In the U.S., the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Of course, there are some exceptions, such as obscenity and the classic example of falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Another exception is known as "fighting words."
The most important Supreme Court case regarding "fighting words" is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Mr. Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness, but for obvious reasons laid out below, this case is not mentioned in the Proclaimers book.
Brother Chaplinsky was street witnessing one Saturday afternoon in Rochester New Hampshire in 1940. Apparently a mob of 50 or so people surrounded him and behaved in a threatening manner.
According to Chaplinsky, one member of the crowd even attempted to spear him with a flagpole. At some point, a police officer showed up, and Chaplinsky asked the cop to arrest the ones responsible for the disturbance, but the cop refused. In response, Chaplinsky allegedly called the officer "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist."
Chaplinsky was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted for violating a state law against public cursing. Chaplinsky appealed the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Judge" Rutherford and Hayden Covington represented him. At trial, Brother Chaplinsky admitted making the statements with the exception of saying "God-damn" (he argued that he merely said "damn").
In any event, in their brief to the Supreme Court, Rutherford and Covington defend Chaplinsky's right to say "God-damn." I quote from page 11 of the brief: "Jehovah God has condemned racketeers and hence the expression 'God damned,' even if, as and when used in such circumstances, imports verity or constitutes a simple definition of fact. The right to use such definitive and descriptive language in a proper manner and time is guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of whether the one so described agreed or not." Thus, Judge Rutherford is on the record saying that it's okay to say "God damn."
By the way, Chaplinsky lost his appeal. I guess that during WW2, calling someone a Fascist and racketeer was fighting words, whether prefaced with "God damn" or not. Chaplinsky, Rutherford and the others were not bothered by the loss in Court, because now they could proclaim far and wide about how Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted.
You can read the entire case here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html
55 comments:
I think this article, from USA Today, May 30th, 2000, highlights the amazing contribution Rutherford and other Witnesses made to freedoms that we all enjoy.
Thank Jehovah's Witnesses for Speech Freedoms
If you have a front door, a Jehovah's Witness probably has knocked on it.
With well-dressed politeness and practiced persistence, they offer literature, biblical advice and a path to God's kingdom as they see it.
As often as not, they knock at the wrong time, when we're too busy to listen or not particularly interested in shopping for another faith.
But before you shut the door on a Jehovah's Witness the next time, pause to consider the shameful persecution they suffered not too long ago, as well as the rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy.
The legal clashes Jehovah's Witnesses had with government authorities over their proselytizing and practices led to an astonishing total of 23 separate Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 -- surely more than any other single religious organization engendered before or since. So frequently did Witnesses raise core First Amendment issues that Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."
Next month will mark the 60th anniversary of the most infamous Jehovah's Witness decision, one the Supreme Court got completely wrong: Minersville School District vs. Gobitis. The court, smitten by pre-World War II patriotic fervor, ruled it was constitutional to require Jehovah's Witness students to violate their faith and pledge allegiance to the flag in public school.
A Pennsylvania school district had expelled Lillian and William Gobitas (their last name was misspelled in court papers) because they kept their arms down during the daily flag salute. The Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible is that saluting the flag would amount to placing another deity before God.
As recounted in Shawn Francis Peters' powerful new book, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, the Supreme Court's decision unleashed a wave of virulent anti-Jehovah's Witness persecution across the nation that is little remembered today.
Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their literature was confiscated and even burned. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and torched in Kennebunk, Maine. American Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. The American Civil Liberties Union reported to the Justice Department that nearly 1,500 Witnesses were physically attacked in more than 300 communities nationwide. One Southern sheriff told a reporter why Witnesses were being run out of town: "They're traitors; the Supreme Court says so. Ain't you heard?"
Partly because of this violent reaction to its decision, the Supreme Court reversed itself with remarkable speed. On Flag Day of 1943, the court handed down West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, using some of the most eloquent language ever written to describe the First Amendment freedoms Americans enjoy. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion," Justice Robert Jackson wrote.
The active persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses abated somewhat, although thousands were arrested during World War II for seeking religious exemption from military service. They were accused, baselessly, of being Nazi sympathizers. And Witnesses continued to have run-ins with the law over leafleting, in part because of their sometimes-confrontational style. Peters tells of a Jehovah's Witness caravan riding through Arkansas waving banners that read, "Religion is a Racket" and "Preachers are Crooks."
