Posts by Chaserious

34

There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA

by Giordano in

jw
friends

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html.

liasobessa brought this site to our attention on another related topic.

as i began to read i found that the information was excellent and extensive.

Chaserious

The Guinn case (the one mentioned by Gio in the OP) is not precedent for legal action for WTBTS-style shunning. In fact, I took a class in law school where the Guinn case and Paul v. Watchtower (discussed elsewhere on this site; an unsuccessful lawsuit against the WTBTS for shunning that made it to a U.S. Court of Appeals) were discussed in class on the same day to juxtapose which church disciplinary actions are protected by the Constitution under U.S. law and which aren't.

The Guinn case is different because after the individual withdrew membership from her church, the church continued to treat her like a member. After her withdrawal, they (1) announced her sins from the pulpit; (2) told church members to find and confront her to try to get her to "repent"; and (3) sent letters describing her "sins" to neighboring churches. That was the basis for liability - the church violated Guinn's First Amendment right not to participate in a religious organization. It was not merely shunning that amounted to actionable conduct. The same would obviously not apply to WTBTS policy. If you withdraw, they will announce merely that you are no longer a member, and they will no longer treat you like a member, with all that we know comes along with that.

6

Is the WT a 501[c][3] incorporated non profit

by barry in

jw
friends

the reason i ask is because from what i have heard the sda church is of this statis.

because of the 5013c in the sdas there are certain laws which will effect the church now and into the future such as .

no discrimination for homosexuality and any court case would be lost in favour of a homosexual if they felt they were being discriminated against.

Chaserious

Yes, they are a 501(c)(3), and no, they do not have to give equal status to homosexuals or women under American law. To slightly clarify the point made by ABibleStudent, there is not even precedent for revoking a church's tax exempt status for racial discrimination. In the Bob Jones University case, they revoked a religoius university's tax exempt status, and the Supreme Court expressly made clear that its decision to uphold the IRS action was due to the compelling government interest in eradicating racism from the education system, and that the holding would not apply to churches or purely religious institutions. To this day, there are some churches in the US who enjoy tax-free status although they refuse to conduct inter-racial marriages and things of that nature. The bottom line is that organizations designated as religious in the US are more or less free from government inquiry into discriminatory practices that would be illegal anywhere else.

30

Problems: The Bethel Family and Social Security Tax Exemption

by daniel-p in

jw
friends

so i happened to be reading a website about the amish, and i came across this:.

"do the amish pay taxes?

""self-employed amish do not pay social security tax.

Chaserious

Cha ching: The vow of poverty does not prohibit Bethelites from inheriting money. The vow has been posted in full in another thread here and more or less specifically allows Order of Full-Time Servants members to inherit:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/106721/1/Bethel-Vow-of-Poverty-documents-scanned#.Uwkv_qWztmg

Although the term "poverty" is used in the Vow, this does not mean that the
Governing Body is asking you to relinquish ownership in property that you now possess or that
you may acquire in the future.

24

Jason Cobb's new podcast explaining Menlo Park scandal

by Rufus T. Firefly in

jw
friends

https://soundcloud.com/jtv-16/jtv-podcast-ep1.

this podcast is very interesting, especially the latter half.

in a nutshell, the scheme is this: after determining that a complete kingdom hall remodel will cost the congregation $100,000.00, the regional building committee arbitrarily inflates the estimate to $250,000.00, fleecing the congregation and misappropriating the additional funds for other purposes.

Chaserious

Does anyone know if the Cobbs indicated to anyone what they planned to do with the KH, in the event they had won in court?

24

Jason Cobb's new podcast explaining Menlo Park scandal

by Rufus T. Firefly in

jw
friends

https://soundcloud.com/jtv-16/jtv-podcast-ep1.

this podcast is very interesting, especially the latter half.

in a nutshell, the scheme is this: after determining that a complete kingdom hall remodel will cost the congregation $100,000.00, the regional building committee arbitrarily inflates the estimate to $250,000.00, fleecing the congregation and misappropriating the additional funds for other purposes.

Chaserious

Has anyone from here reached out to him? Apologies if I missed that somewhere in previous posts.

I recall seeing in a different thread that people had reached out to him to possibly help him with one of his lawsuits, but he didn't want to accept help from "apostates." He seems like a reasonably intelligent guy but it sounds like he is in denial about how the organization is run.

24

Jason Cobb's new podcast explaining Menlo Park scandal

by Rufus T. Firefly in

jw
friends

https://soundcloud.com/jtv-16/jtv-podcast-ep1.

this podcast is very interesting, especially the latter half.

in a nutshell, the scheme is this: after determining that a complete kingdom hall remodel will cost the congregation $100,000.00, the regional building committee arbitrarily inflates the estimate to $250,000.00, fleecing the congregation and misappropriating the additional funds for other purposes.

