what i can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.. the wts has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized jw is an 'ordained minister'.
and, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
so, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now?
Somebody should make the Watchtower stand on the position they took way back in the day when they so proudly and arrogantly stood 'on their faith' and claimed 'ordained minister' status to change civil liberty laws.
If not, the Conti case stands to makes a mockery of the entire United States legal system.
I apologize for the rant. I will sit down and shut up now.
Thank you.
what i can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.. the wts has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized jw is an 'ordained minister'.
and, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
so, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now?
Okay. Back to the 'ordained minister'. Sorry...I am on a search to solve my puzzlement. looking for answers.
This is a quote from the appendix in Marley Cole's book that he authored in collaboration with Nathan Knorr back in the 50s, at a time that the WTS was both establishing themselves in the courts as a 'religion' and dealing with military exemptions.
From Jehovah’s Witnesses The New World Society. Published in 1955:
MILITARY
Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognized as ministers constituting a legal religious organization; and the Watch Tower Society, because of its religious status, has been found by the state and federal governments of the United States to be exempt from the payment of taxes.
General Lewis B. Hershey, director of Selective Service, United States of America, had for determination the ministerial status of Jehovah’s witnesses in 1942. After considering all the facts, he found that Jehovah’s witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are recognized as a religious organization. He said, among other things:
"FACTS: Jehovah’s Witnesses claim exemption from training and service and classification in Class IV-(d) as duly ordained ministers of religion under Section 5(d), Selective Training and Service Act of 1940...
"Section 5(d): " ‘Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion...shall be exempt from training and service (but not from registration) under this Act.’...
"Question, - May Jehovah’s Witnesses be placed in Class IV-D as regular or duly ordained ministers of religion exempt from training and service?
"
Answer 1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State of new York for charitable, religious, and scientific purposes. The unincorporated body of persons known as Jehovah’s Witnesses hold in common certain religious tenets and beliefs and recognize as their terrestrial governing organization the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. By their adherence to the organization of this religious corporation, the unincorporated body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered to constitute a recognized religious sect. – Vol. III Opinion No. 14, National Headquarters, Selective Service System, November 2, 1942."
Not only that, but back in the early 1920s, the ACLU was being established and that organization took on many of the Bible Students that were in prison for not serving in WW1 and it was the ACLU who were instrumental in establishing this legal standing for the WTS.
And now, the principles that were used to make changes in those critical civil rights cases are no longer applicable.
I don't know...there is some sort of irony in this. The WTS has the nerve to use those same rights won under those exemptions and toss them on their head.
"Oops...we aren't 'ordained ministers' any more". We were back then...because, well you know...we had to be. We aren't now...because, well, you know....it is better this way...for our bank accounts. And furthermore...we have those First Amendment rights that the courts have to abide by!"
what i can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.. the wts has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized jw is an 'ordained minister'.
and, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
so, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now?
I just had another thought. Does this switch from 'ordained minister' to 'baptized publisher' have a bearing on why there have been some fairly radical changes in how the ministry is being conducted? Because they want to ensure that the former 'ordained ministers' are no longer being trained as such?
This would have an impact in how the Kingdom Halls are qualifying under tax exemptions. Those spaces are no longer 'training ordained ministers', they are 'teaching translation centers', or 'literary schools'.
The 'ordained minister' is being transformed into 'translator' or 'literacy teacher' so the WTS can avoid that classification in child abuse cases.
Or is that too much of a stretch?
what i can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.. the wts has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized jw is an 'ordained minister'.
and, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
so, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now?
Where I am going with this is that the legal documents for the Conti case use the term 'baptized publisher' when speaking of Kendrick. Since when did that term not mean 'ordained minister'? Is Kendrick himself not part of that legal class of 'clergy' anymore?
Does this mean that legal precedent has changed? And when did that happen?
Much of the tax claims that the Watchtower makes is based upon the idea that their 'Ministry Schools' and such, even the ones held in Kingdom Halls, were tax exempt because they were set up to train ordained ministers.
Is there a tax concern that is connected to those 'Kingdom Hall religious schools that train ordained ministers' no longer doing that? They now 'train' lowly 'baptized publishers'?
what i can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.. the wts has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized jw is an 'ordained minister'.
and, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
so, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now?
What I can't seem reconcile are the concepts of 'clergy' and 'ordained minister'.
The WTS has consistently won legal battles, specifically in cases involving military exemption, by making the claim that each and every baptized JW is an 'ordained minister'. And, they bolstered this label with the assertion that 'we do not have a clergy class'.
So, why is that different now in the sex abuse trials that happening right now? Why are not each and every 'ordained minister' held accountable under 'clergy' statutes the same as 'ordained minister' qualified for military exemption? Why are not each and every 'ordained minister' within the JWS not held accountable to mandatory reporting statutes?
