybe the accident could have been avoided if the parent escorted the child across the hall (as has been actually suggested on this thread). However, it's absurd for a parent to hover over a child every time she moves a few feet. It also increases the chances that some random accident would occur. Suppose the parent tripped and fell on the child, I could see the same people who criticized the parents say if only the parent wasn't so overprotective this accident could have been avoided.

Since accidents are inevitable, it makes sense to pay attention to the potential causes of accidents and remove them if practical. This is where the Watchtower society is culpable. They know that the wires pose a hazard. They know and can expect that these wires will cause injuries on a regular basis for whatever reason. They could easily prevent this hazard, but deliberately chose not to. Yes, it happened in a local congregation, but it is the headquarters that directs and often insures the local congregations.

It is strange to suggest that you shouldn't sue if you have insurance to cover the accident. Why should the insurance company pay if someone else is legally liable? In this case it is another insurance company (run by the society) that is dodging responsibility. It seems close to insurance fraud when the society insures the congregations, but is notoriously stingy in paying damages and can use cult mind control techniques to prevent most claims from going through. If they get sued often enough, they might have to eventually start buying real insurance, like the rest of us.

21

Heard from the grapevine I am DFd. Here is my letter that did not work!

by hoggieman in

it is ok though...my life had nothing to do with them.

here is my letter: .

xxxx xxxxxx.

DT

Congratulations on being officially out of the Watchtower. I doubt that they actually DF'd you. They probably viewed your letter as a letter of disassociation. In theory, you could probably sue (I'm not a lawyer, not qualified to give legal advice, etc.).

It seems apparent that you have not been a JW for some time. Theoretically, they can't punish a former member who has already left. The Mormon church has gotten into trouble for this kind of thing. Of course, they could argue that they have a right to announce that you aren't a member any more. The problem is that announcement, combined with what their literature says on the subject, including threats towards those who would continue associating with you, could be viewed as a punishment.

In your case, their harassment after you expressed your wish to not be bothered could be viewed as punishing a former member. They probably should have viewed you request to not be contacted as a disassociation. Then it would have been clearly illegal for them to continue to harass you or punish you further. They couldn't have used their freedom of religion as a defense since you had already left. It could be argued that they missed their opportunity to punish you by making that announcement when you actually left their religion.

In any case, it's hard to take on the Watchtower society legally. I would be interested in hearing what your attorney has to say.

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

DT

I generally hate to see a property owner get sued for something that was unintentional. It is easy to sympathise and imagine myself in the same situation. Fortunately, there is insurance to protect both property owners and those who may have been injured and have a legal right to seek reimbursement for their injury. However, I think we have a situation that goes well beyond that. I think it is plausible that those in the local congregation failed to foresee the danger of the exposed wires. They were acting under the direction of the Watchtower society that enforces the peculiar question and answer format of the meetings. The Watchtower society has to be aware of the dangers caused by these exposed wires. The must receive countless reports of people who have been injured. The fact that they haven't demanded that changes be made could indicate that there is a business and financial reason that outweighs the financial costs of allowing the wires in aisles. Their peculiar practice of asking questions that are meant to be answered without much thought from the publications and often with the society's ideas translated into the respondent's own words is a powerful mind control technique. This is a cornerstone of the Watchtower society's business model and is responsible for much of the suffering and even death that has been caused by the organisation. The Watchtower society has been able to shield itself legally from most of the damage they cause, using loopholes and their status as a religion. However, there is the obvious harm caused by their microphone wires that can (and should, in my opinion) be used to start recovering money for the harm they cause. The use of wires in the aisles is largely a cold hearted business decision where the financial benefits vastly outweigh the financial costs. These financial costs are greatly reduced by the reluctance of members to sue when they become injured. I say people should sue over this and there will finally be a financial motive for the Watchtower society to make a business decision that increases safety and reduces some of the harm caused by that organisation. The fact that much safer alternatives are available should make the Watchtower society's negligence and callous disregard very clear.

97

I sued the local congregation

by chukky 594 in

jw
friends

several years ago, before my wife and i left, my 5 yr old daughter got up during the watchtower to cross the aisle to sit with someone else.

she tripped on the roving microphone wire and smashed her head on the foot of a metal chair.

the bleeding was profuse and an ambulance was called.

DT

It is a little odd that a building that is open to the public would have wires in the aisles where people walk. They are dangerous and I have seen people come close to getting hurt. I'm glad you sued and got something for your trouble. A corporation like the Watchtower society makes decisions based on money so it might help prevent others from getting hurt in the future.

17

P.Z. Meyers: "There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now."

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

i enjoyed this post by p.z.

meyers.

he has managed to get atheists into a rage against him, because of things he said in a talk in montreal.

DT

"He accepts the dictionary definitionion but he is saying that it is just dumb for an atheist to resort to this when they are discussing their position. It adds nothing to the debate. All it says is "I'm an atheist becasue I don't believe in god". This is a meaningless truism. "

I disagree. It is essential to clarify the definition of atheism when discussing or debating the subject with those who misunderstand or misuse the term. Unfortunately, this includes a large percentage of discussions on atheism. It is pointless to proceed to a war of ideologies when the participants are using different definitions of the same words.

In many cases, the simple definition of atheism is the best defense against those load the term with excess baggage. Once this is explained, the person can either continue with their unreasoning attacks or accept what atheism is and then decide if further discussion is desirable. In many cases, further discussion is unprofitable. When there is further discussion or debate, at least it can avoid needless confusion over definitions.

If someone asked me what my atheism means to me, I would consider that to be a pointless question. It just means what the word means. I have opinions and ideas that go beyond atheism but it would be silly to imply that they are shared by atheists in general or that they are somehow involved with the definition of atheism or what atheists ought to stand for.

17

P.Z. Meyers: "There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now."

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

i enjoyed this post by p.z.

meyers.

he has managed to get atheists into a rage against him, because of things he said in a talk in montreal.

DT

I would think that a scientist should have greater respect for the English language and the value of precise definitions. It's pointless for him to get upset about the definition of atheism and try to add meaning to term to make him look better as an atheist. He has fallen into the same trap that opponents of atheism often fall into when they associate the term atheism with negative stereotypes or try to impose their own limited definition of the term. It makes it hard to have an effective dialogue when members of both sides of the debate try to subvert the term for their own purposes.

I think he makes some good points about the many positive things that are associated with many atheists. These can and should be celebrated. It doesn't require hijacking the English language to make atheism some kind of club that only allows the kind of atheists that agree with his perspective.

69

Seriously Considering A Billboard Ad?

by laverite in

jw
friends

a full billboard ad in my area along a busy heavily travelled highway would cost about $500.

would probably get lots of attention and maybe even a news article, who knows.

$500 is cheap and easily affordable.

DT

I love the idea of a stop knocking type of website. Does anyone know if the local branches process and honor letters requesting to be put on the do not call list?