by mind blown 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals
The question is: is the organization main focus to help individuals or to help themselves? If they are there mainly to help themselves they are not a charity or a npo, they are a business and should be dealt with as such.
To find out if their main focus is to help individuals or to help themselves we can pay attention to the people that was involved with them, and see if they have a sense of gratitude, or even indiference or rather a sense of having been scammed and manipulated.
apostatethunder - The question is: is the organization main focus to help individuals or to help themselves? If they are there mainly to help themselves they are not a charity or a npo, they are a business and should be dealt with as such.
To find out if their main focus is to help individuals or to help themselves we can pay attention to the people that was involved with them, and see if they have a sense of gratitude, or even indiference or rather a sense of having been scammed and manipulated.
Hi apostatethunder, I agree with your philosophy of examining how an organization's actions affect its members. If members are afraid to express their religious beliefs to their leader(s) or to other members because they fear reprisal because of what an organization or its leader(s) promote, then I feel that an organization's leadership is subverting a basic human right.
Most dangerous groups (or cults) evolve and then prey on vulnerable people. Other dangerous groups (or cults) start out as being dangerous cults and use mind control techniques to enslave members. The end result is always the same. Except for the leaders, individuals’ basic rights to think or behave in a civil manner are infringed on by the organization or its leadership for the supposed good of all (i.e., the leadership). If a member is not involved in freely selecting his/her leader(s), I do not feel that a member must be forced to leave an organization because a member publically disagrees with policies (or doctrines) of an organization, nor should a member feel trapped within an organization because a member is afraid to express his/her opinion.
I have read many Supreme Court opinions and still cannot find a Supreme Court decision where justices unanimously agreed that an individual’s rights of freedom of religion and speech are subordinate to an organization’s rights. I personally do not feel that organizations have freedom of religion rights, because organizations cannot think only an organization's leader(s) can think.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Robert,
Scalia says many things that may not have great support from the other jusstices. He provokes thought. Clarence Thomas just says wacky things.
The test for an EC violation was set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini. If you reread Hein, you will find that each justice's opinion will cite and quote the three prong test.
Some European countries expressly protect individuals from religion. France is a great example. They call it laicete. There are accent marks but I don't know how to insert them in this forum. Religion was very conservative and very aristocratic in much of Europe. The French Revolution caused masses to turn on the R C Church, not so much for doctrine as for political domination.
The United States was formed, in large measure, by religious dissidents fleeing English persecution. The level of anticlericalism never was high here. People would complain about Puritan domination of New England. Many states had established religions. That individuals needed freedom from religion was not a big idea here. State establishments only became uncosnt'l after the Civil War when the Bill of Rights was extended to the states. Thomas argues that the First Amendment was never incorporated. Religions did many great things - orphanges, hospitals, feeding the poor. The Founders, with perhaps the exception of Hamilton, saw the role of government as much more limited than we expect today.
You have the right to file a petition. The govt does not have to answer it, though. I agree that freedom from religion is a good idea. Freedom from all religion. Can you imagine "imagine" if John Lennon only singled out the Witnesses? I expect the religious right is going to go full force during this election cycle. Rick Santorum was more of a threat than the Witnesses. Precisely b/c this is America, we can walk away from them. The converse is also true. They can walk away from us.
You may not be aware but vagueness itself is a const'l problem. "Dangerous" is very vague. From my readings but not from actual experience, it seems that Europe is more enlightened about religion than the United States. Colonists fled here to practice their own brand of religion not to be free from religion.
Band on the Run - You have the right to file a petition. The govt does not have to answer it, though. I agree that freedom from religion is a good idea. Freedom from all religion. Can you imagine "imagine" if John Lennon only singled out the Witnesses? I expect the religious right is going to go full force during this election cycle. Rick Santorum was more of a threat than the Witnesses. Precisely b/c this is America, we can walk away from them. The converse is also true. They can walk away from us.You may not be aware but vagueness itself is a const'l problem. "Dangerous" is very vague. From my readings but not from actual experience, it seems that Europe is more enlightened about religion than the United States. Colonists fled here to practice their own brand of religion not to be free from religion.
Hi Band on the Run, At least we can agree with the five sentences that are bolded above and your opinion that Justice Scalia provokes thought.
