We went on a weekend trip to visit family back in our hometown and on the way down I brought up the recent video on tv.jw.org concerning education. I basically said the same thing about it that I said on this thread. To sum up, I said that if the WTS is so concerned about witnesses losing their spirituality at the university then they need to put their money where their mouth is. Why aren't there any witness groups that meet on campus, why does the WTS not have its own private college like Brigham Young University for the Mormons or even Liberty University, a Christian college my wife attends? She responded that she thinks a private university that is exclusively witness would be sheltering too much.
I told her of the example where a family was upset with the local elders of a university town where they dropped off their son to attend university because he fell out of the truth. The parents blamed the elders but the question was WHO dropped the son off. While I agree that the elders cannot be held responsible for this child's spirituality I still feel it unfair to blame the university when the WTS can make the campus their mission field. My wife said that she understood what the student must be going through to be in a new town where he knows no one and try to fit in with the students, most of whom are non witnesses, and where that student would not have too many close ties to the witnesses in the local hall.
I responded by saying, "Which dove tails with my original point. Why are there not witness groups meeting on campus?" I reiterated how I had a blast with the Christian groups back when I was in college and how it drew me closer to God back in those days. She understood and began to run with it saying things like how great it would be to meet on campus for Bible studies as well as meet at the kingdom halls as a group for field service and how that would give them the opportunity to meet with and get to know the local witnesses. She even went on to describe how these witnesses could also get together for other activities. She got very excited and said, "I think I should write the branch office about this!" Frankly, I think this would be a great idea but somehow I think she will not get the response she expects from the WTS if she indeed decides to write them.
On our way back from the trip I remarked at how there are so many churches that we passed by and how it seems like there are at least two on each block. She remarked about how a pastor would answer a question concerning how they charge for the Bible's message when it was given to them for free. I said, "Well, I would imagine the pastor would say that they don't." "What about the offering plate?" she asked. "Oh, they probably would say that it is optional but recommended as the Bible commands us to give a tenth of our earnings to the church." "And where do those earnings go? The church or to some people's pockets?" I said, "If they are honest, probably both. The church to keep the lights on and the pockets of the paid members." We went on and on about how the church should use the funds but I had to ask, "Doesn't the WTS require a monthly fee from the kingdom halls?" She said that they use to have a building fund that went to a bank account to fund quick builds but now goes to the WTS that they give to whatever area is performing the build. I asked if the kingdom halls have to pay the money back and whether or not the kingdom halls being built belong to the WTS. She was not sure but she thinks that the halls do belong to the WTS and that the funds had to be repaid which I responded with, "Why? If the WTS owns the halls and the WTS provided the money, why pay it back?"
She did not have an answer and I just shifted the subject by saying that I agreed with Judge Rutherford in that religion is a snare and a racket but to each his own and if someone wanted to attend a church and give their money to them, that is on them. I then went on to say that I think churches should be taxed but could be tax exempt if they can prove that they are a genuine non profit organization. Of course proving it would mean providing their financial records for scrutiny to the government. I remember when Matt Dillahunty suggested that churches should be taxed thinking that I was not sure if I agreed since I have seen some of the churches in the area do good services for the hungry and the homeless. However, if they can continue to do so as a non profit by being subjected to the same scrutiny as other non profits then I agree that taxing them would be useful to help stem the corruption found in many churches.
She wholeheartedly agreed but little does she know that if the whole idea of taxing religion should ever gain traction then the WTS would be whole heartedly against it.