never a jw

Joined

• started 57 topics
• posted 2,278 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by never a jw

• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Vivianne,

  Would you say the same thing if they were discriminating against people because they were African American?

  Yes, as a matter of principle and practicality the answer is yes for any private organization; definitely not for any public organization funded by taxpayers money. The principle is freedom. The practical factor in the case of a business is profit. Discrimination in almost every aspect of our life is absolutely necessary in order to reduce cost. Random choices in choosing almost anything are very inefficient. In the hiring practices in the workplace, discrimination, among many other things, happens more because of perceived cultural differences than color of skin. My view is that business managers, to use an example that I am familiar with, fear that hiring a member of a certain ethnic group may not be in the best interest of the company, namely the pursuit of profit. If 90% of the times that I hire members of a certain group I lose (I actually had a similar problem), then quite likely I will discriminate against that group in my future hiring practices --balancing that with the risk of a discrimination lawsuit of course. The color of the skin and other traits are not the main factor, they just happen to correlate sometimes with the main factor, the ability, on average, of members of that group to help me get the objective for which my company was formed, profit. Similarly, religion can discriminate for any reason they deem appropriate. You can create laws and enforce them, but you can't impose morality or open mindedness on others. Why would any black person want to force a "white" church to accept them. What good does it do for anyone? Let the bigots isolate themselves and drive themselves gradually into extinction if their discrimination is unfounded.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  My solution to the problem is to have (I hope my Spanish to English translation is right) civil marriages conducted by the state. They should be the only legal and valid marriages before the law. If someone wants to have a symbolic religious marriage before his/her God go to whatever church wants to take you and don't try to impose your personal interpretation of morality and religion on a religious group that doesn't agree with your morality.

  By the way, I side with Nietzsche regarding Christianity. I don't like it at all. And yes I support vehemently gay rights to marry as much as I support religions to keep their backwards antigay morality. It's a matter of the most fundamental right: FREEDOM, even to be an idiot.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Marvin wrote:

  I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.

  Sounds reasonable, but it complicates things a bit. Keep it simple. Gays can form their own religion an marry there. Why do you want to force moral issues on religions. Some churches feel adamant about literal interpretations of certain books, let them be. It is not as if there's only one way of Christianity, Last time I checked the number was upwards of 30,000. I am sure there's plenty that cater to any taste of religiosity.

  Religious people can be, and indeed often are a---holes. Let them be the only a---holes in the room. Why do we want gays or other "disenfranchised" people to be a---holes or play the victims too. We don't want to create a society of weakling who need to run to big brother every time someone sticks his tongue at you.

  By the way, inserting the word commerce makes the argument too specious. That alone sounds like big brother's poorly supported excuse to tear down the fundamental right of freedom of religion. I don't buy it (pun intended)
• 
  43

  Atheism

  by Jonathan Drake in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  recent events and book reads (one suggested by cofty i believe- thank you) have lead me to the only logical and acceptable conclusion:.

  there is no god.. simple logical reasoning: matter can neither me created or destroyed.

  so the amount of mass in the universe is constant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  I don't think any book out there can prove the existence or non existence of some sort of force that has given birth to the universe as we know it. Especially if this force is indifferent, as it seems to be, to humans desires, and remains reluctant to make a demonstration of his existence and his will. It's a lot easier however, to debunk the existence of the God of the Jewish people or of the Christian, or for that matter the existence of any personal God who gives a rip about little humans. Debunking him is a piece of cake, that is, for the open and curious mind. Not so for the people with the "faith" gene.
• 
  4

  Theocracy Is Alive And Well In The US

  by Village Idiot in

  1. social
  2. current

  i sometimes wonder what it would be like to live under a theocracy.

  this article and upcoming nightline interview will give us a clue.. https://gma.yahoo.com/allegations-against-flds-church-former-police-chief-says-173021013--abc-news-topstories.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Allegedly the greatest power on earth, the U.S. still has a population majority that is controlled by superstition. The power of myth is much greater than the power of reality. Only in America
• 
  107

  I have a serious problem

  by My Name is of No Consequence in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i have a serious problem that i cannot solve on my own.

  i was born-in but am only in by a thread at this point.

  i quit the tms a few weeks ago and wrote a post on it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Step son? That's a game changer.

  College? Good. Emphasize that he should not get baptized until he is done with his secular education. The price to pay is too high if he has regrets about his baptism. Use yourself as an example. You are stuck in a situation you hate. That could --quite likely will-- happen to your son down the road.
• 
  107

  I have a serious problem

  by My Name is of No Consequence in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i have a serious problem that i cannot solve on my own.

  i was born-in but am only in by a thread at this point.

  i quit the tms a few weeks ago and wrote a post on it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Yes, your serious problem is weakness. Easy for a non-jw to say, but that's what it boils down to, nothing else. Your wife and everyone else are going to walk all over you because you let them.

  When I learned TTATT, I immediately told my wife how I felt about it, pulled my son out of preaching and theocratic school and allowed him only the weekend meeting. Ever since I asked my son to read Crisis of Conscience, now he is reading Carl Olof Jonsson's Signs of the Last Days. Next it will be The Gentile Times Reconsidered. He knows he is not allowed to preach or attend the Theocratic School or get baptized for as long as he lives under my roof. Many here have criticized my tactics, but I am taking definitive actions and I am showing my resolve about something that I am passionate about: protecting the mental well being of the young.

  It seems that you care more about other's approval than you care about the well being of your son. It's a damaging cult, especially damaging to the young. Are you worried about being disfellowshipped? So be it. It's a bit too late to be concerned about that. It may even be a good thing because then you can help your son without the restrictions imposed by the cult.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  They do have the right to discriminate. Let them be stupid, that should be a protected right. This exercise of freedom is no different from Simon's right to cut off some bloggers for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. It's his site, and he can do whatever he wants with it. It's their religion too, and they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they don't cause physical harm to others.

  Many of us may wish that shunning were outlawed, but by doing that we fall into a slippery slope. Let's keep the freedom of religion concept clear and simple. Don't try to conveniently adjust it to a personal preconceived ideal view of the world.
• 
  19

  Introducing my self

  by WasOnceBlind in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i stumbled upon this site about a week ago while googling a question.

  the question was "why can't jw's have beards?

  " i read the responses and realized the truth in them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  Welcome wob

  My wife is a JW who decide to marry a non-JW (me) 20 years ago. She was censored for this decision, but married me anyways. However, when the circuit overseer visit came, he must have disapproved what the elders did because, afterwards one of them took her to their private room and sort of gave an apology for censoring her. As expected, he quoted the Bible, the famous Proverbs 4:18, which I guess he arrogantly applied it to themselves. They are the righteous one who get wiser.
• 
  17

  What would happen if all or most of the Governing Body died in some kind of accident?

  by Esse quam videri in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  with the organization controlled, totally and completely by the governing body, what would the watchtower society do to hold it all together if all or most of the governing body were to die?.

  would the legal department step in and issue orders?

  would the rest of the gb quickly appoint new members?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  never a jw

  What would happen if all or most of the Governing Body died in some kind of accident?

  Human evolution would get a small push in the right direction. Actually not, AMIII and company already passed their defective genes to their children.