Although vagueness is not something that I like to do, sometimes I appear to be vague when I am limited to expressing myself to less than or equal to 800 characters, as I was when I wrote the White House Petition; when I can only influence a process and cannot participate in the process (i.e., writing Congressional bills); and when communicating with people, who have radically different experiences and memories from mine. I do believe that through dialogue and asking clarifying questions that I might appear less vague.
Since I feel that we are having more of a dialogue now than finding flaws in each other’s writings, pleasae answer two clarifying questions that I have about two posts that you wrote earlier (see your posts after the questions in the quote boxes below):
1) Do your childhood memories about your relatives doing “hard time because they were Witnesses” influence your perceptions about the White House petition? In other words your feelings are so strong that nothing could ever convince you that victims and tax exempt organizations’ rights could be protected simultaneously, or will you always feel that one will always benefit at the expense of the other.
2) Does your legal viewpoint that Witnesses and the Society have First Amendment association rights, influence your perceptions about whose rights are subordinate to the others' rights? Are members' rights always subordinate to an organizations' rights (i.e., the leaders decisions)? Example: would those private clubs that you belong to be legally within their rights to promote to their members not to associate with former club members, and if a member did associate with a former member that that member would no longer be a member. Does it matter whether an organization discloses or does not disclose this rule when a member joins?
Band on the Run - This triggers me no end b/c I grew up with multiple relatives who did hard time b/c they were Witnesses. They were not people in a WT book. Rather, they were my blood family. The Const'n kept them out of concentration camps. America was very right and very clerical in the 30s nd 40s. The Const'n was inept. The Supreme Court decision came too late to save my mother. Yes, I am passionate about this topic.
Band on the Run - Also, from a legal viewpoint, the Witnesses and the Society have First Amendment association rights. The Witnesses do not hide their rules. They have a right to decide whether they want to associate with someone who breaks their rules. I belong to private clubs. Why should I meet membership criteria to have others just walk in. My purpose is to meet others similarly vetted.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Some religions are actually positive in the lives of people, and a good social influence, unfortunately the witness, as much as they brag about it, are not. We only need to see the results in the lives of the people that are still in the organization (brainwashed individuals, child-like, manipulated...) and the ones who leave, who will end up losing their family, friends and good name just because they have finally opened their eyes to what the org is really about. It is a totalitarian or mafia like philosophy, only on a different level (they wont shoot you if you leave, they'll only kill you figuratively), but the principle behind is the same.
Other religions with all their shortcomings, are doing a good job in helping people in many different ways. The Watchtower is heading down, but they want to take cristendom as they call it, down with them. Jws (the leaders), are not interested in people, whatever they are interested in, is something else.
Hi Robert, I am not an expert in law, but if I enter into a contract with you and I omit important facts, and lie to you about others, is this contract still legally valid? Also, could you denounce me for fraud?
apostatethunder - Hi Robert, I am not an expert in law, but if I enter into a contract with you and I omit important facts, and lie to you about others, is this contract still legally valid? Also, could you denounce me for fraud?
Hi apostatethunder, I am not qualified to answer your questions, because I am not an attorney. I would recommend that you consult an attorney to get a legal opinion. According to Band on the Run, attorneys will give a free consultation to discuss your issues.
If you are just asking those questions to gain insights before writing to your representatives or talking with an attorney, may be Band on the Run will give more insights.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Note: I said many lawyers will give a free consultation for about half an hour to forty-five minutes. They will not represent you for free. Large corporate firms and specialty practices prob. will not do consultations. During the consultation, you can explain things in more detail and privacy. Facts matter.
Fraud is actionable under both civil and criminal law. If you can prove that a religion commited fraud, establish all the elements a plaintiff, must prove, they can be sued. No court will ever look into content of a religion. They have no more right to commit fraud than Citibank does. Manson had a cult. He sits in prison. No one is arguing that a religion can do anything.
People may get confused. Fraud for lawyer is legal fraud. You must consult statutes and case law to determine what must be proved to prevail. It is not as loose as fraud in common parlance is. The WT lawyers are competent. They have good legal minds. Also, they are only doing their duty. They could be disbarred if they did not represent the WT zealously. If you think that they haven't already researched this down to the last nth, consulted with other religions, and even written preliminary letters and briefs, you are very mistaken.
David might fight Goliath. David and Goliath is only in the Bible b/c it was shocking news-the underdog winning.
Did you read Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities 14th Edition ? And also other ediiton like 15th and 16th are good also, but if you want first read this 14th. It will be usefull for you.
