mustang

Joined

• started 38 topics
• posted 2,078 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by mustang

• 
  16

  I won! Not an April Fools post either

  by WildHorses in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i played the poker machines today at work.

  i put in $5 and at first played for a quarter.

  well, i was down to my last dollar and thought,(i'm going to lose anyway, might as well go for broke.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  The Coke machine at work regularly pays ME to take its products.
  

  Mustang
• 
  6

  How All Religions Can Be True

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if there's one thought that's truly unthinkable or beyond.

  an average witnesses' comprehension, it's the thought that.

  more than one religion can be true.. in reality, it's not that hard to fathom.. first, start with the thought that god is everywhere and in everything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  Metatron,

  Your last word was the one. If, as the Scriptures says, the law & prophets could be summed up in one word, so too can the WTS can be summed up in one word: DEMANDS.

  Mustang
• 
  58

  Anyone heard this? News!

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i reeceived an email today that said:.

  we visited my parents in fl last weekend, and though they're still .

  technically witnesses, they consider themselves double agents.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  When will WT & Awake be on the news stands or magazine racks like
  at B & N, Borders & so forth. That might be next.

  Mustang
• 
  6

  Could You Place This???

  by LB in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  .

  never squat with yer spurs on

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  Looks like 'TractBabes'. I think this was on old H2O about the time it changed over??? I'm not sure; I saved the jpeg, but i don't know if I noted the source.

  Mustang
• 
  44

  New Smurf Drawing

  by Valis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok...i have new smurfs that are looking for good apostate homes.

  the first smurf to go will be anonymous smurf, as i can't tell which one he is.

  i'll keep the rules nice and simple:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  41
• 
  21

  Should religious claims be tried in court?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  most people of the western world believe that the freedom to speak and express your opinion is a fundemental "right" of humans.. but how far can free speech go?.

  what if i owned a cigarette firm, and i wanted to say on the packet, "somking is very benifical for you".

  am i using my right to free speech, or am i misleading other people?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  as threatened above. JT should recognize this; I credit him with
  originally quoting it on old H2O.

  These are some of the 'Church Law' precepts that are used as a shield by various religious institutions.

  Begin Quote:

  LEGAL ANALYSIS

  [16] The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and art VI, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution preclude civil courts from entertaining religious disputes over doctrine, leaving adjudication of those issues to ecclesiastical tribunals of the appropriate church. The fact that a portion of the dispute involves property claims does not preclude this constitutional application and protection. Even when possession or ownership of church property is disputed in a civil court, "there is substantial danger that the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs." Milivojevich, 426 US at 709, 96 SCt at 2380, 49 LEd2d at 162.

  [T]he First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes. First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern ... . The
  First Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decided church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.
  Id. at 709-10, 96 SCt at 2380-1, 49 LEd2d at 163. (Citations omitted).
  Milivojevich is factually applicable as it involves a dispute between two Bishops regarding who had the authority to control the church body, property and assets. An attempt by a secular court to adjudicate such disputes "frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage." Id. at 708, 96 SCt at 2380, 49 LEd2d at 162. It is improper for a secular court to evaluate conflicting testimony concerning internal church procedures. Id. at 717-18, 96 SCt at 2384-5, 49 LEd2d at 167-68. The reason for this ecclesiastical abstention doctrine rests squarely with the non-secular nature of the subject matter of the dispute:
  The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of the contravened questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total
  subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organization itself provides for.
  Id. at 710-11, 96 SCt at 2381, 49 LEd2d at 163-4 (citing Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall 679, 728-29, 20 LEd 666 (1872)).

