About Anonymous they are working on things as we speak!

by life is to short 188 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  life is to short

  144001

  I will totally own my words. You are trying to scare people, no one that I know of condones Anonymous breaking the law. But no one should condone the religion of Jehovah Witlessness breaking the law either. I know two wrongs to do not equal a right but everyone is so frustrated that in the Religion of Jehovah's Witnesses they are clearly breaking the law by allowing child molesters to interact in secrecy. This is clear by the huge verdict that was given to Candace Canti.

  We do not know who you are sitting behind your computer, you could be an elder, a CO, DO or for that matter SST from Bethel.

  What everyone does know is that men who have raped kids, who have made kids do disgusting acts on them as one of the men in my hall did to children. These men should not be allowed to interact with kids period. To send these kind of people door to door is insane. To be told by a CO that I had no chose in the matter and that I had to break the law is insane.

  I am not just talking about Pennsylvania law I am talking about the laws in most states, most states are a mandatory reporting state. So why do the elders go to a pay phone???

  Look at what happened to Monsignor Lynn yesterday in the news, that is not Pennsylvania.

  I am not supporting breaking the law with Anonymous and if that is what they are doing then I do not support that but I do support informing and getting the word out the Jehovah's Witnesses are clearing breaking the law.

  LITS
• 

  Soldier77

  I knew there were bigger things at stake with the WTBTS. The remark in the irc chat that the RBC is WTBTS version of Western Union is quite eye-opening.

  Two things the WTBTS fears: 1) media 2) IRS

  1) Bad publicity and the "truth" coming out on how they ARE Big Business.

  2) IRS audits them... and finds out and goes after them.
• 

  Londo111

  Yes, but the question is: Is it true?

  I've seen lots of allegations thus far, and no proof.
• 

  144001

  <<<144001

  I will totally own my words. You are trying to scare people, no one that I know of condones Anonymous breaking the law. But no one should condone the religion of Jehovah Witlessness breaking the law either. -- LTS>>>

  You've still said nothing that discredits anything I've posted, LTS. Warning and scaring are two different things. I have read certain comments on these threads that I believe to be risky for the person(s) who made them. I also believe that this/these person(s) might be ignorant of the risks they are taking, so I wanted to say something to get them to pay attention to what they are doing.

  I resent your characterization of my comments here as trying to "scare" others. Warning posters about a very real risk they are taking is not an effort to "scare" them; rather, it is an effort to get their attention so that they avoid potential problems. You've posted absolutely nothing to refute anything I've posted; instead, you accuse me of trying to "scare" others and provide absolutely nothing to support your foolish claims.

  If someone here gets in trouble over something they posted here on this subject, are you going to pay their legal defense costs for them? If you don't plan to do so, maybe you should do a little research before dismissing and publicly characterizing a very valid warning as an effort to "scare" others.
• 

  yourmomma

  question answered, never mind
• 

  144001

  Deleted based on the "never mind" comment above.
• 

  King Solomon

  If convicted pedos go door to door, notify police officers, who will arrest them in the act, and they can explain to their parole officers how JW policy trumps civil law. They'll have to do it from behind bars, tho: no one's buying that nonsense, AFAIK. Maybe there is relevant case law to the contrary, but I'm not aware of it.

  It's difficult to accept nothing is fair in life regardless of what happens to the religion and the pedophiles and I realize that.

  That search for fairness in life is what draws some people into JWs in the first place, and people who are DFed don't suddenly lose that desire just because they're not JWs. Hence why they're also likely to engage in vigilante movements like Anon.

  Fact is, the ONLY means of hitting WTBTS is by real-live judgments, issued by real-live judges who are duly-appointed by society to do that, respecting a system that tries to balance individual rights vs those of the community. That may be too boring to some, but it's the best system we've got without an all-seeing Divine Being who will render perfect justice, correcting all evils. It's a foolish pipe-dream, which ironically the Constitution also protects....

  PS this:

  Two things the WTBTS fears: 1) media 2) IRS

  1) Bad publicity and the "truth" coming out on how they ARE Big Business.

  2) IRS audits them... and finds out and goes after them.

  R u 4 realz? "IRS audits them?" As if IRS of themselves can rewrite Constitutional protections? That's so utterly laughable, so naive, as to serve as a red flag that maybe you need to back off the wacky weed... REALLY. Open a book or two on basic civics, for one; even that would only just take you to entry-level knowledge of how government operates.
• 

  Doubting Bro

  King Solomon,

  In the US, the IRS does have the authority to audit a religious organization. Here's the link from the IRS site:

  http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/article/0,,id=179679,00.html

  This describes the church audit process

  http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/article/0,,id=181365,00.html

  This describes the reasonable belief definition.

  PS - The whole change from charging for literature in the early 90s was a direct result of the IRS investigation of Jimmy Swaggart's operations who was charging for literature. I believe they ruled that activity to be for-profit and therefore not tax exempt. The WTS changed to a donation arrangement after the Surpreme Court ruled the IRS had the authority to do this.
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Solider77 - I 100% agree!!
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  The whole change from charging for literature in the early 90s was a direct result of the IRS investigation of Jimmy Swaggart's operations who was charging for literature

  My understanding is that it had nothing to do with the IRS. It was all about STATE Sales Tax on the sale of books/tapes/etc. and I think it was California. To my knowledge, IRS was never involved.

  Doc