Posts by Chaserious

4

Is Information from the "Flock" Book generally admissible in a court of law ???

by RubaDub in

so as not to hijack the other "flock" thread, i have always wondered if information in the flock book could be used in court cases especially of child custody and other family issues ?

issues like education, extra-curricular activities ?.

or can the elders use some sort of defense that the information is not for the public ?.

Chaserious

No, corporate documents get admitted in civil cases all the time. It generally doesn't matter what kind of case when determining admissibility, with a few exceptions. But the exceptions tend to admit less in a criminal case, not more.

I think many family court judges would like to keep this material out, so it doesn't become a religion on trial. The most likely way the elders book would come in is if an elder testifies as a witness and testifies inconsistently with what is in the book. Then it could be admitted to confront the elder with what the book actually says.

4

Is Information from the "Flock" Book generally admissible in a court of law ???

by RubaDub in

so as not to hijack the other "flock" thread, i have always wondered if information in the flock book could be used in court cases especially of child custody and other family issues ?

issues like education, extra-curricular activities ?.

or can the elders use some sort of defense that the information is not for the public ?.

Chaserious

It could be admissible. Not being for the public is not a sufficient objection. Corporate "secret" memos and manuals get admitted all the time. It would all depend on the reason it is being offered and whether a proper foundation can be laid.

11

Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech

by yalbmert99 in

feb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.

Chaserious

Interestingly, the court struck out the part of the Code that bars publication of material that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" a person or class of people, but allowed "exposes or tends to expose to hatred" to stand. So ridiculing and belittling are not enough, but exposing to hatred is. I wonder which "mentally diseased" falls under, and whether it matters if the material is distributed interally and not to members of the public.

11

Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech

by yalbmert99 in

feb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.

Chaserious

They upheld a Saskatchewan provincial law, and did not ban hate speech across the nation. According to the Globe and Mail "most provinces have no statutes banning hate speech in their human rights codes." Still, it would be interesting to see how a suit would fare in Saskatchewan or another province that has a similar law in effect. Some of what the WTS says isn't far off from the speech at issue in this case.

32

Why I think (in a nutshell) why this org is approaching collapse

by cptkirk in

in a nutshell: i think that (and i do not enjoy thinking about this)...i think that the crazies within the religion (who range from just low level people to co elder do and up) have won so many battles at this point (over the more balanced people/ideas)......that the people who tend to think in a more balanced fashion (whether they themselves be low level or higher up) are getting to be the real minority.

i think this dynamic, will be what finally sinks the ship.. as we see with any organization (corporate or otherwise), many times there are reports that make you wonder (how is this thing alive or prospering?

), and upon closer scrutiny, there are strong people in the background holding the walls up (who themselves get little attention).

Chaserious

I think that over time, the org will drift even further outside of the mainstream, due to both the marginalization of extreme religious zeal in general in the Western world, as well as the developments within that have already been mentioned here. Some will never leave and some will continue to join due to things like prestige within the org, being part of a special club that thinks it has all of the secret answers, etc.

It's certainly looking possible that the org might follow a similar track as Scientology. That organization has definitely realized an increasingly stigmatized status recently. Not that LRH was a normal guy, but the newer leadership is evidently a new breed of crazy, who has ruled with such an iron fist that a lot of higher-ups in that organization who seem more reasonable have left. 15 years ago, when celebrities joined the Church, it would raise an eyebrow or two but probably not hurt their careers. Today an actor who joins Scientology would be taking a major career risk, and overall membership numbers have dropped significantly. That hasn't really happened yet within the WTS, but in light of recent developments, it's possible they're on the same curve, just a little behind.

12

Copyright of Food at the Proper Time?

by The Song Remains The Same in

1) i wonder why (or how) the wts can claim copyright over the food it dispenses, given that it says the food is spirit directed and from jehovah?

surely the copyright should reside with jehovah himself?

can you copyright god's word(s)?.