Chaserious

Jehovah’s organization itself is not perpetrating this scam, rather a group of deviant, self-willed individuals therein are doing so. Such persons insidiously exploit the arrangements, procedures and infrastructure of the organization to execute their schemes - to their own benefit.

If you have the basis to communicate directly with any member of the Governing Body, PLEASE do so as their involvement will be needed to solve this problem

For all his efforts to be detailed about explaining how he uncovered this scheme, he doesn't explain how he knows that "Jehovah's organization" is not perpetrating the scam. It seems like he needs to hold onto some kind of hope that this can all be fixed if only the "good guys" at bethel find out what's going on.

12

do you think there are 100,000 ex jw or interested to sign?

by carla in

do you think there would be 100,000 people willing to sign a petition for the white house to look into the jw pedophile issue in 30 days?.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/step-step-guide.

"after you publish the petition, its up to you to promote it and get others to sign.

Chaserious

The White House petition inititive has become a bit of a joke. The petitions to deport Piers Morgan and Justin Bieber each got over 100,000 votes and the White House had to respond. The petition that the government construct a Star Wars-style Death Star also garnered enough signatures that they had to issue an official response. There would probably be a higher chance of success if you propose that they sell the Governing Body off as slaves to the Klingons.

50

A $7million assisted living facility for aging JW ministers?

by EndofMysteries in

http://www.lvb.com/article/20140204/lvb01/140209972/serfass-to-build-$65m-assisted-living-facility.

who is going to get to stay here?

the gb, co's?

Chaserious

Chris Weining from the board of directors was (is?) the long-time caretaker of an assembly hall. He and his wife lived in a house on the property.

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

you are comparing JWism to mainstream religions whereas I see it as HARMFUL due to the way the WBTS has set itself up as an unquestionable authority ...

JWism is not the only religion that claims to be an unquestionable authority, is it? (And actually, if you go by the letter of what they write, which I'm sure a JW parent would introduce if forced to defend JWism, they explicitly claim not to be infallible). That is kind of the point, it's not a leap of logic to suggest that some people would be (and are) critical of mainstream religions, also. E.g., Islam is a religion of violence and extremism, Catholicism harbors a lot of child molesters (not my views, but suggesting what some argue). Plenty would argue that it's harmful to raise a child around evangelical / born again doctrines that teach that its ultra-conservative views are right and everyone else's are wrong. Maybe these are minority views, but you must recognize that so is yours. There are very few people outside of the ex-JW camp who are willing to broadly label JWism as harmful, but other religions as not harmful. I would be against setting a judge up to decide the rightness/wrongness of any religious doctrine, or to force a parent to raise their child the way s/he thinks is "best" unless the doctrine results in physical or emotional abuse, as legally recognized.

As much as I wouldn't want a child indoctrinated with WTS doctrine, when a family breaks up, it's never going to be ideal. I think looking at the individual parents and what's best for each individual child remains the best approach. As hard as it might be to swallow, it may not be better for the child's interests to be removed from a JW parent if in a given case, that also means being removed from many extended family members and being placed with a parent who is ill-equipped to be a full-time caregiver.

27

UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM in

for those who are interested i came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a jw parent could give her child to the jw'religion'.

the case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare.

i think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and christams and not enough on the wbts techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children.

Chaserious

I find it interesting you have a realitvely tolerant view of WBTS indoctrination material given your background.

I would say that it's not so much a tolerant view of WTBTS indoctrination as a desire to maintain a broader view of how child custody disputes should be best resolved in society. In trying to avoid tunnel vision by just looking at the consequences for JW parents, wouldn't this level of intrusion require a family judge to review all religious literature related to one parent's religion if the other has a problem with it?

Considering that family judges have a lot of discretion, wouldn't you be worried that some judge might have a bias against Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or some other religious group, and shape the custody order accordingly? I have a neighbor where the mother is a very strict Catholic, and her little girl believes bad people go to hell and homosexuality is evil. Personally, I don't think that's the best way to raise a child, but that doesn't mean I think the government should step in and tell her she can't do it.

Although courts do frequently make specific orders related to raising the child, I don't think they tend to tell parents what they can or cannot teach them, especially when it relates to reference to outside materials, and not activities specific to the parent. I thought that lost in the critique of the judge's decision was the concession that the mother wouldn't take the child in house-to-house ministry. I think that's a worthwhile step, because that can be quite damaging to some kids. Although it seems it was the result of an agreement, and not the judge's order, I believe at least in the U.S., it would be nearly unheard of for the non-JW spouse to be able to get such a concession.