Earnest,
(iii) the advancement of religion
Thanks for pointing out the following:
With regard to the first three heads [i.e. including the advancement of religion], we can assume (subject to evidence to the contrary) that benefit will result from bodies for the... advancement of... religion.
With WT, we can't assume anything.
However, that assumption may be challenged (see, for example, the
decision
of the Commissioners of 17 November 1999 in relation to Scientology).
In this case, the Charity Commissioners rejected the Church of Scientology's application for charity status. The second (of three) reasons for the decision was:
"(b) That even were CoS otherwise established for the advancement of religion, public benefit should not be presumed given the relative newness of Scientology and public and judicial concern expressed ? ie the presumption of public benefit available to religious organisations as charities was rebutted (section 8, pages 40 to 43);" (page 1)
It is significant that the Charity Commissioners took note of public concern about the Church of Scientology. That they were allegedly formed for the "advancement of religion" is irrelevant and it cannot be presumed any such religion would be given charity status.
Which, after all, is how it ought to be.
Further on, on page 40, the document states:
"The Commissioners would take a wide view of the question of public benefit and would take into account a number of factors in this connection. These would include whether there was evidence that the organisation?s purposes were adverse to religion, were subversive of morality, failed to confer recognisable charitable benefits, focused too narrowly upon its adherents or extended to too limited a beneficial class."
Is the Watchtower Society (a) adverse to religion, (b) subversive to morality, does it (c) fail to confer recognisable charitable benefits, and is it (d) focussed too narrowly upon its adherents?
(a) adverse to religion: WT's opposition to 'Christendom' and 'Babylon the Great' is well known and documented.
(b) subversive to morality: WT's "theocratic war strategy" damns them by their own words. Their inhumane treatment of those who are expelled from or leave their religion, plus their disdain for 'worldly' persons who do not accept their 'Kingdom message is contrary to civilised behaviour.
(c) fail to confer recognisable charitable benefits: even when there is a disaster, WT does not dip into its own funds to provide relief, but asks congregations to send them funds, some proportion of which--and who knows how much--will undoubtedly reach the intended recipients.
(d) focussed too narrowly upon its adherents: the only body to benefit from their charitable status is Watchtower Society.
In each case, WT fails.
Going back to Earnest's helpful quotation:
Details of the particular circumstances may show that no benefit would in fact arise.
So each individual religion's "particular circumstances" would have to be examined: not a prospect I would expect WT leaders to embrace.
Or it may be that people could not back up their claim of benefit by evidence that we or the court could evaluate.
Precisely.
Or it may be that the relative benefits and disadvantages... showed that the likely outcome would be a net detriment to the public.
While some here most likely would disagree, I think that there is some degree of benefit to the public from JWs preaching activity. E.g. I think some benefit is derived by the elderly and housebound by the social contact they have with Witnesses visiting their homes. But it is very limited, and greatly outweighed by the disadvantages: "the likely outcome would be a net detriment to the public."
If it is so challenged, those trying to register the organisation as a charity must provide factual and positive evidence that benefit may result.
That would be an interesting read.
Additionally, even though there may be a benefit, that could in some cases be outweighed by a greater harm to the community in some other way by putting the purpose into effect.
Where to start? Shunning, hate, blood, paedophiles, mind control, mental ill-health...
Public benefit cannot be demonstrated and no presumption of public benefit would survive if, taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances, on balance the purpose tends to the net harm of people.
It doesn't look like WT has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Awww.
Can we help them along the way??