  [17] In Drevlow a minister sued the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church for the torts of libel, negligence and intentional interference with his legitimate expectancy of employment. 991 F2d at 469. He claimed the church improperly put derogatory information about he and his wife in his personnel file. Under church rules, this information precluded him from receiving a pastorate at a Synod congregation. When considering the ecclesiastical decisions of the Synod, the Eighth Circuit noted it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over employment decisions where religious beliefs, procedures or law were implicated. Id. at 471. See also Scharon v. St. Luke's Episcopal Presbyterian Hosp., 929 F2d 360 (8thCir 1991) (claims of chaplain against Episcopal hospital for employment discrimination dismissed as involving religious questions); Kaufmann v. Sheehan, 707 F2d 355 (8thCir 1983) (claims of priest against Roman Catholic Church for defamation and conspiracy dismissed as involving religious questions); Belin v. West, 864 SW2d 838 (Ark 1993) (claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and tortious interference with business expectation dismissed as Bishop's authority over employment of minister by congregation rested on religious doctrine); O'Conner, 885 P2d 361; Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 NW2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Parish of the Advent v. Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, 426 Mass 268, 688 NE2d 923 (1997); Basich v. Board of Pensions, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 540 NW2d 82 (MinnApp 1995) cert denied, 519 US 810, 117 SCt 55, 136 LEd2d 18 (1996) (dispute over church investment of pension funds involved ecclesiastical issues of church policy).(10)

  [18] Secular courts will adjudicate disputes under the "neutral principles of law" doctrine. Jones v. Wolf, 443 US 595, 99 SCt 3020, 61 LEd2d 775 (1979). We discussed this doctrine in Foss v. Dykstra:
  
  The neutral-principles approach calls for a completely secular examination by civil courts into church documents, deeds to the property in question, state statutes and other relevant evidence to determine ownership. The key to the neutral-principles approach is that such determination is to be made "exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges."

  342 NW2d 220, 222 (SD 1983) (citing Foss v. Dykstra, 319 NW2d 499, 500 (SD 1982) (quoting Jones, 443 US at 603, 99 SCt at 3025, 61 LEd2d at 785)).
  However, as determined in Jones, the neutral-principles of law rationale runs afoul of the First Amendment and likewise art VI, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution when church doctrine and policy "pervade" the documents governing the church, which in the case before us are the colony's Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. Plaintiffs counter that "[s]imply put the Corporation, Colony, and Church have turned their back on the Plaintiffs."

  [19] Because the secular law knows no heresy, is committed to the support of no religious dogma and the establishment of no sect, how are we to adjudicate this dispute "to effectuate the tenets of the Hutterian Church," ... and decide whether the Defendants are allowing the Plaintiffs to "live together in a farming community, without individual ownership of personal or real property and that they should devote their labors in harmony with the dictates of God's teachings" Are the property claims to be adjudicated by the courts of this State based upon "[a]ll rights of membership, grounds for
  their expulsion and managerial rules over the members of the corporation and over the property of the corporation [as] prescribed by the By-Laws none of which shall be contrary to the tenets, rules or faith of the Hutterian Church" With respect to the operation of the colony how do we apply the following By-Law?

  All members of this Corporation shall recognize and abide by the rules of the Hutterian church, and each of them and all of them do renounce the right to hold private property; and each and all of the members agree to abide by the rules, regulations, directives, and authority of the presiding bishop or bishops of the Hutterian Church to which all members of this corporation, through its local church, belong.

  [20] All acts complained of by the Plaintiffs arose from their
  excommunication from the church and attempted expulsion from the colony. It is suggested that we conduct an examination to determine whether these acts were done with malice thus purporting to negate any claim of religious privilege. Given the neutral principals of law limitation, how do we determine whether malice exists by the Defendants under the following "tenets, rules or faith of the Hutterian church" which was the basis for the plaintiffs' excommunication and attempted expulsion?

  If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matthew, 18:15-18 (Revised Standard Version, 1952 Ed). As in Jones, issues of church doctrine and policy are pervasive. 443 US at 609, n7, 99 SCt at 3028, n7, 61 LEd2d at 788, n7. "It is axiomatic that the guidance of the state cannot substitute for that of the Holy Spirit and that a courtroom is
  not the place to review a church's determination of 'God's appointed.'"
  Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F2d 1164, 1170 (4thCir 1985).

