Chaserious

Joined

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

Posts by Chaserious

• 
  75

  DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  >>>>>>>>>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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Let me see if I can sum up this thread thus far:

  1) Terry suggests that actions like labeling people "goats," disfellowshipping announcements in general, declaring that people are going to die at Armageddon, teaching followers to hate apostates, and calling them mentally diseased is not only morally despicable on the part of the Watchtower organization, but also constitute defamation of character and human rights violations from a legal perspective.

  2) Some agree fully.

  3) Others agree with the morally despicable part but point out that these things are not defamation or human rights violations from a legal standpoint.

  4) This having been shown, Terry brings in an entirely new scenario, where now he is talking about children being kidnapped and raped. Even though no one has had the opportunity to respond to this new set of facts, Terry implies that only people like him have the "moral fiber and backbone" to stand up for these victims.

  Is that about the size of it?
• 
  30

  THIS got WT Leaders thrown in Jail

  by Tallyman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how many of you were aware that watchtower leaders were .

  charged with, tried and convicted of sedition.

  during world war i ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  Also, they have claimed in the literature that Rutherford was "exonerated" when that wasn't the case. His conviction was overturned on legal procedural grounds and the Justice Department decided not to try the defendants again since the war was over and there was somewhat of a policy of amnesty toward those accused of sedition during the war. Even some who were not successful on appeal, like Eugene Debs (a socialist leader who had denounced the war) had their sentences commuted after the war.

  Although the conviction doesn't count and he is presumed innocent since not proven guilty, "exonerate" means to affirmatively prove innocent, such as might happen with DNA evidence. Rutherford and his cronies could have been tried again and people get tried again and convicted all the time after an appeal. The way the WTS has related the history of this is somewhere on the spectrum from misleading to an outright lie and probably closer to a lie.
• 
  66

  Hello. I am new here :)

  by StevenJB in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Chaserious

  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!
• 
  75

  DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  >>>>>>>>>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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. social
  2. current

  feb 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so 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 ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so 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 ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. social
  2. current

  feb 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. social
  2. current

  feb 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  in 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).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.