by cedars 25 Replies latest watchtower scandals
I think if enough of a stink is made in the press they will be forced to act.
That's what I think. The problem is, we need hard figures to get the press to take notice and ignite public interest, and that's proving challenging.
However, you know me, I'm no quitter!
go for it cedars! i'm behind you cheering all the way! your rapidly turning into the JWN Hero! xxx
totaly agree with you i've started a thread here before about it myself. the public needs to know how this charity law is being abused. take it away and take away their extra cash... afterall jehovah will provide (!)
gotcha cedars - I finally understand why you were emphasizing the gift aid tax scheme on the other thread and how it relates to the charity commission and the vulnerability of IBSA's charitable status. I think you are on to something.
Perhaps the new survey could ask questions to ascertain how many children have been disfellowshipped and how this affected their family life - what things they were excluded from and how this made them feel.
Thanks soft+gentle - "doctrinal impact" is definitely something I can try to explore in a bit more detail on the 2012 survey! Good suggestion...
This interests me very much. I think a letter to a local MP or a well prepared consultation at a MP surgery might be interesting.
I wonder if the "sister charity "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain" would be worth lookng at more closley. If the IBSA exists to supply the needs of the WTBS then does this chairity fulfill the Public Benefit requirement? If the WTBS can be shown to be vulnerable then the IBSA loses its charitable raison d'etre.
The problem I think is that in the UK all religious groups are allowed charitable status simply by virtue of being a religion. If we are going to suggest that JWs should be removed from the list are we arguing that they should be singled out as not worthy of inclusion as a religious charity and if so on what basis? What about Mormons, Plymouth Brethren, Pentecostals?
If the literature is printing hateful statements, designed to break up families, surely it cannot qualify as beneficial.
in the UK all religious groups are allowed charitable status simply by virtue of being a religion
No that's not true. Religious orders who do not reach out in any way to the community like some orders of monks are not recognised. The new law on public benefit has never been tested as far as I'm aware. The Closed Bretheren and JWs were specifically mentioned in the discussion paper about the proposed new legislation.
This is obviously why the official line from Mill Hill is that blood transfusions are a decision for each individual. If a JW was to get DFd for giving consent for their child to have a transfusion it could make an intresting test case.
slimboyfat - the difference is that JWs were singled out as possibly being in breach of public benefit legislation (along with Scientology) before the laws were even introduced. How they even managed to survive this long is a mystery to me. Judging by the statements they have made on their official charity documentation, they have managed it by concealing their doctrinal policies and issuing misleading statements. That's why I think it's simply a case of raising awareness of the true story behind the organization and its harmful practices. The current financial climate and spending cuts should make this story more relevant, but I can't get far with the media without firm numbers.
Someone (cedars ) find out who we should write to and let's abuse their inbox. Combined force works best.
