by stillin 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In Australia voting is compulsory if you are over 18 years of age , however their are exceptions if you have a valid excuse , and their is a list for that , one of which is religious objections .
My wife and I would go to a polling booth and vote for Jesus kingdom under Jehovah , or some such thing .
pathetic I know.
I take pride in voting for a candidate of my choosing now , whether its to vote her/ him in office or vote him/ her out.
smiddy
""Hey Blondie, what about smoking after a "sexual sin"?""
After clean sexual sin.....No problem.
It's the shunning I wonder about. Grown children of witnesses have gone into the military and then years later come to their parents funeral and NOT been shunned.
One who is discovered to be voting, sure, he has emancipated himself from the neutrality issue and decided to take a stand for something, but in reply to DataDog's question, I don't know whether he has effectively, officially DA'd himself to the extent that he should be shunned. The CO didn't go so far in his comments. He just said that "clearly, they are not taking the stand that Christ said to take." (Who said that, again?)
i like to eat my cake then have it, too. I am enjoying some "worldly" things, but I still enjoy being able to converse with people when I am at the KH. Just take me out back and shoot me!
these people are just plain difficult
the CO mentioned that people don't get DF'd for joining the military or registering to vote because they are already gone
I'd suggest that this was a CYA statement made in behalf of the WTS. It would be bad publicity to suggest that people were excommunicated for these actions. It could perhaps result in the loss of "tax free" status. Actions against a member of the military is likely a crime. Certainly would not play well "in Peoria".
Thus, anyone who has taken any personal action that violates "neutrality" is considered by their actions to have "disassociated" themselves from the Christian Congregation. No need for a JC if there are two witnesses or clear evidence of their action. They will be announced as "no longer one of JWs". I believe this is the same action to be taken against someone who accepts a blood transfusion and is unrepentant after doing so. No more DF for taking blood. Bad publicity.
It's imperative that they reduce their potential lawsuits. They don't have the legal staff to handle it all. They don't like giving their money away in awards or settlements.
Doc
D of C is correct in that this is a ruse to get around any legislation against being "unpatriotic"... Older elders told me that it stemmed from war years when if they d/f'd a lad for obeying the conscription they would have been in trouble . They simply decided to recognize that a person had obviously left the faith - and announced accordingly.
Re voting - registration on the Electoral Roll is a legal requirement in the U K, so the dubs comply. Voting is a choice though and so they don't do that. The issue of what action is to be taken if a Witness is known to have voted is a somewhat grey area. Some statements seem to say that it is a conscience thing , although one cannot see how a believer would vote for a politician in "Satan's world"
I asked an elder. the last time one actually talked to me, he said he did not know how it would be handled!!
I would simply love it if they tried to DF or DA me for either Voting, which I do every time now, or for donating blood, which I do as often as I am allowed by the NHS.
I would make sure the publicity about the J.C, and its reasons, was HUGE !
Jeezus, at the rate they're going, practically everything will amount to "disassociating" oneself by default before too long.
Although it will save the overworked Elders a few JCs. :)
We had a case locally (USA) where some dumb a$$ elders tried to df a young man for joining the military. The branch wrote back and demanded they resind his df'ing and destroy ANY record of his being df'd "for that reason". They also noted that if he had committed some sin as defined in the ks book that, of course, he could be df'd for that...
As others have noted, taking a "nonnetural" stance is a DA situation, not a DF, wink wink.
How could one find out if the WT could be held responsible for denying people's right to vote their conscience, since voting is considered by them taking a non-neutral stance and therefore immediate DA'ing by one's actions?
I've written the ACLU and haven't gotten a response yet. I don't think they'll consider it a very pressing issue, not understanding what DA'ing labels actually do to a person's family and friend relationships.
