Satan's Organization -- Who -- Evidence of Identity?

by Marvin Shilmer 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Heathen,

  I don't think the government interferes with a dress code enforced by companies . Let's face it we are really talking about government involvement and not just society .

  You are quite wrong about this. Governments have often interfered in the 'dress code' of employees, *if* that code puts the employees at risk and compromises their safety.

  The examples that have been given, the effects of disfellowshipping for example, have been ignored totally ignored by yourself, if favor of something that appeared trivial to yourself - 'dress codes'. Why not deal with this more serious issue and see whether your viewpoint actually stands up to scrutiny?

  The Government imho has as I have repeatedly asserted, should have the right to intervene in adjusting the edicts of *any* body of people who put their rights and safety of its citizens in jeopardy.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  TD

  Heathen,

  Through the courts, the government actually does interfere with dress codes when and if they violate what are considered to be basic human rights. For example, a strict no beard rule in the workplace could discriminate on the basis of religion since certain religious groups such as Orthodox Jews and Muslims wear beards for religious reasons. Therefore, a lawful no beard rule must make exceptions for religious (and medical) reasons.

  The point here is that a dress code policy may be either lawful or unlawful depending on how a particular requirement is observed and enforced. This may seem like a fine distinction, but it?s really not.

  Although religions are afforded broader protection than employers, the principle is the same. Teachings that are not necessarily wrong in and of themselves may be observed and enforced in a morally objectionable manner. You mention Jewish observance of Kashrut and Catholic avoidance of contraception and these are both good examples to illustrate this.

  Judaism holds pikauch nefesh (preserving life) as the very highest of all mitzvoth. Simply stated, this means is that when human life is in jeopardy, most of the rules don?t apply. Kashrut can be suspended to save human life and this is one of the reasons that the Jews regard the JW transfusion medicine taboo as absurd.

  Although Catholicism does suffer from the inflexibility of Christianity in genreal (e.g. There is no such thing as a ?minor? sin) the encyclical of Humanae Vitae is not observed and enforced in anything resembling the approach JW?s have taken with blood. The Church does not crush all plurality of thought as an official policy, it does make certain exceptions (e.g. Treatment of ovarian, uterine, testicular & prostate cancers even when the treatment results in sterilization) and it doesn?t attempt to directly police the lives of its members. (Can anyone imagine NFP committees?)

  I agree with you that the government should not step in and tell people what to believe and how religion should be organized but I also agree with HS. A religion can?t take this as carte blanche to trample all over the rights and welfare of its members. Once this starts to happen, who else but the government can put an end to it?

  
  .
• 

  heathen

  TD -- I have never heard of any law that forbids the wearing of beards but am aware that some companies want to present a certain image and will have policies regaurding atire or acceptable appearance , but again if a person wants to comply or not is their decision .

  AFA people commiting suicide over the shunning thing ( I do agree that the WTBTS does go too far with it ) all I can say is that it takes a very disturbed person to do that and the government cannot force people to associate with each other but there are plenty of suicide hotlines . It's like saying a person of the KKK should be accepted by all other people because the government says so .( Now there's a question , how come the KKK is not banned ?) They are a hate group and even have the right to congregate and recruit members .
• 

  TD

  Heathen,

  TD -- I have never heard of any law that forbids the wearing of beards...

  I was talking about corporate dress codes, not actual laws. Disney is one company that has attempted to enforce a strict no beard dress code in the past.

  .....but am aware that some companies want to present a certain image and will have policies regaurding atire or acceptable appearance , but again if a person wants to comply or not is their decision .

  Again, the question is not about your freedom of choice. The question is about your ability to freely exercise it.

  Under what circumstances is it permissible to restrict somebody's ability to exercise their freedom of choice? You seem to think it's pretty much OK as long as the person agrees to it beforehand and that's not always true.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Heathen

  From November 8th 1985Awake article ?Whose Children? Whose Decision??:

  ?Now will doctors and the courts allow parents to determine medical treatment for their own children and acknowledge their legal right to oppose enforced blood transfusions? Time will tell.?

  Adaptation:

  ?Now will elders and the WTS allow parents to determine medical treatment for their own children and acknowledge their legal right to oppose enforced prohibition of blood transfusions? Time will tell.?

  Why is it the WTS believes JW parents should be allowed an uncoerced determination that the WTS does not itself afford JWs? Why is it the WTS believes JW parents should have a right in relation to doctors and courts that the WTS does not itself afford JWs toward itself?

  The fact is developed societies have often found teachings of the WTS in opposition to established laws, and authorities have accordingly taken rights from JW parents to see to the legal and health interests of a child. In response the WTS has taken great pains to obfuscate its efforts at prohibiting parents from making autonomous determinations for the medical treatment of their children. If the WTS came right out and admitted to authorities that it exerts pressure on JW parents to choose as the WTS would have them choose rather than as they want to choose, then we would see developed societies aroused to action. But this is what the WTS excels at, obfuscation; and legal manipulation.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  hillary_step

  Heathen,

  AFA people commiting suicide over the shunning thing ( I do agree that the WTBTS does go too far with it ) all I can say is that it takes a very disturbed person to do that and the government cannot force people to associate with each other but there are plenty of suicide hotlines .

  The point that you seem to be consistently missing is that it is the WTS who drives such a person to be 'disturbed' enough to kill themselves. I have known a number of situations where the Disfellowshipping doctrine directly led to a person taking their own lives. To flippantly avoid this issue by suggesting that the WTS has a right to it's disfellowshipping doctrine provided the person knows what 'suicide hotlines' to ring, is disegenuous in the least, and uncaring at worst.

  It's like saying a person of the KKK should be accepted by all other people because the government says so .

  No, this is what *you* are saying, that is, that groups like the WTS and the KKK who engender a hatred of non-participants in their particular viewpoints have a right to peddle their harmful doctrines without intervention by the government. My argument, which I would like to stick to if I may, is that the WTS are guilty of ant-social practices which the governments would attend to in Law *if* the WTS was not a religious body hiding behind the First Amendment.

  ( Now there's a question , how come the KKK is not banned ?) They are a hate group and even have the right to congregate and recruit members .

  Yes, and you seem to see the issue with the KKK but not with the WTS where it comes to behavior that is harmful to its adherents. There are situations when the KK frequently *do* traverse the law with and are bought to book, though they are free to utter hate, they are not free act out that hate physically. Again, the First Amendment is being used as a foil to hide behind while harmful doctrines are propagated, as the WTS can both propagate doctrines of hate ( i.e. that all non JW's will die soon in a global blood bath.) but also act out these doctrines to the physical and emotional detriment of their adherents, due to the protection it recieves under the First Amendement.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  TRT writes:

  Do JWs consider the churches of Christendom satanic?

  The TRUTH is YES. The doctrine of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a publishing and real estate company, is that ALL religions are part of The Harlot depicted in the book of Revelation. JW believe that THEY are God’s only true religion on earth and EVERY SINGLE religion on earth, other than theirs, will be destroyed on the day of Armageddon by a group of “Anointed” persons, now in spirit form, led by Jesus.

  They have an infinite number of pictorials in many of their literature; these images are pervasive, readily available and there for all to see including children of any age.

  The interesting part is they can't see for themselves how crazy this is. They are not stupid people and you can have normal conversations about the crazy extremes “other” religions promote, (Mormons, Scientology, Amish, LDL) but the minute you point out their brand of crazy they turn off like a light switch.

  I have learned a tremendous amount about the human mind and cognitive dissonance during the waking up process. My wife's inability to see reality fr what it is breath taking.