Scully	Re: Children in Bulgaria - CANNOT BECOME MEMBERS
	CoCo, As you know, the WTS are masters of semantic deception. The use of the word sanction is quite interesting in this instance. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sanction Main Entry: 1sanc·tion Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin sanction-, sanctio, from sancire to make holy -- more at SACRED 1: a formal decree; especially: an ecclesiastical decree 2 aobsolete: a solemn agreement : OATHb: something that makes an oath binding 3:the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law 4 a: a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment b: a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards c:explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification: APPROBATION 5: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication Let's look at the quote from the point of view of the European Commission on Human Rights: In respect to the refusal of blood transfusions, the applicant association submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept a blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusions cannot amount to a threat to public health. The ECOHR would read this sentence and conclude that sanctions refer to "the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of law as a means of enforcing the law", and would agree with the statement that there is no threat to public health and welfare of JW children. However, the WTS lawyer involved in the writing of this application / appeal clearly meant sanctions to refer to "explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification" considering the following outcomes over the past 10 years. a Jehovah's Witness would not accept a blood transfusion for himself or his children, therefore if one accepts a blood transfusion, one is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses the fact that accepting a blood transfusion is the equivalent of the voluntary Disassociation™ of one's membership as one of Jehovah's Witnesses "the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of law as a means of enforcing the law" in the form of shunning, is not carried out against Jehovah's Witnesses, but against persons who are "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", having voluntarily Disassociated™ themselves of their membership with Jehovah's Witnesses by accepting a blood transfusion. This is a very clever piece of fancy footwork on the part of the WT Legal Department. Make no mistake about it. Cautious as serpents and innocent as doves comes to mind.
IP: BOu3WFQJh5PpO62a	by Scully: Correct spelling