URGENT: Please Sign White House Petition to "Protect Americans from Dangerous Cults: Modify USC Title 26 § 501 Tax Exemption Requirements"

by ABibleStudent 130 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Band on the Run

  The Const'n restrains government, not private citizens or groups. The First Amendment stays out of religion. When our federal const'n was enacted and the First Amendment ratified, several states long had state established religions. Massachusetts was one. The regional religion dominated the smaller ones. This was the English one. England did not exert much jurisdiction over the colonies so state general assemblies flourished and estalished religion. The question when the First Amendment was drafted was the extent of federal power. It was assumed states had the right to do what they wanted. State establishments gradually faded away.

  The Civil War turned everything topsy turvy. The Thirteen and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified in quick succession. It was said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states for the first time. Most justices now accept that the First amendment bars federal and state government action. Justice Thomas believes only certain amendments were incorporated. He is a very small minority. Scalia believes in incorporation.

  As I stated in another thread, several European western democracies protect citizens from religion as well as protecting religion from government.

  The United States has not done so. The Republican primaries should be proof that we are no so enlightened. I would rather the Witnesses have extra power than the government defining what is a dangerous religion. England decided that only the Church of England would receive tax dollars and be part of government.

  What can be achieved is public relations. Information is far easier to obtain. There is no reason critical thinking skills cannot be taught from kindergarten. You don't need a college degree to have them. It is just when we usually first come across a decent education.

  The Supreme Court has accomodated religion more and more recently. There are bigger fish to fry than tax exemption. I wonder what the cost to government would be if religious institutions that provide social welfare suddenly disappeared. More and more people believe the religious tax exemption is unfair.

  Of course, if there is a specific instance of WT abuse, the IRS should know.
• 

  Madge

  Maybe it won't succeed but at the very least I think it does give some attention to a very real issue within religions in the U.S. Personally, I believe that shunning of someone who is no longer wanting to be in the faith (whatever it may be) is a violation on thier religious freedom and therefore the constitutional law made to protect ALL individuals is violated. Perhaps as a whole the organization is untouchable, they are free to exercise their faith however they would like. However, if one no longer wishes to participate, how can the effects of shunning still apply without violating that particular persons right to exercise their freedom of religion? A person has every right to shut someone out and never talk to them again, They can certainly teach that its wrong, but if a person chooses not to adhere to it then it becomes a violation of that persons religious right to be given such a consequence. I would think these individuals could certainly raise an issue of their personal religious rights being abused through threats of losing family and friends, emotional abuse ect... and possibly tie the organization up in many lawsuits. All the evidence one could need can all be found in their literature. Sounds far fetched perhaps, but I would think there's potential. If the courts continually had to settle these lawsuits, eventually more negative exposure would be shed on it, and then perhaps prompt a change as a whole within these organizations. (you know how much they HATE that kind of media attention). I dont forsee the government intervening into the cult aspect as a whole. But on an individual level, I think its plausable to eventually make big changes happen. Then again, I may be completely wrong. Its just a thought.
• 

  NewChapter

  However, if one no longer wishes to participate, how can the effects of shunning still apply without violating that particular persons right to exercise their freedom of religion?

  The Constitution only protects the right of an individual to choose how they will or how they will not worship, with no government interference. Perhaps this is a case of conflicting rights. On the one hand, a religion has the right to teach it's interpretation of the bible. On the other, an individual has the right to leave that religion (protected) but those adherents then have the right to not asscociate with that person (also protected). The government can't force association, which is what this petition asks for.

  A religious person may choose not to associate with many kinds of people---drinkers, drug users, homosexuals, ex members, members of a different faith. They are free to make that choice, even if it makes them despicable. But having the freedom is at our core. Who said something like, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll die protecting your right to say it". Something like that. This is the principal that is at our core.

  NC
• 

  Band on the Run

  I give up. There is a difference between what we want the law to be on a particular day and what the law is.

  To be fair, I used to feel we had freedom from religion. A judge would not even hear the case. Lawsuits do not change public opinion much.

  Why not a media campaign? Letters to the editor of local newspapers, calling in talk shows, talking with neighbors and co-workers about WT shunning. If the public knew how common it was, fewer people would choose to become JWs. The entire country is not going to change b/c of our limited experience. Justice and the law do not always go together. There are more effective tools. Also, I live on the East Coast and, until recently, always lived near a world city. I have a hunch that in the South and the midwest, religion is viewed more seriously.