Today those messages probably would not cause a stir, and even then they should not have triggered violence. But in the America of the 1940s, they were pretty close to fighting words.
Speaking of "fighting words," that concept was embodied in First Amendment law by another Jehovah's Witness case, Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. A Witness named Walter Chaplinsky was arrested in Rochester, N.H., for his fiery street-corner evangelizing, which included attacks on the "harlot" Catholic Church and on saluting the flag. The crowd that gathered became so angry that a man tried to impale Chaplinsky on a pole bearing the U.S. flag.
The Supreme Court's 1942 decision placed "fighting words" such as those used by Chaplinsky outside the First Amendment's protection if they "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." That standard remains relevant today and helped defeat politically correct speech codes that would have censored far-less harmful speech.
Perhaps the longest-lasting contribution the Witnesses made to First Amendment freedoms came in a 1940 case, Cantwell vs. Connecticut. The Supreme Court said Jehovah's Witnesses Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, should not have been arrested for soliciting without a license on the streets of New Haven, Conn. Before the Cantwell decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. But the Supreme Court in Cantwell said it did, thereby ushering in an era of greatly strengthened religious freedom.
All religions have the Jehovah's Witnesses to thank for the expansion of that freedom. But in their publications and on their Web site (www.watchtower.org) Witnesses make scant mention of their persecution and their legal battles.
Unlike other groups, the Witnesses have not resorted to televangelism and don't claim a high-profile presence in society. Witnesses -- all 1 million of them in this country, 3.5 million of them worldwide -- spread their message door-to-door and through the publications Watchtower and Awake!
"Their simple but eloquent voices tell a remarkable story," Peters says, "one that lays bare the extremes of cowardice and courage so often found in nations engrossed in war."
Tony Mauro, the Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, is the author of a new book, Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court.
anonymous says,
"pause to consider the shameful persecution they suffered not too long ago,"
response,
Jesus persecution has REAL meaning.
anon says,
"as well as the rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy."
response,
They fought for a spot in Satans world and won, and along side them, made a place for all other parts of Babylon to sit.
anon says,
"So frequently did Witnesses raise core First Amendment issues that Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.""
response,
Good for them, they won recognition in Satans world! Funny to me how they pride themselves on this type of recognition but anyone dare speak of the TRUTH about their organizational teachings and history, and they will scream it is from Satan and his cronies.
anon says,
"Tony Mauro, the Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, is the author of a new book, Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court."
response,
How could you encourage and promote the reading of this book when it is from a worldly source? There are other good books out there like for example, "Crisis of Conscious' that are very compelling. This organization prides itself far to much on it's worldly achievements, when it's claim is to be no part of the world.?
That first comment is a God Damn Good one!
JWs are total hypocrites on Free Speech. If an individual JW tries to exercise his right of free speech, and says anything in conflict with official JW orthodoxy, they will excommunicate and shun him, cutting him off from friends and family.
Even more ironically and harmful, JW (just like Mormons) practice Information Control. They tell their members that there are certain books they cannot read.
Open your eyes, blinded JWs. Join the rest of us in Christian Freedom.
Anonymous said...
"I think this article, from USA Today, May 30th, 2000..."
By using a media journal to show support to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, can media journals also be used to show what the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses have done regarding the negative effect they have had upon people as well?
Is it only acceptable to quote or use media publications when they place Jehovah’s Witnesses in a positive light? When negative information is published about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that media suddenly under the influence of Satan, but when it is positive information it is the blessings perhaps even the direction of God? What or who decides when the media is acceptable for a follower of the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses to believe or not believe?
Hey kimmy jo and tohsibor,
Here is a new moral code I think you will like. Fortunately it is simple and easy and you do not have to be very intelligent to understand it.
It is this:
If Jehovah's Witnesses did it, it is wrong.
If someone opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses did it, it is right.
If it makes look Jehovah's Witnesses look good, it is either false or unimportant.
If it makes JW's look bad, it is true - and highly significant.
If Jehovah's Witnesses do X, they are wrong.