  [21] Plaintiffs in their brief concede all actions they complain of either occurred at the colony or involve its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. This colony was founded in 1941. The record is void of any discord among the colony members prior to the current religious schism.

  [22] Another Hutterite Colony schism occurred in Wollman v. Poinsett Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 844 FSupp 539 (DSD 1994). After analyzing the dispute provoked by the Rev. Kleinsasser-Rev. Wipf controversy, the court concluded:

  The Court is unable to envision any set of facts which would more entangle the Court in matters of religious doctrine and practice. The religious communal system presented in this case involves more than matters of religious faith, it involves a religious lifestyle. Any individual Hutterian colony member's entire life--essentially from cradle to grave--is governed by the church. Any resolution of a property dispute between a colony and its members would require extensive inquiry into religious doctrine and beliefs. It would be a gross violation of the First Amendment and Supreme Court mandates for this Court to become involved in this dispute. Id. at 543. (Emphasis added).

  [23] We agree with this analysis. The record indicates there is no separation of religious life from a secular life in a Hutterite colony because there is no separate secular life. The colony is run and its members, whether the followers of Rev. Kleinsasser or Rev. Wipf, all conduct their lives on religious absolutes based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt ... and Thou shalt not." There are no separate secular shades of gray. Likewise, suing every man, woman, child and baby in their individual capacity who remain in the congregation is simply the same as suing the colony church congregation as the individual members renounce all rights to private ownership of property as a requirement for continued membership in the colony and its church. Plaintiffs in their complaint concede the core of the dispute when they declare both the Plaintiffs and
  Defendants are "members of the Hutterian church located at the Bur Oaks Hutterian Brethren ... and Tschetter Colony ... ."

  [24] We are not ecclesiastical jurists of the Hutterite faith and have no constitutional basis to interfere with this religious dispute. If there is an earthly forum for adjudication of Plaintiffs' allegations, it is not the secular courts of this State. Kaufman, 707 F2d at 359. For the above reasons we hold adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims by the courts of this state is precluded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and art VI, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution. As such, we affirm the circuit court.
• 
  21

  Should religious claims be tried in court?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  most people of the western world believe that the freedom to speak and express your opinion is a fundemental "right" of humans.. but how far can free speech go?.

  what if i owned a cigarette firm, and i wanted to say on the packet, "somking is very benifical for you".

  am i using my right to free speech, or am i misleading other people?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  The question is less of 'should you' and more of 'can you'. If you can pursue the matter in the way of judicial remedies, then yes you should in order to properly serve justice.

  But in many cases, you are not permitted and in fact are excluded from pursuing such remedies.

  The cases mentioned by Alamb are exceptions. They are based on an in-dividual who HAS NOT COMMITTED to the religion.

  However, if the individual has COMMITTED to the religion, then that in-dividual is generally stuck with any decisions of the Church Law or its 'Tribunal'. This is a standard that has been tried and precedents are established. (See the Hutterite case, separate posting same thread be-low.) This is why DF'ings are usually untouchable in the Secular Courts.

  This is so because the Secular Court "doesn't do windows" and "doesn't do Church Law". It is pretty much a case of "let sleeping dogs lie".

  Most people hop right onto 'the separation of Church & State'; well,
  perhaps but likely not. However, the majority of such cases are be-tween the Church and an INDIVIDUAL, not the 'Church & State'. As the matter goes back to the individual, it becomes more a matter of 1st Amendment Religious Freedom (Free Exercise clause) than Separation of Church and State.

  The real thing is that the Court DOES NOT WANT TO TOUCH THIS with your body parts, not to mention theirs.

  In actuality, the Courts have declared Churches as DE FACTO GOVERN-MENTS, in their own right. The Courts have extended 'professional courtesy' to the Church, as from government to government. This is in-dicated by such statements as:

  "It is axiomatic that the guidance of the state cannot substitute for that of the Holy Spirit and that a courtroom is not the place to review a church's determination of 'God's appointed.'"
  Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F2d 1164, 1170 (4thCir 1985).

