i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
I think one of the reasons she starts getting a little tense is that, near the end, it is starting to dawn on her that the Organization will "throw her under bus" too same as they do with the victims.
She made a number of comments that sounded like she was trying to distance herself from the Organization. It's almost like it is not until the end that her sense of self-preservation kicks in.
what can i add?
this says it all.. elder on stand is mute till prompted.. .
i guess i could encourage you to watch to the end and a guest commentary, lol..
steve2 - A commision of inquiry is NOT similar to a Grand Jury or congressional hearing.
Thanks for bring up the point. Perhaps a better parallel in the US is a "Presidential Commission".
the jw delusion is a psychosis i.e.
the holding on to a belief irrespective of sound evidence to the contrary.
it has everything to do with the indulgent pleasure of embracing an all encompassing idea which promises to resolve every human frailty and inconvenience.
Half Banana - The JW delusion is a psychosis i.e. the holding on to a belief irrespective of sound evidence to the contrary...
Good post. What you described can also be summed up as "faith" - i.e. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on personal revelation rather than good/demonstrable evidence or evidence to the contrary...
Half Banana - The big question is how can JWs or for that matter any other religious person be de-radicalised?
Other posters said it better than I could... The one thing I would add is that we need to improve education and encourage critical thinking to inoculate people who haven't yet surrendered their life to "faith". There are a lot of people living in that bubble (my family included) that may not be salvageable. We should continue to help those still in but also try to proactively inoculate people from going in.
i'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony.
where did the watchtower dig her up from.
her answers have mostly been maybe's and i think!.
I believe the US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago to remove immunity for "expert witnesses" against civil lawsuits. Don't know if this applies in this particular case and country, etc. However, if the GB felt she had hurt their case and had misrepresented herself (e.g. malpractice), there are US legal precedents to bring a lawsuit to recover costs and damages. Not saying they can or they will. But there are legal precedents of successful lawsuits against "expert witnesses" for malpractice.
At the same time, the main reason she is doing so badly is that she is defending and indefensible position. It does not matter how moral, educated, prepared, etc. you are. If you are defending the indefensible you look immoral, absurd, and clumsy.
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
Let me get this straight...She (a catholic, worldly woman) has had access to the elder's book and other confidential material.
...Let that sink in.
If you are a JW, next time you are at the Kingdom Hall ask the elders for a copy of the elder's book. Hell, have them autograph it for you.
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
Marvin Shilmer - This gal was hired by Watchtower to do one thing: make its policy look nicy-nice to the RC.
Good point. And, based on all the testimony I have seen so far by JW elders/representatives and expert witness, I would say that there is a huge disconnect. The Organization's argument seems to be on showing that they can justify their policies and ideas because they are prescribed by the Bible and logically consistent with their own material. The RC's argument is about questioning the efficacy and reasonableness of the JW policies and ideas against secular/humanitarian sensibilities. These are two different things. And, I think you can see it in some of the reactions of the RC members. There is definitely a tone of frustration coming out of the RC at times.
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
I think, in typical JW fashion, JW elders/representatives went in with the idea that the angels would provide just the right words for them to say like they were going door-to-door or something. They walked in with an indefensible position and, I imagine, confident that Jehovah would put just the right words in their mouths. Epic fail...
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
i am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
also the ease she has in making huge sweeping statements when comparing the jw's to all other international religious organisations simply undermines her professionalism.. i am also thoroughly shocked at her blatant, 'expert for hire', 'will defend anyone' apparent decision making, the organisation is responsible for covering up thousands of abuse victims by its own records, in australia alone!
never mind their judicial process being heartless and traumatic!.
The question I would have asked Dr. Applewhite, if given the opportunity would be, "...knowing what you now know about Jehovah's Witnesses, would you ever consider becoming one, and/or bringing your children/family into it, or even recommending it to others as "the truth"?"
I hope these hearings will be of a lot of benefits. And, I hope very strongly that there will be a number of people in that room that will never want to become a JW. Priceless...
what can i add?
this says it all.. elder on stand is mute till prompted.. .
i guess i could encourage you to watch to the end and a guest commentary, lol..
Vidiot - Figured as much, but then, why bother with attorneys at all?
Good question. In the US, you can have a lawyer sit next to you when you are testifying in a "Grand Jury" or "Congressional Hearing". For example, they can lean over, and whisper in your ear to advice you (e.g. how to answer, and help you with your rights against self-incrimination) but they do not address the court/hearing directly. Also, by being in the room the lawyer can take better notes and collect information to develop/prepare next steps, strategies, etc.