If Jehovah's Witnesses don't do X, they are wrong.
If you are accused of doing something wrong, say that the Watchtower does it as well - that makes it right (for you, not for them of course.)
If JW's get persecuted, it has no real meaning.
If JW's don't get persecuted, then they have secured a place in Satan's world.
Everything we do is noble and right.
Everything they do is wrong, selfish and insincere.
It's amazing how some opposers mimic their own caricature of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think you've missed the point. There are many admirable things about JWs and Muslims and Mormons and many other religions.
The problems is what JWs think they special, God's ONLY organization of people.
Raise your hand at the next WT Study at your Kingdom Hall and disagree with some point in the magazine. Then, you'll see that JWs don't like to admit that anything is wrong.
Whatever the current teaching is, it's considered FLAWLESS. Only leadership can change/question orthodoxy.
Anonymous said...
"Hey kimmy jo and tohsibor,
Here is a new moral code I think you will like. Fortunately it is simple and easy and you do not have to be very intelligent to understand it."
Anonymous, I'm sorry you feel the need to attack my (or anyone else’s) intelligence. Intelligence is not the issue. I have not stated that all things Jehovah’s Witnesses have done are bad or wrong either. What I was pointing out is both the positive and negative information needs to be weighed regarding the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses. To dismiss all the media which shows the problems and negative effect the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses produces would not be fair or stand up in a discussion which a supporter was using media to support their stance. You need to thoroughly examine all information regarding the organization. Not just selective information or quotes as decided by someone else. Each person whether dedicated to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses or not has the right to investigate and research all information – Not just selective information.
I have stated in my previous post that I know many Jehovah’s Witnesses that are some of the most sincere, honest, hard-working people I have even encountered. However, that does not make the organization they support the “true” one nor their beliefs and practices superior to another. As I have also stated prior, please research other organizations including those that meet the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses criteria as explained in the ‘What Does God Require of Us’ brochure for being the true religion:
-Assemblies of Yahweh
-Assemblies of the Called out Ones of Ya
-House of Yahweh
-The Assembly of YHWHHoshua
-Christadelphians
When negative information is published about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that media suddenly under the influence of Satan, but when it is positive information it is the blessings perhaps even the direction of God?
First of all, it was Jesus who said that Satan was the "ruler of this world". It was Paul who called him "the god of this system of things." You may not believe that any more, but does that mean we aren't entitled to?
Now, let's take as a case in point the Daily Mail story that was featured a few days ago. Tohsibor was silent about it. I would be interested to know whether he believes it or not. He certainly didn't express any disagreement or disapproval of its being published. There does seem to be an unwritten rule that you shouldn't criticize other ex-JW's, even when you are perfectly aware that what they are saying is totally outrageous.
Kimmy Jo, on the other hand, defended the article. Others used the opportunity to assert that JW's have higher suicide and mental-health rates than other people, totally unfounded and ridiculous assertions that no-one would believe who did not have a grudge against Witnesses.
I challenged the posters to cite published scientific studies to back up their claims. No response was forthcoming.
Back to the Daily Mail article. How did the Witnesses on the board reply to it? By saying it was because the media were in Satan's control? No, Satan is not mentioned anywhere in anyone's comment. In fact, specific evidence was provided from other English- and Russian-language newspapers that the allegation was false, that the pair in question had not been Jehovah's Witnesses for over 10 years, that the woman had announced her withdrawal in a newspaper article criticizing the Witnesses, and that the perpetrators were "orthodox Christians."
This was ignored by the opposers who commented. GBL did not withdraw his story or apologize, nor did he furnish any proof that it was true. Just allegations, no proof. If it says something negative about Jehovah's Witnesses, then it is true. That is axiomatic. The other opposers and ex-Witnesses kept quiet.
A few weeks ago, GBL claimed that field service hours were down. Evidence was presented that he was wrong: they were actually up between 2006 and 2007. Did he apologize? No, he ignored it.
Another poster claimed that the preaching work was becoming less effective. Evidence was posted that it had actually become more productive over the last two years. Posted and ignored.
The next day, GBL published a table of figures 'proving' that over a longer period the preaching work was becoming. He omitted the figures for the last service year, which demonstrated the exact opposite of what he wanted to prove. This was exposed. Did he apologize for misleading us? No. He ignored the post.
Moving on to yesterday, GBL plagiarized a private email, published without the writer's permission. The question arose: Is this ethical? None of the ex-/anti- Witness squad would take GBL to task for that! If it's done by an opposer, then it's right by definition. The justification: "Is theocratic warfare ethical?" Opposers still using what they think JW's would do as their justification doing what is wrong?
On the same page, opposers posted what they claimed was a video of a Witness elder lying in court. It was demonstrated that he did no such thing. Again ignored.
GBL also asserted that brothers in Zimbabwe were relying on worldly organizations for assistance. The text he quoted said nothing of the kind; it simply said that the brothers' medical insurance had collapsed. This was pointed out. No correction, no apology. Ignored.
Then, tohsibor claimed that "some printings" had been altered when put on the Watch Tower CD ROM. When asked to provide proof, beyond one correction that had already been made in the bound volumes, he couldn't do it. Did he apologize? Admit he was wrong? No.
He then went on to claim that a certain Watchtower publication was deceptive. Asked to cite an example from the publication, he refused.
Today, we have further examples. In kimmy jo's hate-filled rant, she said that the sufferings of Jehovah's Witnesses -- who were assaulted, beaten, kidnapped, tarred and feathered, forced to drink castor oil, castrated and maimed, taunted and insulted, jailed without charge, held incommunicado, shot, threatened with hanging and beaten unconscious, subjected to mob violence, had their clothes torn from them, their Bibles burned; their automobiles, trailers, homes and assembly places wrecked -- that all these sufferings have no real meaning. She should hang herself in shame for writing that and so should all who let her away with it.
I have been reading this blog and posting from time to time for about a month now but I have had enough. I have never seen so many demonstrable lies, so much hatred, spite and malice in my life.
What a contrast with what I am used to in my congregation with my brothers and sisters.
Goodbye, everyone!
Anonymous said...
"First of all, it was Jesus who said that Satan was the "ruler of this world". It was Paul who called him "the god of this system of things." You may not believe that any more, but does that mean we aren't entitled to?"
Response…
If you believe that, (and I am not stating whether that statement is factual or not), it would include the USA Today article placing the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in a positive light.
Anonymous said...
"Now, let's take as a case in point the Daily Mail story that was featured a few days ago. Tohsibor was silent about it. I would be interested to know whether he believes it or not."
Response…
My opinion is not the matter at hand. Whether I believe it or not, does not change the issue regarding people having the right to view all and any information available and are not told what to read or what to avoid simply because an organization tells them so. You have the right to criticize and therefore others have the right to criticize as well. People have the right to read about both sides of the argument from all sources.
Anonymous said...
"Then, tohsibor claimed that "some printings" had been altered when put on the Watch Tower CD ROM. When asked to provide proof, beyond one correction that had already been made in the bound volumes, he couldn't do it. Did he apologize? Admit he was wrong? No. "
Response…
Anonymous, as I brought up in earlier post, if the changing of even one statement is insignificant to you that is fine. However, for others it may be unacceptable. The fact is the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses has demonstrated (and you reiterated despite you may be thinking it is unimportant) altering what was originally written. I’m not writing to encourage people to believe everything I wrote. In fact, I encourage people to doubt it. Doubt and question anything anyone tells you, and do all the research and investigate with all available materials. Not just limited to what an organization or any person tells you.
Anonymous said...
"He then went on to claim that a certain Watchtower publication was deceptive. Asked to cite an example from the publication, he refused."
Response…
As I sited earlier, the publication is “Preparing for Child Custody Cases” as utilized by the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses. What I refused to do is debate statements in the pamphlet with another (yourself?) poster to the blog. What I suggested and far more beneficial for all is for everyone interested to obtain a copy of that pamphlet and read for themselves. People should make up their own minds and not believe the opinions of two people debating various statements from the pamphlet. My conclusion was it served as another example of the deception found with the organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses. Your opinion may differ. People have the right to come to their own conclusions.
Anonymous said...
"What a contrast with what I am used to in my congregation with my brothers and sisters."
