by Gretchen956 20 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Sherry,
You work at the Wash. DOH? What program/division? I spent the last 5 years there, managing projects in the Div. of Drinking Water, WEDSS, Health Lab in Shoreline, and the Center for Health Statistics.
Funny thing about the DOH. They got a bunch-o-dubbies, especially in the WEDSS program. Do you know them? I can only imagine what one of them would say.
(If you don't remember, you and I met at the apostafest in Portland a couple months ago.)
- Cliff
Cliff, I work in the Genetics Department in Kent, basically Community and Family Health stuff, however the biggest percentage of folks in our building are Drinkingwater folks, plus we have people in our department also stationed at Shoreline at the PHL with the newborn screening folks (Early Hearing Loss Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention). We probably know some of the same people.
Yes, I am finding out just how many of the JWs actually work there, I was surprised for some reason. I should share this around as a matter of interest from the public health standpoint just knowing some JW is bound to pick it up! LOL
However the folks I talked to regarding this subject were more in policy in Olympia.
Sherry
You know I was thinking too, how much weight does the signed blood card have? That might overrule any "tort of misrepresentation" since the JW signs it in accordance with Acts 15:28,29 and not in accordance with the [dis]information in the blood brochure.
Since the contract is entered into after the indoctrination, and since the indoctrination includes secular misrepresentation about blood, the contract may be voidable. Either way, the contract does prove there is an objective beyond communication of and acceptance of belief behind the indoctrination.
AuldSoul
Personally..............I don't think this BIG NEWS is going to make an inkling of difference.
The indoctrinated JW will NEVER consider any outside info into his/her belief system.
I put my $$$$$$$$$$$$$ that this is a moot point.
Barbara is to be commended for her zeal and activism..........but I think she blew it on this aspect of causing the WTBTS to make a move in OUR favor. It will not go anywhere near where she thought it would!
If it is from MEN.........forget it! It's going to end one day. If it is really from God.............nothing will stop it!
What do you think?
Me...............I think one day after I am long gone.........the WTBTS will be long gone too!
HappyDad
I find it odd that anyone here thinks it critical, or even worth mentioning, what the general populace thinks about Jehovah’s Witnesses, or about the article in question by Kerry.
The material Kerry has researched and presented need only catch the interest of a single attorney who, God forbid, might want to pad his or her pocketbook with some serious cabbage. Don’t forget that greed is a major motivator. One attorney in one well-backed firm is all it takes to give this thing legs. This is one of the unique features of Kerry’s material. It does not require wide distribution. It does not require popular assent. It only requires one greedy (or not!) lawyer and one willing client. When the settlement comes we probably will not know because of secrecy agreements. But these settlements will come, only at an accelerated pace given that this new theory is explored and leveraged successfully. It will not take a single solitary court case to move the WTS to neuter its absurd Blood Doctrine.
Marvin Shilmer
Fair enough point Marvin. But why hasn't it happened before now? It would be interesting to hear from attorneys on this very point.
I'm uneasy about the article because it may look and sound persuasive, but it remains untested. Why get excited ahead of time? Surely, save your excitement for a successful case - but I doubt this will happen. I smell a naive line of argumentation from an over-enthusiastic student egged on by fellow enthusiasts such as Barbara. Nothing wrong with enthusiasm - but people often get carried away with it and it blinds judgement - something that we know from the Watchtower's boring history of overconfident predictions.
As you say, greed (especially among the law profession) is a great motivator and it is absolutely astonishing that it takes an article in a - excuse me, but I have to say this - far-from prestigious law journal to expose the Watchtower's archilles heel.
Sherry, if I did it correctly, you have a PM
Hello Gretchen,
I have a couple of points in response to your post.
I took two copies of Barbara's initial post (infomercial) regarding the news and the links. What I got were people highly skeptical of the voracity, and highly suspicious of the University that published it (Baptist so therefore not really credible in the subject of law). One comment was, "if a child is hurt by their policies it's one thing, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for an adult that would go to a church for medical advice."
First off, Barbara's post contains excerpts from the article, but it is not the article itself. Secondly, although I would also be skeptical of anything that came out of a religious based university, skepticism itself does not mean the content of the article is not valid. There are many lawyers in this country that are very religious, and who happen to respect a religious-based schools. There are also judges similarly inclined. The folks at your work are commenting without knowing the true contents of that article. Their skepticism only reveals their own bias. This certainly does nothing to discredit the article. Similarly, whether or not they "feel sorry for adults that go to a church for medical advice" is irrelevant to the legal theories espoused in that article.
My disappointment personally is that there are so many ways for the WTS to attack the veracity of this piece
Why would they bother to do so? I'm unaware of any pending cases based on this article, and, in any event, the article may constitute persuasive authority, but no law journal articles are considered binding authority.
One, the person that wrote it is an ex-JW who's mother died due to this policy. ; Hardly a neutral party and they will have a field day with that in court or in the media
All of this is irrelevant since the article cannot be used as binding authority in court. Similarly, the media could care less about this article. I find it extremely unlikely that the contents of this article will find its way to mainstream media.
What this article will do is focus the attention of certain lawyers who read it on this issue. Regardless of the merits of the legal theories espoused in this article, it will cause litigation-minded folks to consider the issue. If the theory turns out to be valid, it will be like a roadmap for them. If it's invalid, it might cause someone to think of something that actually is valid.
I personally have not read the article so I cannot express an opinion as to its validity, and Barbara's posted excerpts are insufficient for any competent lawyer to come to a conclusion one way or the other on this issue. If the folks you passed this by were in fact attorneys, they either weren't giving you a really honest response (most likely because they could care less about this issue) or they are not attorneys I would engage for any purpose other than washing my windows.
As a side note, I would be careful about discussing this too much at your work. People will likely draw some undesirable conclusions about you. It's not worth it. People do think JWs are crazy, and in the same class as Hare Krishnas, etc.. It's best to keep your exposure to the JWs to yourself, for political reasons.
Good luck to you!
""It only requires one greedy (or not!) lawyer and one willing client.""
That's true for a start.However it would then have to be tested. You would have to find a judge who would accept that it has merit. After the judge decides it does or doesn't, then the appeals begin. regardless of which way the judge decides. This would take a long time to reach a trail or settlement if it EVER does.
Mr. or Ms. 144001, I didn't post the response I did because I was giving a broad view of people's perception about the article. I hope some mileage can be made of it. I just wanted to show this little snapshot about the reaction that I got, because it underscores the fact that people in general could care less about JWs.
As for keeping the fact that I used to be a JW silent, those in my immediate group already know about it, we talk freely about a lot of things. I don't feel that I need to hide who I am to anyone. Who any of us are today is a product of where we have been in our lives that have gotten us to this point. The fact that we were able to see the cult for what it was and gain our freedom speaks to our characters and our strength, and how could that be harmful? I'm a survivor. I think thats a badge of honor.
In the larger picture at the Dept of Health, in Olympia, there are scores of JWs working. With them I won't be having the conversation about my past as a witness. Not because I'm hiding it, but because I don't want to give implicit or tacit approval for their shunning. If they don't know about it they treat me like everyone else and I get some passive aggressive satisfaction out of that. If they do find out, its no big deal either, because that type of behavior is usually an effective anti-witness.
People are getting so defensive about this article. I did not attack it, nor the people who wrote it in anything I have responded too. The fact that I don't think its as big a deal as some others is nothing to get yourself all worked up over. Best of luck to you in this campaign to bring down the borg.
Sherry