Chaserious

Chaserious, Jehovah's words have been twisted but they are there in the bible for all to read and judge for themselves. The point is he never copyrighted them

Well, it's not like Jehovah could copyright what he wrote. Maybe he would if he could. But it seems that legal systems discriminate against omniscient, omnipotent beings. Since copyright periods are tied to the death of the author, maybe they are worried letting Jehovah get a copyright would be abuse of the system since he never dies. Or it could be they just figure he could strike with lightning whomever he would otherwise sue.

Either way, as has been discussed in other threads here, you don't have to "copyright" anything to have a copyright (although in the past you had to). The fact that something is an original work automatically makes it copyrighted.

The bible is available to all, the Mosaic Law, the words of Jesus, the letters of Paul and the other apostles. All in the open. Why do the elder's book and letters to the BOE have to be kept secret?

They don't claim that letters to the BOE and the elders' book are on the same level with the Bible. Whether they view them with the same amount of authoritativeness is open to debate, but any JW would tell you that they have never claimed that the letters to the BOE are "inspired by God and beneficial for teaching...," etc. Everyone needs the Bible to know how they should serve God; the same cannot be said about the BOE letters.

33

RELIGULOUS...Please watch it.

by Fed-up in

i know it's been commented on before here.

if you haven't seen it (i'm sure it's on netflix) please take a look.

it's the other side of the coin, presented in a funny way that really makes you think about religion and worship.

Chaserious

Watched it a while back. I thought it was very funny and pointed out some of inconsistencies of religion, both mainstream and fringe. My wife didn't like it and thought it was disrespectful and mean spirited, even though neither of us has been religious since leaving. I can see that side also. I did think he was hard not only on the man who owned the store, but also on the truck stop chapel guys. I know he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you have good intentions, but they seemed very kind and sincere. My favorite parts were the scenes with the gay counselor and the creation amusement park (although that would have been entertaining by itself, really).

75

DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

by Terry in

>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.

human equality.

Chaserious

There may well be hundreds if not thousands of legal cases the Watchtower Society lost on the local level (Elders in Kingdom Halls) which carried

a settlement which included a gag order with the damages in settlement.

Eh, these would have had to all settle prior to a lawsuit ever being filed, because once a complaint is fiied there is a record of it - something that I'm sure some of the WTS watchdogs would have picked up on. I am doubtful that anyone is ponying up to pay such claims just on the threat of a lawsuit being filed. The WTS doesn't even typically defend the local elders, so it's even less likely that local elders and congregations are rushing to settle claims before lawsuits are even filed and demanding gag orders.

75

DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

by Terry in

>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.

human equality.

Chaserious

I will take up your invitation to respond, Terry. I will first say that to the extent that you characterize the WTS as an abusive organization, I wholeheartedly agree. However, if you are arguing that putting someone in fear of dying at Armageddon is unlawful, just as it would be to put someone in fear of being executed by an imminent stoning, I will disagree.

The Model Penal Code (which most states either adopt or very closely base their criminal law on) defines assault (in part) as:

(1) Simple assault: a person is guilty of simple assault if he:

(a) attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(b) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or

(c) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

(Bold mine)

Lining someone up for a mock stoning is assault because they are in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Telling someone they are going to die at Armageddon is not. Imminent does not mean "we are in the last days". It must be almost immediately about to occur. Also there is no physical menace on the part of a judicial committee or other WTS officials. So that's where the illustration breaks down. Like jgnat, I am glad that the government doesn't tell religions what they can and cannot teach about what God is going to do, etc, etc.

75

DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

by Terry in

>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.

human equality.

Chaserious

Defamation has to involve a false statement.

"______ is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is not false. It's very much the truth. This certainly had much to do with the changes in announcing procedures over the years. It's also likely the reason that they don't need HQ to sign off on a DF'ing, unlike the appointment of elders or (formerly) pioneers.