Response…
That experience is not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many people experience the same elate feelings and warm encourage from their congregations and/or churches. Contrary to what some or many may have been taught, religions and religious organizations outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses can be just as warm and loving as any congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Granted some are horrible, but the same can be found among the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses as anywhere else. Furthermore, such warm experiences or feelings do not make for a “true” religion either. Many ex-cult members will testify to feeling love and warmth while inside the cult. Do cults make up the “true” religion?
Dear Anonymous:
I'm sorry you're leaving us.
It is my desire to influence JWs with an open mind, or non-JWs that want to know more about the organization.
I want, above all else, to spare them the pain and suffering of belonging to and exiting a destructive, high-control group.
This past week's Watchtower lesson is preparing JWs for a decrease in the coming annual service report. They have introduced the concept of 'invisible growth'. Some evidence indicates that in Western nations, where the Internet is freely available, the organization is being exposed for its many destructive qualities.
Please don't think we have animosity for you personally. You are a victim of a victim, just like I was. I have sympathy for you. However, until you decide to think yourself, you remain as determined, committed and blind as the 19 hijackers that flew the planes on 9/11. They honestly believed they were serving God. So do you.
I implore you to obey God as ruler, rather than men. The Law (both Mosaic and JW written and unwritten Law) was made void by Christ's shed blood. There were true Christians that learned about God and Christ from the Holy Bible before C.T. Russell was born. Truth from God's word is being preached, even today, without the help of a mysterious Faithful & Discreet Slave 'Class' that doesn't exist, except in the minds of JWs.
Pray for wisdom and guidance. Your conscience already allows you to read apostate Internet sites. Take the next step and read Ray Franz first book. It is written in a spirit of love. None of the specifics in his book have ever been refuted by the organization. My own PO personally lied to me about Ray. You've probably been lied to about, as well. Not intentionally, but you've probably heard the slanderous charges that whispered about among JWs that are ignorant of the truth.
I wish you the best.
With warm Christian affection,
The Pastor
"It's Okay to Say "God Damn""
"Chaplinsky, Rutherford and the others were not bothered by the loss in Court, because now they could proclaim far and wide about how Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted."
I say,
'God Damn' them(JW's) for twisting truth and calling it truth to glorify themselves.
I have read so many responses/comments/etc. on this web-blog.
I've concluded that it is the ex-JW's that present the clearest and most reasonable views. No doubt, because they've been there and can speak from experience... like this awesome comment from Pastor:
"Please don't think we have animosity for you personally. You are a victim of a victim, just like I was. I have sympathy for you. However, until you decide to think yourself, you remain as determined, committed and blind as the 19 hijackers that flew the planes on 9/11. They honestly believed they were serving God. So do you."
"Captives of a Concept identifies both the concept and the mistake that causes people to become captives of it."
http://www.captivesofaconcept.com/AboutTheBook.php
This is a very easy read for any JW and will identify the one mistake that ALL JW's make/made!
Dear Anon,
That was quite a rant:
(Anon said in part.)
"I have been reading this blog and posting from time to time for about a month now but I have had enough. I have never seen so many demonstrable lies, so much hatred, spite and malice in my life.
What a contrast with what I am used to in my congregation with my brothers and sisters.
Goodbye, everyone!"
However, I see you make no comment about Ronde (alias Voice of Reason, Anonymous, and who knows what other alias Ronde has used).
Ronde is a JW. I have caught him in a least 4 lies (the last was saying that he wasn't Voice of Reason). And, believe me, his conduct on this web-blog has not been above reproach.
He's the same JW that boasts, 'Abused children and their parents are responsible for child abuse in JW's organziation.'
So, your rant included all ex-JW's and not Ronde? Did you miss his posts or did you chose to ignore them? I know, he wrote so much here that people tend to ignore him, but like I said, he has been caught lieing and saying some pretty nasty/wordly things - all the time representing your religion and Jehovah!
hey anon 5:06 take a freakin' breath, will ya'? Jeez...nobody's gonna read all that crap. It's ramblings, yadda-yadda-yadda...
Of course it is ok to say God Damn.
Damn means condemned or cursed.
That is simply wanting someone to be cursed or condemned by God.
Nothing wrong with that.