  When I say that I was raised a JW, many people respond by telling me of a friend they have who went through severe heartbreak. These people won't be suckers at the door and eagerly sign up for a Bible study.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  H i Madge, thanks for supporting this petition.

  Hi NewChapter, thanks for commenting on this thread. I have carefully read your comments. I agree with your interpretation of the 1 st Amendment of the Constitution that government is not allowed to infringe on an individual’s rights of freedom of religion and speech. The 14 th Amendment extends enforcement of the 1 st Amendment to State and local government. Nothing that you have written would make me change my mind that this petition protects an individual’s freedom of religion and speech, and does not infringe on those freedoms. Since you have not asked any specific questions about this petition, I presume that you just want to state your opinion on this thread and do not want to have a dialogue about this petition. If your intentions are to state your opinion instead of having a dialogue, I will agree to disagree with you. I will continue my efforts to educate others about the dangers of dangerous cults and to promote reasonable changes. I'm very glad www.jwfacts.com and http://www.facebook.com/jwnews have posted links to the White House petition. Hopefully, this petition will promote more dialogue and help to educate more people. I wish you the best in educating others about the WTBTS.

  Band on the Run - As I stated in another thread, several European western democracies protect citizens from religion as well as protecting religion from government.

  The United States has not done so. The Republican primaries should be proof that we are no so enlightened. I would rather the Witnesses have extra power than the government defining what is a dangerous religion. England decided that only the Church of England would receive tax dollars and be part of government.

  Hi Band on the Run, Ditto to you what I wrote to NewChapter. I’m a little surprised that you “would rather the Witnesses have extra power than the government defining what is a dangerous religion”. I would rather a democratically elected government protect citizens from dangerous cults whose leaders are not elected by their members and probably head the organization for life. I hope that no religion is ever again allowed to persecute its members like Jewish sects, the Catholic Church, and dangerous cults like the WTBTS have done at one time or another throughout history. You may want to read how the Charles Taze Russell and Judge Rutherford were against shunning in an article about shunning at http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  soft+gentle

  hi robert

  I admire your initiative and petitioning is a valuable resource as I am coming to see. Trial and error could easily result in a petition one day that really does garner support and makes it through to be debated politically. I don't think we should give up with this as religions like Jehovahs witnessess do take their "freedoms" much too far impacting the family life, the social life and the political life of an individual even after they have left. Somehow a petition needs to be worded in such a way that these aspects are plainly visible. I think this will happen eventually and meanwhile we can hone our skills.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Soft+gentle - I admire your initiative and petitioning is a valuable resource as I am coming to see. Trial and error could easily result in a petition one day that really does garner support and makes it through to be debated politically. I don't think we should give up with this as religions like Jehovahs witnessess do take their "freedoms" much too far impacting the family life, the social life and the political life of an individual even after they have left. Somehow a petition needs to be worded in such a way that these aspects are plainly visible. I think this will happen eventually and meanwhile we can hone our skills.

  Hi Soft+gentle, Thank you for your comments. What are your thoughts for improving this petition? I am always interested in ways to improve my writing, because I realize that I write for how I interpret ideas and not for how other people interpret what I write. By the way I have not given up on JWs and support how they wish to practice their beliefs. I only want to influence GB members to change the doctrines that were instituted by WTBTS Presidents Knorr and Freddie Franz. For about the past two years I have been using a shot gun approach to find a way to influence GB members starting with writing letters to GB members, asking them to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ; then writing the Bible Student's blog (http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?board=72.0); and now I'm trying to find a political solution.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Hi Blindnomore, You have a PM. I replied to your PM.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  mP

  @robert

  there are many things that are wrong, but i am nobody, no one actually listens to you uor me. my rant was made to simply show the gov and church are still in partnership, eept the church has been demote from meddling in the political side. its an arrangement that remains simply becaise it is benEficial to the gov.
• 

  ABibleStudent

  mP - @robert

  there are many things that are wrong, but i am nobody, no one actually listens to you uor me. my rant was made to simply show the gov and church are still in partnership, eept the church has been demote from meddling in the political side. its an arrangement that remains simply becaise it is benEficial to the gov.

  Hi mP, I disagree with you that you are nobody. You are somebody and I'm willing to listen to your ideas if you are willing to have a dialogue with me where we listen to each others ideas and ask each other questions.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert