Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Abaddon

    I just updated Wikipedia's entries!

    Only quick entries based on the release, I'm sure they can be improved....

  • Bryan


  • Bryan

    quango , Are you the best damage control the Tower could provide? Come on man... talk is cheap. Lets see some facts. Bryan

  • AuldSoul


    It depends on whether the courts hear the case and how the courts hear the case. Jury awards in cases of child death could easily be in the millions. Increased risk an or trauma resulting from this would net hundreds of thousands per incident.

    It should be remembered that the first time most Witnesses "dig into" the blood issue in any depth is either during or after an event where it affected them or their family personally. This change allows the potential for a solid argument of harm pursuant to a Tort of Misrepresentation. It has previously been nearly impossible to get past the fact that someone agreed of their own free will to adopt the doctrine.

    But now, AFTER THE FACT, it can be argued that the adoption of doctrine was based, in whole or in part, on misrepresentation of secular facts. In times past, if someone's family was adversely affected due to adoption of a doctrine with being honestly informed of risk, the most the injured party could do is piss and moan, and undermine the doctrine in the congregation until they got themselves disfellowshipped. NOW, they can possibly sue.

    HUGE news.


  • Dansk
    *The misrepresentation of secular facts;

    *The misrepresentation of historians’ writings

    I wonder how the above will affect the Watchtower's charitable status in the UK? In order to get that status - and I complained twice to the charities commission - it had to prove that it was working beneficially for the public good. The charities commission accepted that Watchtower was working for the public good, i.e. its Christian work! I wonder what it would think now???

    Any British lawyers here?


  • Balsam

    I would gladly join in on a class lawsuit if one develops for the WTBTS to be sued for their blood policy. Since my son died in part because of he and his Dad refused blood after an auto accident. Especially since he was a minor and had been endoctrinated by the WTBTS, along with our congregation.


  • DannyHaszard


    The significance in a sentence-we are getting really cool at tainting the potential jury pool

    Take that Watchtower legal hacks,come after me and i will make you tremble at my closing jury deliberations-Danny Haszard Bangor Maine

  • RunningMan

    I think maybe we, as x-JWs want to see them skewered so badly that we grasp at straws. I know, I would like to see them brought down as much as anyone, but I just don't see it in this article. Oroborus's analysis was spot on.

    The thesis of the article appears to be "the blood doctrine is full of crap and the society knew it". Not only is that not "big", it's not even "news".

  • undercover

    I posted this on the BIG NEWS big thread but I'm gonna post here also just for the hell of it:

    My two cents (sure to be lost in the shuffle anyway though):

    At first the "big news" landed with a dull thud to me. Not really that "big" afterall. But I have reread Barbara's post several times and then I went to the WTS site and read the blood brochure.

    Something that one of the "in-the-know" guys said the other day stuck with me. They mentioned that through their arrogance, the WTS has gone out on an limb making statements that will come back to haunt them.

    After reading the "big news" and reading the section in the brochure about how safe blood transfusions are or aren't and all the references the WTS makes to secular experts, I see the potential for some major misrepresentation. If the WTS had just stuck to their Biblical guns and said, "The Bible says to abstain from blood and we follow that" and stayed away from trying to convince people that blood transfusions are more dangerous or riskier than they are they would have been able to defend it through religious freedom. But since they devote an entire section of the brochure to the risks and dangers of transfusions and if they did misrepresent the evidence, that's what is going to bite them in the ass.

    They went from religious opinion to medical opinion in that brochure. They allegedly have twisted and misrepresnted information from secular sources to try to decieve their readers into not trusting blood transfusions.

    I see the potential, but it ain't gonna be easy. Someone is going to have to actually file a lawsuit against them to see where it goes. The first one may not get far, but someone else will have to try again and again and again.

    It could be like the tobacco lawsuits. At first they fail, then finally after several tries, one succeeds, then the floodgates open and the tobacco companies are hit hard.

    But, like the tobacco companies, the WTS can survive. They may get hurt, hurt bad. They may have to make drastic changes, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the religion, only a morphing into a different brand of religion, much like the tobacco companies. People know that smoking is bad, but they buy cigarettes and smoke them anyway. The WTS can survive, promote new doctrines or whatever and sucker in a whole new breed of people.

  • DannyHaszard
    They went from religious opinion to medical opinion in that brochure. They allegedly have twisted and misrepresnted information from secular sources to try to decieve their readers into not trusting blood transfusions.

    Well put,these frigging cults 'get a burr on their saddle' over some dogma and they make an ass of themselves much like scientology with prozac.

Share this