Chaserious

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 790 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Chaserious

• 
  16

  Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower misrepresents santinelli on transfusion.

  today i added a new article to my blog revealing a documented instance of watchtower lying to the supreme court of florida about a doctors view on blood transfusion.

  for more than one reason this is a particularly bad instance of watchtower dishonesty at work.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Marvin,

  You're confusing me a bit now. The quote is not offered in relation to "transfusion practices in modern times". The term "modern times" is only used once in the entire brief, in the "Summary of Argument" section. No judge could possibly think that every part of the brief is supposed to be directly relevant to "transfusion practices in modern times" because that term is mentioned once in the summary, any more than anyone would think that every sentence in the brief is supposed to support it being prohibited "under the Mosaic Law" because that phrase also is used in the summary. (A phrase that also indicates that the entire brief is not going to focus on "modern times.")

  Rather than purporting to have anything to do with modern times, the Santinelli quote is under the subheading "Commentary on the Christian probibition of blood." I think that your points (1) and (2) above are quite obvious, and that no intelligent person would possibly read the brief to mean that Santinelli supported the WTS's theology or that it relates to modern times. They're tracing the history of blood transfusions in the section in question, albeit in the light most favorable to their position, which is fair game. Do you really think any members of the Florida Supreme Court believe that blood transfusions are administered the same way in 1668 (a date listed directly under the quote) as they are now? In my humble opinion, you would have to take the Justices for fools to be "misled" in the manner suggested.

  As BluesBrother notes, this is all background as well. That's why the subheading is called "commentary". Even if they could prove that the Pope, 100 monks and a carriage full of nuns all taught that blood transfusions were unscriptural in 1668, the Court could not constitutionally factor that into their decision. Thanks once again for sharing an interesting read.

  -C
• 
  20

  Why don't JWs get classified as a Cult instead of a Religion under the Law?

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i mean, can't any shmuck say they are a religion, then get all these tax breaks while at the same time tell people to murder, commit suicide, etc?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  LV101 - You're right, it is tough after being raised in the Watchtower to argue that they should be able to have protection of the law. It's tough to see people being misled and misinformed, making unwise decisions, and suffering for it. Too many are indeed misled by the petting panda paradise.. lol.

  I'm involved with a program where I work with high school students (I'm not a full-time teacher), and I involved the class in a discussion on whether the government should protect people from their own religion, since it related to part of the curriculum. We used the example of the Amish. Now, the Amish are generally looked at as "cute" and "quaint" by society, unlike JWs, probably because they don't proselytize and they sell delicious baked goods. But some have argued that the government should step in. They do practice shunning for baptized members who leave, and in many orders they do not seek proper medical care - not only blood, but also other important care. Generally they get about an 8th grade education in Amish schools, which does not prepare them well for life outside if they decide to leave. Also, unlike JWs, young Amish do not have the ability to explore criticism of their doctrine, as they do not have access to the internet, television, or even radio. Really, despite the generally favorable public opinion, I think if JWs were to be classified as a cult by the government, it would be very hard to argue that the Amish are not also a cult.

  In any event, we discussed the idea of whether the government should be able to require the Amish children to get a normal education up to age 18, as most states require for the general population. (Currently the Amish do not have to meet this requirement even if the state requires it in general). This way, children would be more prepared for life outside if they decided to leave, and also would be more prepared to think critically in evaluating their doctrines and choices in life. Almost the entire class believed that the government should stay out. I think this is probably representative of the prevailing attitude in the US; we tend not to see it as the government's job to paternalistically protect citizens from believing something not in their best interests.
• 
  16

  Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower misrepresents santinelli on transfusion.

  today i added a new article to my blog revealing a documented instance of watchtower lying to the supreme court of florida about a doctors view on blood transfusion.

  for more than one reason this is a particularly bad instance of watchtower dishonesty at work.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  I would agree with you that Santinelli didn't object to transfusion for the same doctrinal reason that Watchtower objects. However, they made no such argument in the brief. All they do is say that experimental transfusions were underway in the 17th century, accurately quote a portion of what Santinelli wrote, and move on. You observe that:

  " everything argued by Watchtower is in support of the organization’s unique theology objecting to blood transfusion and 'the adventures and misadventures of transfusion practice in modern times.' Santinelli’s view neither supports the unique theology of Watchtower nor addresses blood transfusion as practiced in modern times."

  This is true. But they don't argue anywhere in the brief that Santinelli's view supports their theology. You might make the implication, but they didn't say it. I don't even think they imply it. Santinelli's name is not mentioned in the brief anywhere after this quote. I understand your point, but realistically you could find worse than this in almost any appellate brief in any case around the country. That's why both sides have lawyers; to point out the weaknesses in the other side's argument and to present the facts in the most favorable light for the client.
• 
  16

  Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower misrepresents santinelli on transfusion.

  today i added a new article to my blog revealing a documented instance of watchtower lying to the supreme court of florida about a doctors view on blood transfusion.

  for more than one reason this is a particularly bad instance of watchtower dishonesty at work.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Interesting. I read the relevant part of the amicus brief that you linked to. Personally, I don't think this was a breach of legal ethics or outside of the realm of reasonable zealous advocacy. Of course, it would change the equation to include more context to show that the reason, at least in part, that Santinelli opposed transfusion was because of the inhumane methods of collecting blood in those days. But they didn't misrepresent Santinelli's position nor did they omit a part of the actual quote itself so as to change the meaning. Additionally, this quote has nothing to do with their legal argument as it is under the heading that provides a history on the "Christian" reasoning for their belief. Whether there is a legitimate doctrinal justification for refusing blood is not relevant to the court. The WTS also didn't represent a party in this case, so while the same ethical duties apply, an amicus brief is not going to be scrutinized as carefully in most cases.

