by garbonzo 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I am puzzled by your surprise BibleStudent.
Raising a child to believe in hellfire is child abuse.
Teaching children that homosexuality is a perversion is shameful.
Indoctrinating children with creationism is harmful to the future of the child and American society.
The only fair petition would be to remove all benefits from all religions.
The only fair petition would be to remove all benefits from all religions.
This would be my ideal solution.
NC
I am not being sarcastic! Or is it so easy to dismiss an abuse of a religion that does not stem from JW shunning etc. I was hurt a great deal more by the hellfire teaching than I was by the shunning policy. So if I were in power, and I had the right to choose favorite religions, I'm just saying that any religion that preached hellfire and indoctrinated their children with phobias and anxieties would be thrown out the door.
The Catholic church would get the thumbs down also, because of their irresponsible, and life threatening doctrines agains birthcontrol and disease control.
Think about THAT, when you are so anxious to give unprecedented power to others over religions that are not their own.
Hi NewChapter, I'm sorry that the hellfire teaching affected you more than the shunning. I absolutely disagree with religious leader(s) preaching hellfire. I would also defend those leader(s) right to preach hellfire, as well as their members rights to tell the leader(s) to go to HELL.
Have you carefully read and understand any of my posts supporting the White House petition? From your posts, I believe that you have not attempted to understand the purpose of any law that would be inspired by the White House petition. The petition would allow members of a religion to publicly disagree with its leader(s) and would not allow those leader(s) to promote to their other members to shun or mark members who disagreed with the leader(s).
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
I understand what the purpose is ABS. I'm am trying to pull it out and take it to some logical conclusions. When we allow governments to favor certain religions over others, we give them power. And who will contain that power? Now I say if I had the power, I would take tax exemption away from religions that teach that birthcontrol and disease prevention is evil. I believe this leads to deaths.
Would I really? No. Not unless I was taking away all tax exemptions from religious organizations. But the point is, I would have the power, and I COULD. And that is what we need to think about. I simply don't favor one religion over another, because I am an atheist. But I'm not into forcefully controlling others either. These are things I'm asking you to think about, but I don't think you are. And that's fine. The constitution has already covered this ground, and the decision is already made. The discussion was academic.
I also believe that telling a child and others that they are born inherently sinful in need of a redeemer is abusive. Wanna give me the keys?
NC
Cofty - I am puzzled by your surprise BibleStudent.Raising a child to believe in hellfire is child abuse.
Teaching children that homosexuality is a perversion is shameful.
Indoctrinating children with creationism is harmful to the future of the child and American society.
The only fair petition would be to remove all benefits from all religions.
Hi Cofty, How are you doing? Although I do not feel that religions should get tax exemptions for only spreading their religious doctrines, I prefer to choose battles that I may have a chance at winning.
I also agree with you that some religious leaders do promote doctrines that I am total against, and I wish that their members would tell those leaders to go to HELL. This petition is more about empowering members of an organization to feel free to disagree with their leaders, than it is about infringing on the rights of individuals.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
deleted comment - everything that needs to be said has already been said on this.
NewChapter - I understand what the purpose is ABS. I'm am trying to pull it out and take it to some logical conclusions. When we allow governments to favor certain religions over others, we give them power. And who will contain that power? Now I say if I had the power, I would take tax exemption away from religions that teach that birthcontrol and disease prevention is evil. I believe this leads to deaths.
Hi NewChapter, When you make statements like the above, I do not feel that you understand the purpose of the White House petition. Government would not be favoring one religion over another. Religious leaders would be free to choose either to promote freedom of religion and speech to their members or not to. Organizations which choose not to promote freedom of religion and speech (and a sufficient number of their members file complaints with the IRS) would be in jeopardy of losing their tax exempt status.
