Looks like WT broke one of its own cardinal rules
Now whatever schlub sent that out will be bloodguilty when the UN takes over the world, bans all religion and rounds up these elders and persecutes them because their information is on the nterwebz.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
28
2013 District Convention Headquarters Addresses, Dates, List!
by Atlantis in2013 district convention headquarters, addresses-united states and canada..this list is 10 pages long containing the addresses and above some of the locations you will see dates, such as, (june 15-18) or something like that.
i think those dates indicate when the convention will be held at that location.
help me out if i am wrong on that.
-
-
Chaserious
-
155
"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video
by Fatfreek inthis is too important to bury within an old thread.
that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .
is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?
-
-
Chaserious
Thanks for providing the links, Blondie! I was able to watch it. Also to Data Dog for the summary.
-
16
Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower 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.
-
-
Chaserious
It was a pleasure, of course, to discuss this topic with you, Marvin. I know I said my previous post was the last, but as I thought about this today, I realized something else. However one might characterize the quote, I think I understand why they used it, and in a broader sense, included the commentary section of the brief.
As you are probably aware, when an appellate court hears a case, not only do the judges or justices vote on the result, but one of them is assigned to write an opinion explaining the reasoning for the result. In these opinions, some judges are inclined to include a lot of background information. This can vary from almost none to several pages. Some believe that judges are more inclined to include a lengthy background if there is a brief that contains a well-written, fair summary. So, I think this might have been a "hail mary" if you will, hoping that perhaps the judge might use some of this in the opinion, thus portraying the Watchtower's doctrine in a favorable light to consumers of judicial opinions. Ultimately the opinion contained none of this, but I think it's the most plausible explanation for including irrelevant information. The Watchtower has a long history, going back to the flag salute cases, of not only trying to win the case, but hoping to get the opinion written the way they want. (e.g., often in a way that benefits them and no one else.)
-
16
Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower 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.
-
-
Chaserious
Also, if you do believe that this minutiae is in any way relevant, I would suggest reading the Supreme Court's decision and seeing there is one word mentioned about WT theology, the history of blood transfusions, why JWs don't take blood, or what the Bible says (hint: there isn't, event thought the JW won). The reality is that whether you have a belief in something because the Bible said it 2,000 years ago, the Watchtower came up with it 50 years ago, or the Flying Spaghetti God told it to you in a dream last night, your legal rights are the same.
-
16
Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower 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.
-
-
Chaserious
The last I'll say on this is that we seem to agree that the quote is somewhat irrelevant. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I found the brief to be preachy and spend little time on the legal merits. The author seemed to be more interested in "giving a witness" than persuading the court. An amicus brief is a proper vehicle for providing background information that might not be appropriate for the parties' briefs, and this one probably stretches the rubber band pretty far in this regard. With that said, I don't know that this alone equals misleading, and it absolutely is not a violation of court rules or legal ethics. If you could make a dollar for every irrelevant statement you could find in an amicus brief, you'd have quite an earning opportunity.
As an aside, you note " the issue before the court, which issue had to do with modern transfusion practice and Watchtower theology."
Respectfully, that was not the issue before the Florida Supreme Court. The two issues were whether a state interest (the welfare of her minor children) can be asserted to override a patient's refusal of medical treatment, and if so, whether that interest outweighs a patient's right to privacy and religious freedom. These are broad issues, neither of which has to do with Watchtower Theology or modern transfusion practice, and indeed demonstrating that BluesBrother is correct that this whole thing was irrelevant. As the Florida Supreme Court eventually wrote:
T he arguments made in this Court present two basic issues. First, we must determine whether it is appropriate for a hospital to assert the state interests in an attempt to defeat a patient's decision to forgo emergency medical treatment. Second, assuming the state interests were properly presented in this case, we must decide whether Patricia's rejection of a blood transfusion constituted, as the district court found, abandonment of the couple's minor children and amounted to a state interest that was compelling enough to override her constitutional rights of privacy and religious freedom, by the least intrusive means available.
In re Dubreuil, 629 So. 2d, at 822.
-
155
"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video
by Fatfreek inthis is too important to bury within an old thread.
that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .
is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?
-
-
Chaserious
Sorry if I am being dense, I can't figure out what was the purpose of the video, from the WTS's standpoint. It looks like the video is no longer available to view. Was it about their own practices when it comes to identifying molesters, or a more general piece about sexual abuse?
-
16
Watchtower misleads the Florida Supreme Court
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower 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.
-
-
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 ini 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?.
-
-
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 inwatchtower 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.
-
-
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 inwatchtower 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.
-
-
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.