  "The reason for this ECCLESIASTICAL ABSTENTION DOCTRINE rests squarely with the non-secular nature of the subject matter of the dispute:
  The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of the contravened questions of faith within the association, and for the ec-clesiastical GOVERNMENT of the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. ALL WHO UNITE THEMSELVES TO SUCH A BODY DO SO WITH AN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND ARE BOUND TO SUBMIT TO IT. But it would be a vain con-sent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is the essence of these re-ligious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the deci-sion of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organization itself provides for."
  Id. at 710-11, 96 SCt at 2381, 49 LEd2d at 163-4 (citing Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall 679, 728-29, 20 LEd 666 (1872)).

  [Only Parts of the text are cited for purposes of brevity; Capitals (for emphasis) are mine. See the additional positing in this thread.]

  Again, this (and other similar decisions) is why DF'ings are usually untouchable in the Secular Courts.

  So, Alamb's cases are based on children (read that underage individu-als) who have NOT COMMITTED to the religion. Other precedents hold that if you have COMMITTED to the religion you are bound by the pre-cepts thereof. The exception would be where Church Law contradicts Criminal Law (Civil Law gets 'iffy'). This is a fine line and usually is not violated. (see AlanF on Child Sacrifice. )

  The interesting and apparently untested area here is where an UNDERAGE INDIVIDUAL has COMMITTED to the religion. Was the Contract (by Bap-tism) proper and recognized under law??

  Mustang
  Still Digesting It Class
• 
  25

  We found the pen thief !

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i always need a pen in my hand when i'm working - i jot things down and do a lot of scribbling (i'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with my doodles).. over the last few weeks though all my pens have been disappearing.

  i blamed angharad who had borrowed them and not put them back, she thought it must be the kids who wanted to draw with them (they've discovered a great paper supply which i like to call 'the printer') but they said they hadn't.. this morning, the culprit was discovered .... i put my pen down on the desk and up popped one of the cats, picked it up in it's mouth and calmly walked off with it.

  we followed it and found a stash of them behind a kitchen cabinet along with a good selection of the kids stickle bricks.. now, i just need to teach it to bring them back!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  One cat horded ping-pong balls. I found a dozen under the couch.
  They were close to 'critical mass'.

  Another cat (Willie) sat near a candle on a window sill. She was
  eyeing Thanksgiving dinner. She swished her tail into the open candle flame and was instantly teleported into the center of the living room.

  Mustang
• 
  7

  What a joke! WTS claims Evangelical support

  by ozziepost in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yes, it's true!

  the april 15 issue of the watchtower carries an article entitled two pastors who appreciated russell's writings in which they claim that there was written support for the writings of c t russell from two leading evangelicals.. the names of the pastors (both waldensians) were daniele rivoire and guiseppe banchetti.

  according to the watchtower, early in the twentieth century, banchetti wrote: "i say that none of us evangelicals, not even our pastors or theology professors, nobody knows everything.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  Isn't it strange that C. T. Russell is called PASTOR by those who don't 'recognize titles' & other religious 'agrandizement'???

  Mustang
• 
  31

  The Bible a reliable book!

  by Truth Defender in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  despite the failings of many who claim to follow the bible and believe it, this gives no excuse to dismiss it's contents.

  thru the centuries it has proved reliable and remains the word of god despite all else.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mustang

  'Sense' and 'since' are two more culprits.

  For example: 'Sense' we are doing this exercise, this makes 'since'.

  I guess this is a game of 'homonymal mayhem', and has led to 'homonym-icide'. Being an amateur 'punster' I couldn't resist.

  BTW, even when the spell checker is working, it doesn't weed out some of these gremlins. First, you have to apply the spell-checker (I don't think the spell checker was used in the case noted above). Then you still have to go back and sort out the subtle nuances that are created by the same-sounding words.

  On the whole, there is not enough attention given to these writing techniques. If we find ourselves 'living by the pen', we should polish up on these matters. Else, someone else's pen will devastate us.

  Solicitation: Go get 'em, Ded.

  Mustang
  Stop the punishment Class