I don't know what I am missing here. It seems like the legal definitions and interpretations have a pretty broad stretch to them and I am just not 'getting it'. Or does this even matter?
my wife is a jw, and is teaching our eight year old daughter jw beliefs.
i am trying to teach her about evolution and critical thinking skills.
here is a conversation we had today (as best i can remember it):daughter: "why do bad things happen?
Mak, your parenting skills are incredible. Seriously, there are very few dads that take the time to cultivate an open enough relationship with their daughters that would allow for the type of interchange that you two had. The more time that you spend in honest communication with her, the more the trust level will build.
And, she is one lucky girl that she has a father with the knowledge that you have. I know of very few people who could explain scientific principles as well as you did. In fact, many elementary school teachers, teaching at that grade level, in the schools around here could not do it as well, if at all.
I wasn't introduced to the principles of evolution until I was 35 years old in a third year university class - Comparative Psychology - It just hadn't been part of the curriculum classes in the high school classes that I had chosen when I was younger and, frankly, my interests had been elsewhere.
I want to comment on this:
(even her school teacher is a muslim who won't let the kids use the word 'hell', and changed a recent school topic from 'witches and wizards' to 'imaginary places')
I realize that there is more context than the information you have given about the changes in word choice that the teacher made, and that there may be some influence from the teacher's religious beliefs.
However, I think there is merit in the changes. Firstly, by eliminating and not using the word 'hell', it acknowledges that 'hell' is non-existent. It really doesn't exist so why use the word? You don't even have to explain that imaginary place if it isn't in use. And, the teacher's interpretation and teaching of that word would reflect her religious bias, which would not be a good thing for her to have to explain to a class of mixed religious cultures.
Secondly, 'witches and wizards' again, are imaginary figures - the use of the words would connotate 'existence' - just like god - they don't exist. By applying the term 'imaginary places', the teacher has clearly identified that those magical figures exist there - in the imagination. They are not real.
Mak...Keep up the fabulous work - be proud of yourself and your daughter - she is going to be just fine. A smarty pants just like her daddy.
:)
*to add - I think that another easy concept that she would understand is the principle of 'survival of the fittest'. A child understands that weak plants die and the stronger plants live longer and produce seeds. They see 'survival of the fittest' in their own environment. Eh...maybe you have already built that concept into your explanation.
thank you, jw.net and cofty, for redirecting me to the right organization!.
when i posted why did god permit scriptures to be corrupted?
then i thought, if there is an organization that believes all scriptures are corrupted (which obviously makes it enemy of all religions), that organization is not ordinary, but gutsy, lionhearted, and worthy of close examination!
Economy: No more posts from me...
Hallelujah! There is a god, after all....
a bit of introspection on this one ... just read on someone's post that a compliment makes him "float" for hours, and it got me thinking; within the spectrum of comments that people make about me, from compliment to criticism, which is the type that most affects me?.
after my experience as a jehovah's witness, i find that i've become suspicious of compliments and over-sensitive to criticism.
because a common technique of elders was to compliment someone before going down to business, that is, giving hard counseling or discipline.
I never trust anyone who, upon initial meeting, gives me compliments. I have a little voice inside my head that responds, "But you don't know me well enough to compliment me." If they are too free in giving out compliments, big red flags go up because they want something from me.
A compliment from someone who knows me...is sweet.
Criticism comes in many forms - on one hand, it is a tool for bullies and abusers and on the other hand, it can be used as a bridge for better understanding of an issue, a skill or process, or a personal relationship.
Unfortunately, it is most commonly used for the first purpose I stated. I don't respond well when someone uses criticism to belittle or abuse me.
And what really gets my blood boiling is when I object to unfounded criticism and they respond with, "Oh..you sure don't take criticism well." Really ???? Well...no shit, Sherlock.
i left in the 90's and marriage partners were similar in age at my former congregation.
i ran into a former jw friend from my childhood.
i haven't seen him in 15 years.
At what point becomes any age different a perversion, gross?
When the older one is aware that the younger one is vulnerable because of inexperience and lack of knowledge, and subsequently exploits their position of power for their own satisfaction.
this is my first post.
i have been an everyday reader of this site for well over three years.
also jwfacts, jwstruggle, silentlambs, etc.
... and why the order was served.
And that would be because....? (you don't have to answer...I know that is private)
I don't know what the laws are in your country, but in mine, a restraining order is not easy to get. The one being served notice of restraint has to have committed an action that is potentially a criminal offense. That is how the orders are enforced - if you break the order, your ass is in jail on the offense that it was originally put in place for.
Custody issues are notoriously volatile and, unfortunately, the child is often put in the middle of a conflict that has nothing to do with them.
I wish you all the best in your efforts to maintain a relationship with your child. What is happening is not the child's fault and it would be a shame if your child suffered from the consequences of the conflict between you and your wife.
Good luck.