  Edit to add: The brief is also very preachy and spends little time on the legal merits. My guess would be that this was a non-HQ witness attorney who jumped on this and counted about 100 hours of field service time over a few months working on the brief. They probably don't have the resources to put a Bethel lawyer on things where no WTS $$$ is at stake, especially 20 years ago. This of course, was about whether the witness who had a blood transfusion forced upon her would recover money from the hospital for the indignity of saving her life.
• 
  16

  Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower misrepresents santinelli on transfusion.

  today i added a new article to my blog revealing a documented instance of watchtower lying to the supreme court of florida about a doctors view on blood transfusion.

  for more than one reason this is a particularly bad instance of watchtower dishonesty at work.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  I don't see anything about Florida there... it's about misleading WT quotes.

  Edit: nevermind, I see it in the footnote
• 
  20

  Why don't JWs get classified as a Cult instead of a Religion under the Law?

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i mean, can't any shmuck say they are a religion, then get all these tax breaks while at the same time tell people to murder, commit suicide, etc?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  why did government officials get involved in the Jones town tragedy and the Branch Davidians ?

  Because the Branch Davidians broke all sorts of firearms and weapons laws and refused to comply with investigation. You can bet if they stockpiled a bunch of illegal weapons at Bethel they would storm the compound there too. Jonestown was outside of the U.S. and I don't believe they were the subject of a traditional law enforcement investigation. I think the CIA got involved. They were worried about conspiring with an enemy (USSR) and also they allegedly had killed members who tried to escape.
• 
  20

  Why don't JWs get classified as a Cult instead of a Religion under the Law?

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i mean, can't any shmuck say they are a religion, then get all these tax breaks while at the same time tell people to murder, commit suicide, etc?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  can't any shmuck say they are a religion

  Yes, they can. Personally I would not be in favor of classifying groups as cults in the United States. I don't think it's the government's job to protect people from "dangerous" religious beliefs. If you break a generally applicable law, you should be prosecuted, whether for religious reasons or not. But I don't want the government tellng me what I can believe or that I can't associate with other people who believe what I believe. In my opinion, that would be going back to the red scare era where people were dragged into inquisitions and asked if they had even been a member of the communist party, because the government didn't agree with the thinking of that group.

  I don't want my government deciding what religions or philosophies are "weird" or even "harmful" (as long as not breaking neutral laws) and persecuting those groups. This country was bascially started by people who were essentially classified as a "cult" in England before the term became popular, so in my opinion choosing unpopular religious groups and making them illegal would be regressing 400 years.
• 
  57

  Anyone with Happy Memories from being a JW born in, please post here....

  by SkyGreen in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  first up, happy new year .

  hi everyone, ok i guess this is controversial, but im doing it as therapy for me - so im not bitter about the way i was raised.

  plus i want to see if i can be the op of an "epic thread"!!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Hmm.. I liked some of the food they used to have at the assemblies and conventions. Half-frozen orange juice, danishes, and roast beef sandwiches, especially. My family was too poor to take expensive vacations, but a lot of years we went to a DC in various other cities (even though it was frowned upon - my mother didn't like the place we were assigned to), and made a weeklong trip out of it and saw some nearby sites, some of which were good times. It sucked being a kid at a convention where you didn't know anyone though.

  My father was also a pretty good guy and tried to organize events that the local kids would enjoy. He also was sometimes reasonable about things, letting us kids do things that were discouraged by the WTS. For example, I was allowed to play on a sports team in high school, and we tried to be kind of quiet about it at the hall since no one else from my congregation went to my high school. In sort of a mixed blessing I had a little bit of success and was featured in some local newspaper articles, so people kind of knew about it. I had to quit for a while but then was able to rejoin. It was one of my favorite experiences of my entire childhood, so I'm glad my father didn't take a hard line on that and also I'm slightly glad for "headship"; if it were up to my Mom, I would have never been allowed to join.
• 
  15

  The new FDS version 4.0. From the 3-1-22 Watchtower

  by trujw in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok guys i have cut and pasted from the march 3rd 1922 watchtower.

  i think this is great and can be shown to any witness to have them sratching thier little heads.

  one notice that they are still teaching christ's presence began in 1874 in 1922 and two this to me is a whopper.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Cool... one of many examples exposing revisionist history on their part. When I first saw your title, I thought you were going to predict what the 3/1/2022 WT said. Or maybe that they are releasing the mags that early now. =)
• 
  26

  Is Watchtower $60 million away from liquidation?

  by cedars in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watch this video, posted on jw.org.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jjvxobvi5a.

  here is my article in response.... http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/is-watchtower-60-million-away-from-liquidation.

  looking forward to hearing your thoughts!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  I wouldn't read that conclusion into this video. Exact quote: "It could have resulted in the liquidation of the Jehovah's Witnesses headquarters." The interviewer also used the word "headquarters" to describe the interviewee's position at the beginning of the video, saying that he was a member of the JW headquarters in France. (Also he used the qualifier "in France" in the same sentence as the liquidation quote). So to me, it seems that when they are using the word "headquarters" in this interview, they are talking about the French branch. Also, as least at the term "liquidation" is used in the U.S., it does not necessarily mean that a business is insolvent, or that external forces are forcing the liquidation. So even if the France branch would have liquidated had they not won the case, it does not automatically follow that even the France branch is $60 Million from being broke (if the term is being used in the same sense as it would in the U.S.)

  By means of example, Widget Co, Inc. might be a U.S. business with a French subsidiary making widgets locally in France. If the parent doesn't think it's a good idea to run the subsidiary long-term, it can liquidate the business, even if not in danger of becoming insolvent. It would then sell all of the land, buildings and equipment owned by the subsidiary, and might even turn a large profit on the liquidation.