by Richard Oliver 47 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Judging by Angus Stewart's tone as to why they simply don't apply the laws of the land when it comes to child abuse allegations, coupled with judge Mclellands obvious annoyance when pressing them on shunning, they will not treat this lightly.
I think they will throw the book at them pushing the Australian branch into a corner to comply.
what will the govt do Richard?
Why not write to the Prime Minister and ask him.
Lets us know how you go.
what will the govt do Richard?
No, this is what was asked:
What do you think the Australian government will do?
Zeb, the question only asks for an opinion.
Jehovahs witnesses pay their taxes they have the right as individuals to collectively ask for tax exemption for religious purposes as they will be financing their own religion themselves. their charity status cannot be revoked without putting all other religions into jeopardy. look what happened in France.
this is what the Australia Charities and non for profit commission says
To be registered as a charity, a not-for profit must have charitable purposes that ‘is for the public benefit’.
Benefit must be to the public
A charity’s purpose is for the public benefit if achieving this purpose would be of benefit to the public generally or a sufficient section of the public.
A sufficient section of the community may be, for example, a local community, followers of a particular religion, people with a particular disability, refugees or young people. bolding mine
Ruby456 - "I don't think child sexual abuse is as common within Jehovahs witnesses as in other organisations."
Stick around a while.
honest - "They won't be banned but they will most likely lose all tax exemptions and charitable status. That my friend is fantastic if this happens."
As I said recently in another thread, I think we're a lot closer to that moment now than we were four or five years ago.
And there's not much they'd be able to do about it if it happened, either...
...good luck spinning having to "pay back Caesar's things to Caesar" as "persecution", after all.
honest - "Stripping a organisation that is not a charity of their charity status is not the same as banning a religion."
Very important to remember.
More and more, I suspect that WT loyalists and higher-ups are secretly worried (consciously or otherwise) about the Org losing its tax-exemption.
After all, one could make a pretty convincing argument that their "business model" is dependent on it.
vidiot
Stick around a while.
yes exactly - you'd think every other witness is a pedophile
its daft
So what if someone does have pro-JW views? Is it your job to censor them?
No it is not.
Please carefully read my post again: It was a word to the wise: If you innocently answer RO's question, he will use it to question you ad infinitum and verbalize his own view on the matter.
It is not dissimilar to the ploy used by JWs when they preach to others: "Good morning, my friend and I are calling today to ask people what they think about the world's future. What do you think the future holds for the world?" The household who dares answer may genuinely think the JW really wants to know the householder's view. Wrong. The "innocent" question simply provides the JW a platform to preach their message.
RO has proven himself adept at asking then ignoring answers and at the same time taking another opportunity to articulate his own pro-JW organization views on its response to allegations of child sexual abuse.
Check out the number of threads he has freely - and uncensored - started on this topic.
If NOTHING happens becouse of the ARC at least some eyes have been opened to how the WTS deals with these matters.Karter.
