COULD YOU SUE AN ELDER?
MAKE IT EASIER!
COULD YOU SUE AN ELDER?
MAKE IT EASIER!
One of the "hooks" that the WTS and JWs use in recruitment techniques is the line that other people/churches have LIED TO YOU, and now we are going to fix that by telling you The Truth™.
That was the hook that got my family involved in the JWs in the late 60s: that their parents and the churches they belonged to in the past had deliberately misrepresented things to them. They came to believe that other churches deliberately misrepresented God, by failing to use His Name (Jehovah). They came to believe that other churches deliberately misrepresented God by claiming He was part of a Trinity. They came to believe that other churches deliberately misrepresented Jesus by claiming he was "God the Son" rather than "The Son of God". They came to believe that other churches deliberately misrepresented Jesus' birth by claiming that he was Immaculately Conceived and that Mary was always a virgin and that the date of Jesus' birth was not December 25. They came to believe that other churches deliberately misrepresented the condition of the dead, and going to heaven or hell after death. Those things are what cause many JW recruits to mistrust a previously held belief system and continue their Bible Studies™ with the JWs.
The entire JW theology hangs on the misrepresentation that other religions teach, and they teach JWs to hold those churches accountable for those misrepresentations. They teach JWs that churches who lie, cannot be purveyors of truth, and the only solution for honest-hearted people is to "get out of her my people, if you do not want to share in her sins or receive part of her plagues".
What this could do for a lot of JWs is force them to realize that the WTS is actually no better than any other church in its track record of constant deliberate misrepresentation.
Thanks for your reply. Except for your somewhat demeaning assessment of the author of this article, who is a friend, I appreciate your perspective. This matter will go no where in the courts if your opinion prevails in the legal system. Having your perspective on this will help the exjw community in the long run.
However, I believe when the entire article is available for review you may soften a little.
The Society is not misrepresenting anything when it cites what is the holding of a case, even if the case had nothing to do with blood or minors, and that is what it has done. (Doesn't everyone realize by now that every thing published by the Society is vetted by the Legal Dept?
The published article DOES site numerous misrepresentation. Just one example is the WT's quoting of Dr. John Spratt in the American Journal of Surgery Sept 1986, as saying "Cancer surgeons may need to become bloodless surgeons". As you know misrepresentation is often by omission. In this case the WT does not mention that Dr. Spratt's definition of "bloodless" does not exclude many fractions such as "frozen red blood cells" that the WT forbids. However, their use of his quote in their contexts suggest Dr. Spratt concurs with the WT's refusal of life saving 'red blood cells'.
I will say again that I appreciate your perspective and view your opinion as important. We would all be fools to ignore contrary perspectives. I hope you will continue expressing your opinion on the future of this approach after the article is fully available.
This is exactly what I was thinking:
LL: they lie to the JWs themselves!!! What does this do to their crediblity to present JWs? What does this do to their credibility to potential converts?
If nothing else, hopefully no one else will be caught in the Watchtower web!
I just thought about something on the timing here. Who wants to bet the the January KMs on blood are already printed, shipped, and probably in the hands of the POs right now? Barbara, did you guys plan it this way? If so all I got to say is GENIUS!
Some poor shulp at beth'el got a typing assignment this morning that begins
To all bodys of elders in the United States:
We are writing to inform you...
Again, the KEY to this is that this essay demonstrates prior precedent that has already been tested for making a clear division between secular facts and religious tenets in determining whether there was tortuous misrepresentation.
Really, all that is being suggested is that the prior, tested precedent be applied to a specific situation in another religion in the same way.
So, this being the case, I would suggest that Eduardo's argument falls flat since it has already been successfully tested to a degree.
The magic key is not that this is a challenge to a religious order, the magic key is that this is a challenge to a religious order's misrepresentation of secular facts. This magic key has been used before successfully, all that we are being asked to believe is that this key COULD be used against the WTS also.
If we all believe very strongly and make ourselves heard with a very loud voice, maybe the magic pixie dust will make the magic key work to unlock the treasure chests. The magic pixie dust (attorney's desire for money) is pretty reliable stuff. The treasure chests (WTS and CCoJW holdings) are filled to bursting and well guarded (by WTS attorney's), but the magic pixie dust is very powerful.
You believe in the power of magic pixie dust, don't you Eduardo?
IP_SEC, it is in the DECEMBER 2005 KM, everyone already has them. Hee-hee!
They specifically encourage using the 1990 brochure as additional material. Is there going to be more in January? I thought the new cards were two-year cards...
JustTickledPink: That is just so sick. The fact of the matter, no matter how they twist and turn this, is that they actually tried to kill you! And the fact that this happens all the time, all over the world, and that children actually die because of this policy, is reason enough to...well, I`m just at a loss for words. However, your case is very interesting, because I can relate to having a gullible, naive, brainwashed mother. When my own mother was sick with cancer, and almost died, because she refused transfusion when she had surgery (complete removal of ovaries and...oh what`s the english word..womb?), her gullible..ness actually saved her life. She was laying there after the surgery, with almost no blood in her body, and the surgeon was astonished she was still alive. She should have been dead hours ago, he told us. So me and my apostate sister (lol) basically forced her to accept the transfusion, which saved her life, and we persuaded her by saying that the "blood would be on our hands". She was gullible and naive enough to accept that. Thank God she wasn`t brighter than she was. And so, she survived. Unfortunately she got sick again, and died about a year later. However, the WTS blood-doctrine almost stole that year from us, and if it hadn`t been for me an my sister, she would have died. And that actually happens all over the world, all the time. So basically, they are mass-murderers! And I hope to God that this new information/article in that journal is the beginning of the end for the WTS.
As of 12/14 a.m. This article has not made it to the two powerhouse internet-based research sites, LexisNexis or Westlaw. Since I could not actually find the Journal of Church and State as a Law Review, I tried shepardizing the Molko case. Somelaw review articles that cite Molko involve JWs (to be printed and read when have the next two weeks off). The current article was not to be found.
Shepardizing is a search that turns up ALL THE OTHER CASES (articles and statutes) that cite the case. So if a law review article cites the Molko case, then a shepardization should turn up that law review article. If the Journal of Church and State does not make its articles available to LexisNexis or Westlaw, it is unlikely that anyone in a position to take it seriously would take it seriously.
Constitutional issues surrounding church and state are a hot button issue for the federal courts right now. However, if this journal is not on Lexis or Westlaw the lawyers who clerk for federal justices won't find them.
Law review articles are never considered legal authority. However, there is nothing stopping a lawyer from borrowing the arguments from an article, relying on similar analysis of facts to the legal precedent cited in the article. Molko is good law on the issue of misrepresentation by a church, so good tort awyers (with clever law clerks) will be able to lift these arguments, and will at least get past summary judgment (which prompts the settlement dialogues...).
Thank you for that perspective, La Capra.
I don't think any of us is unaware how difficult it will be to press this issue through courts, but at least we have something to start hammering away with, now. We couldn't even successfully compel discovery in most child molestation cases. Before now, we really had no chance of breaking through significantly, now there is a chance.
A chance is the biggest news we've ever had. Once there is precedent, that will be bigger news. For now, let's press what we've been given.