Welcome Steve! It's not a very tall order to hope to find better friends here than on the inside, like the elder who "helped" you. I hope your expectations are far surpassed in that regards. Best wishes with your new lady friend!
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
66
Hello. I am new here :)
by StevenJB inhello all.. my name is dteve and i live in the uk.
i hope i can make genuine friends here and not pretend friends.....like that among jw's.. i left, went back, and have left again, but this time it is for good.
so i tried to work things out, but she carried on.
-
-
-
75
DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?
by Terry in>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.
human equality.
-
-
Chaserious
There are a lot of valid points here about the moral culpability of the leaders of this organization. But the reality is that it doesn't amount to defamation. You can't look at what the words mean as defined in the rest of their literature and then apply that to the mentally diseased quotes in yet some other piece of literature and patch it all together to amount to slander or defamation. You have to look at what they directly say about you, and they don't say boo about anyone except that you are no longer part of the org.
Besides, as someone pointed out an another thread recently, you have to be careful what you wish for. If you want it to be so easy to make a defamation case, how do you know that you wouldn't be liable to the WTS for defaming them? I have certainly seen material posted on this site accusing the WTS org of things that are impossible to verify and in many cases almost certainly false. Sue them for molestation, sue them for swindling Aunt Mildred out of her savings. But when you try to restict what others can say and teach, you are endangering the democratic right of free expression in the public squares of a free society.
-
11
Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech
by yalbmert99 infeb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.
-
-
Chaserious
Good point, JeffT. I am not a big fan of the decision. I hate hate speech, but I hate censorship more.
-
4
Is Information from the "Flock" Book generally admissible in a court of law ???
by RubaDub inso as not to hijack the other "flock" thread, i have always wondered if information in the flock book could be used in court cases especially of child custody and other family issues ?
issues like education, extra-curricular activities ?.
or can the elders use some sort of defense that the information is not for the public ?.
-
-
Chaserious
No, corporate documents get admitted in civil cases all the time. It generally doesn't matter what kind of case when determining admissibility, with a few exceptions. But the exceptions tend to admit less in a criminal case, not more.
I think many family court judges would like to keep this material out, so it doesn't become a religion on trial. The most likely way the elders book would come in is if an elder testifies as a witness and testifies inconsistently with what is in the book. Then it could be admitted to confront the elder with what the book actually says.
-
4
Is Information from the "Flock" Book generally admissible in a court of law ???
by RubaDub inso as not to hijack the other "flock" thread, i have always wondered if information in the flock book could be used in court cases especially of child custody and other family issues ?
issues like education, extra-curricular activities ?.
or can the elders use some sort of defense that the information is not for the public ?.
-
-
Chaserious
It could be admissible. Not being for the public is not a sufficient objection. Corporate "secret" memos and manuals get admitted all the time. It would all depend on the reason it is being offered and whether a proper foundation can be laid.
-
11
Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech
by yalbmert99 infeb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.
-
-
Chaserious
Interestingly, the court struck out the part of the Code that bars publication of material that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" a person or class of people, but allowed "exposes or tends to expose to hatred" to stand. So ridiculing and belittling are not enough, but exposing to hatred is. I wonder which "mentally diseased" falls under, and whether it matters if the material is distributed interally and not to members of the public.
-
11
Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech
by yalbmert99 infeb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.
-
-
Chaserious
They upheld a Saskatchewan provincial law, and did not ban hate speech across the nation. According to the Globe and Mail "most provinces have no statutes banning hate speech in their human rights codes." Still, it would be interesting to see how a suit would fare in Saskatchewan or another province that has a similar law in effect. Some of what the WTS says isn't far off from the speech at issue in this case.
-
32
Why I think (in a nutshell) why this org is approaching collapse
by cptkirk inin a nutshell: i think that (and i do not enjoy thinking about this)...i think that the crazies within the religion (who range from just low level people to co elder do and up) have won so many battles at this point (over the more balanced people/ideas)......that the people who tend to think in a more balanced fashion (whether they themselves be low level or higher up) are getting to be the real minority.
i think this dynamic, will be what finally sinks the ship.. as we see with any organization (corporate or otherwise), many times there are reports that make you wonder (how is this thing alive or prospering?
), and upon closer scrutiny, there are strong people in the background holding the walls up (who themselves get little attention).
-
-
Chaserious
I think that over time, the org will drift even further outside of the mainstream, due to both the marginalization of extreme religious zeal in general in the Western world, as well as the developments within that have already been mentioned here. Some will never leave and some will continue to join due to things like prestige within the org, being part of a special club that thinks it has all of the secret answers, etc.
It's certainly looking possible that the org might follow a similar track as Scientology. That organization has definitely realized an increasingly stigmatized status recently. Not that LRH was a normal guy, but the newer leadership is evidently a new breed of crazy, who has ruled with such an iron fist that a lot of higher-ups in that organization who seem more reasonable have left. 15 years ago, when celebrities joined the Church, it would raise an eyebrow or two but probably not hurt their careers. Today an actor who joins Scientology would be taking a major career risk, and overall membership numbers have dropped significantly. That hasn't really happened yet within the WTS, but in light of recent developments, it's possible they're on the same curve, just a little behind.
-
12
Copyright of Food at the Proper Time?
by The Song Remains The Same in1) i wonder why (or how) the wts can claim copyright over the food it dispenses, given that it says the food is spirit directed and from jehovah?
surely the copyright should reside with jehovah himself?
can you copyright god's word(s)?.
-
-
Chaserious
Chaserious, Jehovah's words have been twisted but they are there in the bible for all to read and judge for themselves. The point is he never copyrighted them
Well, it's not like Jehovah could copyright what he wrote. Maybe he would if he could. But it seems that legal systems discriminate against omniscient, omnipotent beings. Since copyright periods are tied to the death of the author, maybe they are worried letting Jehovah get a copyright would be abuse of the system since he never dies. Or it could be they just figure he could strike with lightning whomever he would otherwise sue.
Either way, as has been discussed in other threads here, you don't have to "copyright" anything to have a copyright (although in the past you had to). The fact that something is an original work automatically makes it copyrighted.
The bible is available to all, the Mosaic Law, the words of Jesus, the letters of Paul and the other apostles. All in the open. Why do the elder's book and letters to the BOE have to be kept secret?
They don't claim that letters to the BOE and the elders' book are on the same level with the Bible. Whether they view them with the same amount of authoritativeness is open to debate, but any JW would tell you that they have never claimed that the letters to the BOE are "inspired by God and beneficial for teaching...," etc. Everyone needs the Bible to know how they should serve God; the same cannot be said about the BOE letters.
-
33
RELIGULOUS...Please watch it.
by Fed-up ini know it's been commented on before here.
if you haven't seen it (i'm sure it's on netflix) please take a look.
it's the other side of the coin, presented in a funny way that really makes you think about religion and worship.
-
-
Chaserious
Watched it a while back. I thought it was very funny and pointed out some of inconsistencies of religion, both mainstream and fringe. My wife didn't like it and thought it was disrespectful and mean spirited, even though neither of us has been religious since leaving. I can see that side also. I did think he was hard not only on the man who owned the store, but also on the truck stop chapel guys. I know he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you have good intentions, but they seemed very kind and sincere. My favorite parts were the scenes with the gay counselor and the creation amusement park (although that would have been entertaining by itself, really).