I can't fault the WTBTS for fighting this case. It looks like they didn't really fight the family over the money, as some have misinterpreted this to be about. Before he died, the deceased man went in to change the beneficiary to the WTBTS, and the bank either didn't have him sign the right papers that were needed to make the change official, or lost the papers. So WTBTS wants the bank to have to pay twice for their mistake - once to the estate and once to the WTBTS. That doesn't take anything away from the family. Wouldn't anyone who was supposed to receive an estate gift but lost it due to a bank error want to hold the bank accountable?
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
32
The Watchtower Loses Action Against Bank (Fifth Third Bank)
by TJ Curioso inthe watchtower loses action against the bank "fifth third bank" - ohio, usa.. .
see here all the details and the final verdict:.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20ohco%2020111006735.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr.
-
-
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
Chaserious
Marvin,
I don't believe your statement is correct that no religion can induce its members to refuse conscription during a time of war. The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920 after war hysteria died down. So were the most restrictive parts of the Espionage Act of 1917. There is essentially no law on the books today under which Rutherford could be convicted for doing the same thing today if that is what you are referring to. The convictions under the repealed WWI acts are largely viewed by historians as a result of war hysteria and as not consistent with the American system of liberties. Who is to say what would happen if another war took place, but in the meantime first amendment rights are not likely to be restricted as you propose.
I read an interesting book on limitation of first amendment rights a couple of years ago by Geoffrey Stone, a constitutional law professor. It discussed the Rutherford prosecution among others. The central argument was that in the entire history of the U.S., it's only in times of war that first amendment rights tend to get narrowed significantly.
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
Chaserious
Marvin,
Aren't shunning and "hate speech" separate issues, even if there might be some overlap? Many, if not most of those shunned at the direction of the WTS are thrown out for sexual matters and alcohol and drug issues. However, the statements that I have seen characterized by some as hate speech are directed at "apostates," which as defined by the WTS does not include those shunned for moral vices. Shunning, by its very definition, contains no speech at all.
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
Chaserious
Freedom of religion is not absolute if it can be proved harmful to an indiviual and or society (which this can) than it can be banned so say the supreme court.
This is not the correct test that the Supreme Court uses. The test is whether the law that infringes upon religious practice is a neutral law of general applicability that is not specifically targeted at a particular religion. So to use your analogies, cannibalism and polygamy are illegal regardless of whether they are practiced for a religious reason or not, and the laws were not enacted to target religion - they are generally applicable. On the other hand, cutting off contact with a relative is not generally unlawful, and if a new law were enacted prohibiting shunning, it would arguably be targeted at religion in particular, and not general behavior in society. That's why shunning is legal under the current U.S. legal framework and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
Chaserious
Pistoff, I don't think anyone questions Barb's intentions, but to be fair, the title of the thread does call to "outlaw" shunning. That seems clearly to state a belief that it should be illegal, not just calling for the end of the practice or bringing it into the open. I don't think you can blame those who value the freedoms of association and religion to find a call to "outlaw" it offensive.
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
Chaserious
Finally, I don't see that the 1st Amendment forever protects tax exemptions
Interestingly, the First Amendment does not protect tax exemption at all. Congress or any state legislature (at least in any state where the state constitution does not prohibit it) could enact new tax laws tomorrow taxing religion and it would without question be constitutional. It would just be political suicide, so it's not happening in the U.S. anytime soon. Taxing some religions and not others based on the content of the beliefs could present a problem however.
-
153
Shocking talk from 2013 District Convention urges parents to shun disfellowshipped children
by cedars inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yldwe_6jsu.
.
cedars.
-
-
Chaserious
He sounds a little like Kermit the Frog. I love how he does the mocking idiot voice for coworkers who can't believe JWs shun their kids. As if the coworkers are the ones deserving of ridicule for being shocked that someone would shun their own family.
-
42
Why do all the COs have food intolerances/allergies/special dietary requirments?
by Julia Orwell init's a well known phenomenon i've observed from jwn, my own cos. a new co we had once who was fresh from being a normal elder and after a couple of visits he said, "well i've finally become a true co...i now have food intolerances.".
i mean, only once did my husband and i ever have a co around for dinner and they couldn't eat this, he couldn't eat that, she couldn't eat this...it was so hard to cook something with none of the zillions of things they were 'allergic' to.. and then after all that the wife couldn't come anyway because she had a naturopath appointment or something.. why do all co's seem to have weird dietary problems?.
.
-
-
Chaserious
When I was a kid we had a CO whose wife apparently had a phobia of aluminum foil. When they sent word ahead of time of their visits, the elders were made to go around and make a big point of telling everyone who had the privilege of feeding them that no aluminum foil could be used in any way so that it touched the food.
I understand that people read articles that scare them about certain products but it seemed unnecessarily pompous and rude to make demands like that on people who are feeding you for free. You wouldn't go into a restaurant and demand to know what methods they use to cook and cover their food (or maybe they did?)
-
106
Video of admitted child molester in Jehovahs Witnesses has gone viral!
by disfellowshipped1 innotice these two attorneys opining on this case.. http://watchtowerleaks.com/tagged/child-molestation.
-
-
Chaserious
The appointment of an elder is “approved” by the Watchtower Society, registered with the Watchtower Society as a legal entity, but the appointment of an elder or removal is still done by the local congregation.
That is like saying that when Microsoft buys out another company, the person in the finance department who writes the check is responsible for the acquisition, instead of the executives. The congregation announces whatever appointments and deletions the WTS approves and tells them to announce. They only make recommendations and announce them after they are approved. WTS has the final word.
-
5
NYT Breaking News-Internet Disrupts Mormon Church
by Band on the Run inexcuse tyoos.
i am breaking in a new smart phone keyp.
yesterday or today s mobile breaking news summary included a piece that ranked with the syrian civil war, the zimmemsn trial aftermath, business newd , etc.
-
-
Chaserious
Here's a link. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?hp&_r=0
"Mr. Givens and his wife, Fiona, recently presented what they called “Crucible of Doubt” sessions for questioning Mormons in England, Scotland and Ireland. Hundreds attended each event. . . . The church is not sponsoring the sessions, Mr. Givens said, but local bishops give their permission.
Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman, said that “every church faces this challenge,” adding, “The answer is not to try to silence critics, but to provide as much information and as much support as possible to those who may be affected.”
Contrast that with JW leadership's position that a group of members and former members meeting on their own to discuss their doubts would be mentally diseased human apostates...