Now they are engaging in exactly the types of dealings that they have always criticized. Why should they be immune from criticism?
That is an essential element yet determined. I have not heard the Society criticize other tax-exempt organizations—religious or not—for abiding by laws of the land. Unless you can show that the Society has broken laws of the land then that essential element in the complaint is moot. Also, I have not heard the Society criticize other tax-exempt organizations—religious or not—for utilizing laws of the land for legally arguing points of law as the system entitles. In that case, unless you can evidence that the Society circumvented the law then you have no valid complaint on that front.
If today a law is interpreted by the judiciary as saying, “Tax-exemption is only valid for green books” and tomorrow that law is interpreted by the judiciary as saying, “Tax-exemption is only valid for greenish-blue books” then can we rightly criticize an entity for changing their green books to greenish-blue? Can we possible construe that as circumventing the law? To argue that such a change is circumventing the law would be absurd. In each case they were trying to abide by the law.
Another essential element of this thread has to do with whether the Society aligned it itself with a false religious organization or defended it. Facts are clear that the Society did neither of those things.
I don’t know what is left to legitimately support the complaint.
Certainly I agree that any organization claiming to represent Jehovah’s interests in some way should be criticized when it acts hypocritically, including the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society or any of its associate organizations. There are valid criticisms against the Society, the JSM issue is just not one of them.
If you imagine that I have been arguing the legal wisdom of the Society then you are mistaken. I have been arguing details relevant to whether, on this subject, the Society can be criticized for acting contrary to how they preach others should act.
Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 11:44:46