How would government be favoring one religion over another? The IRS already has the power to prevent tax exempt organizations (including religions) from funding terror organizations. I am sure that terrorists are very upset with the government for not allowing their terror activities to be tax exempt. The White House petition just moves the line on what society is willing to support with tax exemptions to also protect members of an organization by requiring that organizations and their leaders must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members, instead of intimidating their members.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Government would not be favoring one religion over another.
You keep assuming that I don't understand. My reading comprehension is fine, and I am able to grasp concepts. I am saying I understand, and I disagree. How is it not favoring one religion over another to choose which ones get to be tax exempt? When has the govt. ever allowed donations to terrorist activities to be tax exempt? When has it allowed it to even be legal? you are drawing false equivalencies.
When govt. can choose WHICH religions get tax exemptions, they are favoring one over the other. And if they can do so on the basis of shunning, they can do so on the basis of evil birthcontrol mandates and child abuse through hellfire teachings. If you get a Bachmann in there, they can do so if a church supports parents treating their LGBT children with dignity and support. If you get an atheist in there, they may think it's all a bunch of nonsense and not worthy of exemption. Ohhhhh, if you get a muslim in there . . .
So I DO understand the issue. I am tuned into it. I'm not missing the point. I understand what I read. And now, I am thinking beyond that. I am logically looking at possible consequences.
NC
NewChapter - You keep assuming that I don't understand. My reading comprehension is fine, and I am able to grasp concepts. I am saying I understand, and I disagree. How is it not favoring one religion over another to choose which ones get to be tax exempt? When has the govt. ever allowed donations to terrorist activities to be tax exempt? When has it allowed it to even be legal? you are drawing false equivalencies.
Hi NewChapter, I don't assume that you do not understand. Do you remember writing the following in the thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/politics/225023/3/URGENT-Please-Sign-White-House-Petition-to-Protect-Americans-from-Dangerous-Cults-Modify-USC-Title-26-c2a7-501-Tax-Exemption-Requirements
NewChapter - I have not read through all of the posts yet, but wanted to get this out. While I would love to see the WT fall, we have to be careful that the means we use don't have unintended consequences. Requesting this type of thing is asking government to come in and monitor religion. I am not religious. I don't even like religion. However, this is America, and we have left these decisions up to individuals. I adamantly oppose when conservatives try to inject their freaky views of god and universe into policy, and I'm certainly not going to inject my own feelings against any religion into any policy.
If I wrote what you wrote in Bold lettering above and then did not respond to your questions in other posts, how would you feel about my opinion and comments?
If you will reply to the following questions, I may be able to better understand your concerns and respond to your comments better:
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Our education is the same. Try and represent another person in court. No way. I have seven years of formula education, plus many years of actual practice. Tru to represent another person and the state will trounce you.
Education and experience is not your enemy. Your grasp of American government is very flawed. I am not the only person who disagrees with you. Unlike you, I know the subject matter and realities of the subject matter.
It is a free country. Do what you want to do. It will be completely unproductive and even back fire on you.
Harry Reid's office may agree with removal of all tax exemptions. They will not endorse i t for political reasons but I do believe some staff and perhaps Reid may even agree. Focus on one religion and you are triggering Harry Reid's feelings of protection towards the Mormons.
You do not know your material. I don't think you are an abberation. Lack of knowledge is why are politic debates are sound bites that trigger primitive emotions rather than rational thought. Indeed, for the nth time, I held many of your assumptions. Feelings are not facts.
There is nothing in the subject matter of this thread to warrant all these threads and the length of the threads. I post not for you but so other readers will know the basic contours of the Establishment Clause. Progresssives and Conservatives completely agree with my thoughts. If I singled you out, I am sorry. Ignorance is a true cancer on the American system. Every present Supreme Court justice agrees with my stance.
When I was a teenager, I believed with the pure rage you do. I grew up b/c of education and experience in politics. My credentials give me entree to ask constl'l professors in the field legal questions. No established separation of church and state group has endorsed your approach. My Witness experience led me to law. My mom was a target of selective, illegal enforccement. Perhaps I should have ingnored you, but fighting such injustice is my raison d'etre.
