I found this article biased and ridiculous!
bebu
VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE
by Oroborus21 17 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!Sorry I didn't see the other thread or probably would not have created a new one about this article.
As for my own take on the article, I think the speaker accurately sums up that JWs are properly categorized as an adventist sect and not a cult. I did find what he had to say about JWD odd and perhaps a bit amateurish and certainly his assertions regarding discussion groups are strained and unsubstantiated.
I just wanted to address something from "undercover's" post. One of the biggest and common misunderstandings is that constitutional freedoms and restrictions on the GOV's authority over individuals should be applied to private individuals as well. When you think about it, most persons would agree and appreciate that this is not the case. For example while the Government may be forced to give equal time in a public forum, you and I have the right to keep someone off our front lawn and that is the way we should want it to be.
As for the common criticism that the Society and individual plaintiff JWs should not be acknowledged for its contributions to civil rights because these were not "altruistic" but rather only seeking their own interests - that argument is just nonsense. VERY FEW constitutional and civil rights freedoms have been established by completely altruistic plaintiffs and organizations. Whether we are talking about Mr. Miranda arguing for his right to remain silent or Mr. Gideon fighting for his right to have counsel appointed, it is almost always the case that the plaintiff (or defendant) is advocating his or her OWN rights and only by consequence are such legal precedents established for ALL persons. Indeed the Constitutional requirement is that every case presented to the U.S. Supreme Court either be a legitimate (present) "case or controversy" (or else a "federal question" - dispute among federal courts) - thus almost every case is about the particular circumstances of the individual(s) involved.
Our legislative branch of government deals with creating laws that from the outset are designed to affect all persons but not our judiciary branch.
The bottom line is that Jehovah's Witnesses (as an organization) are civil rights champions. While it is true that as a private entity it does not provide the same freedoms that it has obtained, the fact that JWs have done much to further civil rights for all and that is undeniable and praiseworthy - no matter what we may think of the Organization otherwise.
-Eduardo
-
jeanniebeanz
The bottom line is that Jehovah's Witnesses (as an organization) are civil rights champions.
No, it's not. The WTBTS fought for something that would cover the corporate ass, not as a champion of the people.
If Grizzly Bear kills a poacher because the poacher had a rifle pointed at him, he does not become a champion of the law. It was just an accident as a result of his fighting for his own skin. He doesn't give a $hit about the law, he just wanted to live.
Same thing...The WTBTS doesn't give a $hit about peoples rights, they were just covering their ass. Did it do some good, yes. Are they champions? Hmmm...let me think about this... NOT! LOL
Champions... hahahahaha How lame...
J
-
Amazing1914
Whoa!!! This article was either written by a JW, a biased bible study of the JWs, or the author is completely ill informed as to what JWD posters say vs. what the Watchtower actually says and does. This article tells me just how [un]-credible CENSUR really is with respect to human rights issues.Jim Whitney
-
undercover
I just wanted to address something from "undercover's" post. One of the biggest and common misunderstandings is that constitutional freedoms and restrictions on the GOV's authority over individuals should be applied to private individuals as well. When you think about it, most persons would agree and appreciate that this is not the case. For example while the Government may be forced to give equal time in a public forum, you and I have the right to keep someone off our front lawn and that is the way we should want it to be.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My point is that those court cases the WTS won to protect their rights did not protect my rights...once I decided to not be a JW. My right to exercise freedom of religion is prohibited...by the WTS; my freedom of speech is prohibited...by the WTS. I cannot choose a religion of my choice nor can I speak out against my former religion without suffering consequences due to the law of the WTS. The WTS is hypocritical in using the courts to fight against persecution they may have suffered when they themselves persecute anyone who wishes to leave their ranks.
The bottom line is that Jehovah's Witnesses (as an organization) are civil rights champions. While it is true that as a private entity it does not provide the same freedoms that it has obtained, the fact that JWs have done much to further civil rights for all and that is undeniable and praiseworthy - no matter what we may think of the Organization otherwise.
The JWs are not civil rights champions. Martin Luther King, Jr was a civil rights champion. He wanted civil rights for ALL Americans, particularly those that had been discriminated against. And he died for his beliefs. The WTS went to court not to secure freedom of religion for all religions, but to secure the right to pursue their particular beliefs and the right to peddle their magazines. The byproduct is that they became textbook cases for people to study in how the freedom of religion is supposed to work. Interesting how their cases are now part of American law and politics when JWs are to have no part in "worldly" politics and governments. -
rebel8
That link doesn't work, even when I type it in manually. Says "page doesn't exist".
What's the background on the cyber-stalking and lawsuit allegations?
-
Oroborus21
Undercover,I reiterate what is a very fundamental point. The constitutional protections that you refer to, for example the First Amendment, are protections that individuals have from the GOVERNMENT's (or STATE ENTITY's) intrusion or abrogation.
THEY ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT A PERSON ENJOYS FROM ANOTHER PRIVATE (non-governmental) ENTITY.
Thus while churches and individuals enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech free of the GOVERNMENT's control (within certain established limitations) the churches themselves, being a PRIVATE ENTITY do not have to provide in turn the same protections or guarantees.
This is what is commonly misunderstood by the lay person.
AS for your again bringing up the argument that a plaintiff is underserving of recognition for establishing freedoms and civil rights because they are bringing forth their own claims this again is a false argument. The vast majority of cases are brought by persons who are only concerned about the outcomes of their own case.
Secondly, it is very clear from the testimonies of Watchtower lawyers like Olin Moyle and Hayden Covington and from literature of the period that the Society was well-aware that they were championing NOT JUST THEIR OWN freedoms of religion but that the outcome of the cases were important to the civil liberties of ALL persons. The flag salute cases are a good example.
Thus, your statement while popular among anti-JWs is inaccurate and untrue.
Finally, I can't let your comments regarding MLK Jr. go unaddressed. While it may be popular to retroactively whitewash his record, MLK Jr. was a great civil rights leader - but he was entirely concerned about the rights of minorities, and especially the rights of blacks in America. When he spoke about, for example from his "I Have a Dream" speech that he envisioned a world where HIS children would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or spoke about all races getting along together, he was certainly not saying that he championed the rights of the white majority for he felt these already had the advantage. No he was concerned with equality and bringing the minorities, primarily blacks, into a state of equality. I agree that MLK Jr. was a great civil rights champion but this fits exactly into my central point that his primary concern was for equality for "his own people" (blacks) and only by extension would equality thereby come to all.
Jehovah's Witnesses are no different in that their primary concern has been to advocate their own rights but they surely recognized both PRE-obtainment and POST-obtainment that the result of their efforts benefits all persons.
Furthermore, even if we were to agree and say that JWs were completely and solely concerned for their own rights (which is not the case according to the evidence), we must acknowledge today that their efforts have RESULTED in guarantee and securement of civil liberties and constitutional freedoms for all persons. It matters not what their motivations or primary concern were when litigating their claims, because the EFFECTS of the JW cases is that civil liberties have been secured by these cases,
Only persons that are completely and irrationally biased against Jehovah's Witnesses would argue that the effects are void because the cause was not completely altruistic.
-Eduardo
-
undercover
AS for your again bringing up the argument that a plaintiff is underserving of recognition for establishing freedoms and civil rights because they are bringing forth their own claims this again is a false argument. The vast majority of cases are brought by persons who are only concerned about the outcomes of their own case.
it is very clear from the testimonies of Watchtower lawyers like Olin Moyle and Hayden Covington and from literature of the period that the Society was well-aware that they were championing NOT JUST THEIR OWN freedoms of religion but that the outcome of the cases were important to the civil liberties of ALL persons. The flag salute cases are a good example.
So which is it? Were they concerned only about their own case or were they championing the cause for all persons?
If they were concerned only about their own case then they are not civil rights champions. They were covering their own ass. Remember, to JWs all other religions are of Satan, so it does make sense that they were not concerned with religious liberty for other religions but were concerned only about themselves.
On the other hand, if they were in fact championing for ALL persons, well, as I said before, it was a hypocritical move, because they don't afford the same rights for their own members.
I reiterate what is a very fundamental point. The constitutional protections that you refer to, for example the First Amendment, are protections that individuals have from the GOVERNMENT's (or STATE ENTITY's) intrusion or abrogation.
THEY ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT A PERSON ENJOYS FROM ANOTHER PRIVATE (non-governmental) ENTITY.
I understand that. I know that I don't have freedom of speech at work, though it's protected by the government. But, if I quit my job, my right to free speech is no longer affected by that organization. I am also not blacklisted and shunned for quitting my job.
If I quit the JWs, they attempt to continue to control my freedom of religion and speech by imposing sanctions against me in the form of persecution from other JW members and JW family members. There is where the hypocrisy of the religion comes in. You said they were aware that they were championing the right to religious freedom for ALL persons. They may have been aware, they just don't give a shit about anybody but themselves. They don't care about MY rights to religious freedom, they care about their rights. If they care only about their rights, they are NOT civil rights champions.
MLK Jr. was a great civil rights leader - but he was entirely concerned about the rights of minorities, and especially the rights of blacks in America.
MLK wasn't just concerned about his four kids...he was concerned about all minorities being treated equally. He wanted black and white to be able to sit together, eat together, worship together. The WTS was/is just concerned about themselves. If they win a court case and it helps someone else, that's just good press. They didn't go to court to fight for the Mormons, the Moonies or any other non-traditional religion. They went to protect themselves. That's where the difference lies. So again, that's why you can't call the JWs a champion for civil rights.