Posts by Seeker

" i am very glad to have this particular opportunity of saying a word about some of the things in which we agree with our masonic friends, because we are speaking in a building dedicated to masonry, and we also are masons.

i am a freemason.

Seeker

"I am a Freemason." -- Charles Taze Russell.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" -- John F. Kennedy.

14

WT PR At It Again

by messenger in

jw
friends

for immediate release .

october 16, 2001. jehovah's witnesses seek to protect fundamental freedom in the supreme court.

the first amendment right to free speech has been challenged for some time now in the village of stratton, ohio.

Seeker

outnfree,

I provided information about the narrowness of this case in this thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=13844&site=3

2

Paul Polidoro

by Kent in

jw
friends

paul polidoro is a jw lawyer from paterson.

i don't know if this might be a common name in the us, but i wonder if this might be the same person as mentioned on this page.. does anyone know???.

http://www.owlandergren.com/contact.html.

Seeker

No, it must be a different person.

14

WT PR At It Again

by messenger in

jw
friends

for immediate release .

october 16, 2001. jehovah's witnesses seek to protect fundamental freedom in the supreme court.

the first amendment right to free speech has been challenged for some time now in the village of stratton, ohio.

Seeker

What this press release implies is not true: the Supreme Court is NOT considering whether or not the Stratton, OH law requiring permits to go door-to-door is constitutional. The lower courts have already said that it is constitutional, and the Supreme Court chose not to look at that matter. The ONLY thing the Supreme Court will decide is whether or not it is constitutional to have the person's name on the permit. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the town will continue to issue permits. You can't tell that from this press release.

31

Americans fail to care about other's?

by Amazing in

jw
friends

i saw this comment on another thread, and felt it deserved some highlighting: "many americans don't care a whole lot about what is going on in other countries unless it affects them.

but this applies to people in most countries as well.

"out of site, out of mind" is a very human thing.

Seeker

Tell a lie often enough, long enough, and people start to believe it.

That is not only correct, it is virtually universal among governments. The U.S. government is no exception to this day. Propaganda goes out from all sides, and sometimes lies get told. As I pointed out in another thread a week or so ago, Bush lied to us over this matter when he said the evidence against bin Laden was certain. After he said that to the American public, senior staff members at the CIA, FBI, and in Congress told a magazine reporter that the reason we haven't been shown the proof against bin Laden yet is because they didn't have enough hard evidence to show. So much for what Bush told us.

I love America, but I apply the same standards to it that I apply to any other government, or organization like the WTS: If they do wrong, I won't cover it over.

31

Americans fail to care about other's?

by Amazing in

jw
friends

i saw this comment on another thread, and felt it deserved some highlighting: "many americans don't care a whole lot about what is going on in other countries unless it affects them.

but this applies to people in most countries as well.

"out of site, out of mind" is a very human thing.

Seeker

Amazing,

That was a bit of spin there. What you say has some validity, but the reality is not quite as neat and clear cut as you seem to think. For example, Saudi Arabia only invited us to put troops in that country after the U.S. government leaned on them. They did not want to do this one bit, but were basically coerced. Then, after the war was over, we were supposed to leave. Well, the war is long over, and we are still there, bombing Iraq regularly. That is why bin Laden got upset about Saudi Arabia.

As for not deciding which skunks get into office in other countries, that is also not always true. The CIA has a long history of interfering with other nations, propping up some governments, destabilizing others we don't like, etc. Ask Latin America about our history of interfering with their governments. It's not just a matter of "bad luck," but definite action against other nations in order to benefit our own interests.

2

Rowan Atkinson & Religious Hatred.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

when uk home secretary david blunkett announced that he was pushing a new law through parliament banning "incitement to religious hatred" i was most intrigued.

could this, i wondered, be used against the wtbts to make disfellowshipping a criminal act?.

apparently not, like most recent laws that have been passed in the uk it would seem that this is a law primarily to benefit a minority.

Seeker

An excellent letter, and one I wholeheartedly endorse. He gets the point, all right.

That's the problem with lawmakers -- they want to be seen as "doing something," and all they do is create laws, so for them to "do something" means making new laws. I believe even in the UK they have existing laws that prohibit violence against anyone, not just people of a different religion. You'd think they would just get busy enforcing the existing laws. But no, that wouldn't be seen as "doing something."

5

Paul Polidoro protects child molesters:

by sf in

the attorney representing the supreme court solicitation case rebutt from a case in '98:.

< http://www.jesus-witnesses.com/elderabuse.htm.

start page.

Seeker

The perpetrator at no time held a leadership position in the church - not before the wrongdoing, not at the time of the wrongdoing, not after the wrongdoing. The May 12 article is wrong when it says he ``regained his leadership post as an elder.'' He was a next-door neighbor of the plaintiff and a fellow parishioner.

This seems like an awfully strong thing to say if it were not true. Normally they would use legal weasel words to express this idea, and not something this direct and easy to verify. I wonder if this isn't one of the few cases where the plaintiff didn't have all the facts straight? The WTS certainly covers up lots of child abuse, but it is also possible that every now and then the lawsuits filed contain some information that isn't factual. I would check this statement out to make sure this guy was never an elder, as the lawyer said. If that's the case, then check the rest of the facts too. And if the guy WAS an elder, then we have this attorney caught in a very blatant lie.