End shunning or lose tax free status

by kneehighmiah 62 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    OldGoat - "If you left on principal (something rare on this board)..."

    What... the F**K...??!!

    The vast majority of people on JWN are here because they either left on principle, or were DFed for not compromising their principles.

    What did you think; we were all just a bunch of assholes who were pissed off for being booted out 'cause we wanted to gamble, smoke, and fornicate?

    'Cause if it is, the WTS should proud as hell of the job they did reinforcing their worldview on a guy who's been out as long as you supposedly have.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Do we really know how many people on here left for principled reasons vs. how many were kicked out? I'm thinking the weight would lean towards the latter. Learning TTATT years later does not count.

    Surveys like the one a while back where the majority said they left over doctrine are clearly a case of convenient memory. Is that what you saw in your congregation, personally, Vidiot? People leaving over doctrine? Because those are the only true stories, the ones you observed yourself, not the ones narrated by the subject of the story years after the fact.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    I said that they left (or were DFed) over principles, Apog; not "doctrines". It's not the same thing.

    And no, it's not what I saw in my congregation (they don't tell the R&F why anyone leaves or gets the boot); it's what I've seen here on JWN.

    From what I can tell, the majority of posters here are XJWs for principled reasons, and I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    That's why OldGoat's comment pissed me off so much.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I suppose I conflated principles and doctrines accidentally, but my comments were intended to cover both. I don't see people leaving for that reason. It's always been fornication, drugs, etc. I think a number of people on here have acknowledged that they were DFed and didn't learn TTATT for years afterward, at which point they joined this forum.

    I did, though, feel that his comment was insensitive because "changing our life" won't convince JWs to talk to us if we're being shunned. They don't care if we're running a soup kitchen or building homes for poor people. If we're not following the organization then we're still no good in their eyes.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    So many here have no respect for the Bill of Rights. My hope is that Americans aren't taught civics properly. There is a program in place to educate students starting with world history in 7th grade. Principles need to be balanced. Tension exists. Most of the issues have to do with historical development during the Middle Ages more than logic. I had no idea how many competing factors were in play at the same time. This is why lay people should not tell the law to each other. As I've acknowledged before, I was quite the culprit.

    The last thing anyone who cares about freedom is the govt. regulating any religion. These are American values. The Taliban believes in the government messing with religion. It makes much more sense to inform the public about the WT. The more people know the doctrine and culture the fewer JWs will be active. Some religions just wither away.

  • Doubting Bro
    Doubting Bro

    I've never understood what tax exemption status had to do with freedom. I pay lots of taxes yet that does not encroach my freedoms. By the government providing tax exemptions for religions, they are unfairly favoring them as opposed to other businesses. The simple fact is that religion is a business like any other business. To the extend they do charitable works that can be proven, I'm fine with allowing an exemption on that portion of their profits. However, the teaching of religious practices should not classify as a charitable work.

    I agree the government shouldn't be involved in the regulating of religion. However, it does seem that many religions like Scientology and JWs seem to hurt people and then hide under the First Amendment. Freedom of religion should be equal to other freedoms. Here in the US, it seems that freedom is religion is more important than our other freedoms. They should simply have to face the consequences of the actions their freedom allows.

    If I slander someone, I can be held civilly liable and could be ordered to pay damages. Yet when the WT or Scientology slanders someone by reading off their name as a person that is disconnected or disfellowshipped (or no longer a JW which is code) and the person suffers harm as a result, they are not held liable. It's not regulation in my eyes, they can do what they want. But there is a price to pay for every action.

    I understand religion still has a highly favored status in the US. I appreciate the diversity of religions in my country and while I think they are all BS, they do provide a sense of community to some and some are involved in providing charitable acts (real ones not recruiting for their religion). I just think it needs to be balanced with the rights of the individual and as a tax payer, it pisses me off that I am supporting ANY religion by paying my share and the share they don't pay.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Yes, but disfellowshipping someone is not slander at all, Doubting Bro. Why do you think they no longer announce why the person is being DFed?

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Doubting Bro - "I pay lots of taxes, yet that does not encroach my freedoms."

    It does kinda encroach on your freedom to not pay taxes.

  • Giordano
    Giordano

    They have made it a form of slander by lumping everyone of their 31 or 32 reasons to shun someone by saying so and so is no longer a JW. That includes those that have DA themselves because of a principled disagreement with the teachings of the WTBTS. They include everyone and bundle all offenses togetherbe it pedophiles, rapists, murders and those that may still worship god but no longer agree on everything the WT teachs.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Sorry, but it's too vague to fall under the legal term "slander". I was speaking in legal terms because Doubting Bro asserted that the slander should be an actionable offense. Certainly in an informal way, though, there's an element of slander to it -- just nothing that you could prove in court. The Society's trickier than that, Giordano. That's why they no longer state what somebody did wrong when they announce the DFing. That's also maybe why they dropped the "mentally diseased" bit from the NWT.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit