paedophiles repeatedly promoted to positions of authority in jehovahs witness church royal commission told.
1 hour ago july 27, 2015 12:45pm.
counsel assisting the royal commission, angus stewart sc has told the royal commission that church elders could now face criminal charges.
Oops...I called the lawyer for the Commission "Sinclair" and his name is "Stewart". I am horrible on names. Damn...I even call my daughter by my son's name sometimes...or my bird's name. Or the dog's name...
Oh, there's a reply, all right.
True. But nothing that makes logical sense according to biblical interpretation.
We know what the answer is...but Horley could never say it. He would be kicked to the curb by the WTS without a moment's hesitation.
if you have a facebook account head on over to: https://www.facebook.com/groups/flagsoftheworld/.
they're discussing the jw flags that showed up at the rc.. one jw seems to be asking why would it be strange for the wt to have a flag for their religion.. i dunno, maybe because flags can be symbolic idols according to previous wt teachings?.
The irony of the JW flag is that their claim that flags were "idol worship" apparently doesn't apply to their own flag now. The WTS is duplicitous in how they apply Bible verses only when it is convenient for them.
In 1943, in the United States Supreme Court, the WTS used the Bible verse in Exodus that condemns idol worship as the religious grounds for refusing to salute the flag:
Appellees, citizens of the United States and of West Virginia, brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah'sWitnesses. The Witnesses are an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them." They consider that the flag is an "image" within this command. For this reason they refuse to salute it.
And it wasn't just the US flag that they claimed was an issue. They claimed that allegiance to any flag was a violation of God's law:
The statute requires the appellees to participate in a ceremony aimed at inculcating respect for the flag and for this country. The Jehovah's Witnesses, without any desire to show disrespect for either the flag or the country, interpret the Bible as commanding, at the risk of God's displeasure, that they not go through the form of a pledge of allegiance to any flag. The devoutness of their belief is evidenced by their willingness to suffer persecution and punishment, rather than make the pledge.
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/20150725/281848642300889/textview.
it sounds to me like he was a jw before he became a physician.
"kalauawa, who became a jw 31 years ago, said he had to overcome a major conflict between his religious and professional beliefs, because jws are opposed to blood transfusions.
Ah...here we go. As usual it seems like there has been some flipflopping on this issue. In 1964, the WT appeared to say it was okay for a doctor to transfuse someone who wasn't a JW, but it doesn't seem to be accepted later:
w64 11/15 682-3 Employment and Your Conscience
Christians in the medical profession are individually responsible for employment decisions. They must bear the consequences of decisions made, in keeping with the principle at Galatians 6:5. Some doctors who are Jehovah's witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah's dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person.
*** w75 4/1 215-6 Are You Guided by a Sensitive Christian Conscience? ***
This Christian gave careful thought to the matter. It could be seen that it would not be right for a Christian to work exclusively for a blood bank, where everything was devoted to an end that was in violation of God's law. But that was not his situation; he ran tests of many kinds. Also, if one were a doctor responsible for the decision, one could not order a blood transfusion for a patient, any more than a Christian store owner could order and stock idols or cigarettes. However, this technician realized that in connection with blood he was merely running a test, even as a nurse might have taken the sample, a messenger might have delivered it to the laboratory and someone else might administer a transfusion or other medication on a doctor's orders. He reflected on the principle at Deuteronomy 14:21. According to that text a Jew finding a carcass of an animal that died of itself could clear it away by selling it to a foreigner who was not under the Law's restrictions about animal flesh not drained of its blood. So the technician's conscience at that time allowed him to run blood tests, including those of blood for transfusions to patients who did not care about God's law
*** w99 4/15 29 Questions From Readers ***
Some Christians working in hospitals have had to consider this factor of authority. A physician might have authority to order medications for or medical procedures on a patient. Even if a patient did not mind, how could a Christian doctor in authority order a blood transfusion or perform an abortion, knowing what the Bible says on such matters?
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/20150725/281848642300889/textview.
it sounds to me like he was a jw before he became a physician.
"kalauawa, who became a jw 31 years ago, said he had to overcome a major conflict between his religious and professional beliefs, because jws are opposed to blood transfusions.
There was a Question From Readers several years ago that dealt with whether a JW doctor could administer blood transfusions. I think it was in the 90s but I can't find the quote. The WT stated, of course, that it was up to the doctor's conscience but basically they said it was okay.
(I will keep looking for it...)
this story will not be kept silent.. thank you cbc.
.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jehovah-s-witnesses-church-hid-child-abuse-cases-for-decades-australian-inquiry-told-1.3168944.
Woe! I never even considered that. Russia seems to have it out for the witnesses.
Lol! I said that tongue in cheek...I meant Canada when I said "king of the north"!
Mind you, I hear that the Cossacks are throwing stones at the JWs. I am not surprised....my Cossack family would never put up with child abuse.
this story will not be kept silent.. thank you cbc.
.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jehovah-s-witnesses-church-hid-child-abuse-cases-for-decades-australian-inquiry-told-1.3168944.
Sweet.
A friend of mine just phoned me to tell me that the story is breaking on CBC television. The ticker tape is running on the bottom of the news broadcast.
The CBC online story is very active in the comments section. I can hardly keep up with all the posts. The comments are posting fast and furious! 215 comments in two hours since it was posted.
I have a feeling that the rather silent King of the North will soon be busting out with JW child abuse cases.
i have just finished listening to this man jackson.
i remember him well.
he is twisting things around as much as he is allowed.
pssst....I'm a crow, not a cow! Lol!
The all of a sudden........he was gone. The reason given was that they don't like CO to stay around for too long in a region as it doesn't keep a fresh perspective. That may be true, but it makes me wonder as well.
I wonder if it had anything to do with "the other case" that he was asked about. The one where he was presented with a slip of paper with someone's name on it. (at 1:43:10) He claimed that he knew nothing about that case but I think he is lying. It will be interesting to see if that line of inquiry is pursued in today's session.
paedophiles repeatedly promoted to positions of authority in jehovahs witness church royal commission told.
1 hour ago july 27, 2015 12:45pm.
counsel assisting the royal commission, angus stewart sc has told the royal commission that church elders could now face criminal charges.
steve2: I wonder if this will lead to the organization being legally compelled to "adjust" its understanding of the 2 witness rule? So much for Jehovah leading the GB to the brighter light - in this case it would be secular authorities.
Who'd have thought, huh?!
vidiot: @ steve2...
They told Irwin Zalkin that "they will never change it". Frankly, I believe it.
I was impressed with how easily Sinclair blew that two witness rule right out of the water. Sinclair's logical reasoning put the screw to Biblical authority - when he asked Horley how come flexibility was applied to the "stoning directives" but not to the two witness rule, it wouldn't surprise me if Horley's faith was a bit shaken by that line of inquiry. Horley had no reply.
Sinclair removed the authority of the Bible. It was perfect.
(On another note...I would love to have Sinclair question the WTS about their "flexible" blood policy that has no real Biblical support for it.)
vidiot: I can't help but wonder what Lorenz Riebling and the other JW- and WT-connected businessmen who back up the Org are thinking about all this...
Well...I dunno...but this certainly does provide a smoke screen for other activities, doesn't it? As long as people are looking at this, they aren't looking at other things, are they? At least...not yet.
this story will not be kept silent.. thank you cbc.
.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jehovah-s-witnesses-church-hid-child-abuse-cases-for-decades-australian-inquiry-told-1.3168944.
This story will not be kept silent.
Thank you CBC.
i have just finished listening to this man jackson.
i remember him well.
he is twisting things around as much as he is allowed.
umbertoecho: I did miss that slip up. I will try to find that in the transcript.
Jackson's slip is at 1:06:45. Jackson is being questioned about whether "observers" can be at the hearing and Jackson is speaking about "parents of minors", "husband/wives", "friends" who could attend the hearing in a support capacity:
"...if the guilty party wants to have them there, they can do that..."
In the context of the questioning, the victim is the one who supposedly had the option to have "observers" as support for them when they testify against the accused. Jackson has called the victim "the guilty party".
Paradisebeauty: If you have a copy of the audio, please post it.
Thank you