But Chaplinsky is old stuff.
No, the Bible is old stuff.
This is a new low for GBL.
To discredit the JW organization, he uses a comment from a scared minister who was being MOBBED!
I saw a fender bender once and a priest cursed up a storm. I would never say it affects my view of my Catholic coworkers, who I get along with well.
What does this have to do with Bible doctrine? I would say this blog should concentrate on that.
For example, who out there can prove from the Bible that Witnesses are wrong concerning us NOT having an immortal soul?
1940
SIXTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO
LGB...you are pathetic and obviously desperate.
anonymous says,
"Today, we have further examples. In kimmy jo's hate-filled rant, she said that the sufferings of Jehovah's Witnesses -- who were assaulted, beaten, kidnapped, tarred and feathered, forced to drink castor oil, castrated and maimed, taunted and insulted, jailed without charge, held incommunicado, shot, threatened with hanging and beaten unconscious, subjected to mob violence, had their clothes torn from them, their Bibles burned; their automobiles, trailers, homes and assembly places wrecked -- that all these sufferings have no real meaning. She should hang herself in shame for writing that and so should all who let her away with it."
my response to this rant is that some Muslims(or whatever the religion) choose to suffer by tying bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves and others up...FOR GOD. That's the same reason JW's CHOOSE to suffer needlessly and stay in harms way...FOR GOD. Religion and Politics involve very strong emotions an can bring people under influence and belief that they are acting for a better cause. "DO NOT BE MISLEAD"
I still say,
"Jesus persecution has REAL meaning."
sheeplike,
you missed the point of the article,
Chaplinsky was taken to court by the police for calling an officer a "God damn racketeer" and a damned Fascist", Chaplinsky was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted for violating a state law against public cursing. He appealed and lost...but now
"Chaplinsky, Rutherford and the others were not bothered by the loss in Court, because now they could proclaim far and wide about how Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted."
It's the way JW's used the incident to glorify themselves.
They just LOVE playing the martyr role FOR GOD.
Anonymous said...
"1940
SIXTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO
LGB...you are pathetic and obviously desperate."
Anonymous, how long ago of a religion's history do you examine and hold it accountable? 50 years ago? 25 years? 10, 5, or perhaps only 1 year ago? When and where does one draw the line?
After determining what matters to you, does the organization you support hold other (religious) organization accountable for a longer period? Do you hold other organizations accountable for a longer period of time? The organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses often mentions and holds accountable other faiths such a Catholicism going back hundreds to thousands of years ago.
It would be quite hypocritical for someone to ignore the problems, errors and mistakes of their own faith even going back just a mere 100 years, but then support the attack and criticizing of other religious organizations for the same time period and even longer.
tohsibor:
You know what, you are right.
I guess I shouldn't mind the exposure of some old JW man saying "God Damn" in the 1940's and being arrested for it. And we can call it persecution or not.
Compared to the Catholic Inquisition, the slaughter of young men in two major wars and hundreds of other wars blessed by most religions, and.....well I could go on and on. I will compare the "sins" of Jehovah's Witnesses to other religions ANY DAY !!!
Lets make a chart, shall we????
Watchtower never 'apologizes' for its sins. It simply blames them on Brother Some.
I'm sure you're familiar with Brother Some.
"Some brothers thought the end of the world would come in 1975."
Talking about the sins of other religions is a Red Herring.
We only want to know one thing? Are Jehovah's Witnesses God's prophet, today?
*** w79 9/1 p. 29 par. 28 The Royal “Shepherd” of Bible Prophecy ***
"Unlike the clergy class, those of the Jeremiah class have been sent by Jehovah to speak in his name."
Robishot:
Chaplinsky is not a religion's history. It is the actions of a person.
"When and where does one draw the line?"
I draw the line on the difference of what is taught and what people do. I do not focus on people, I focus on teachings.
That shows that the antijws are teaching bad things and they are following bad things.
"Watchtower never 'apologizes' for its sins. It simply blames them on Brother Some."
Those are not sins.
Ronde wrote: "Those are not sins."
In real world, they are. In your head, probably not.
"Ronde wrote: "Those are not sins.""
Ah,Ronde didn't write that, I did.
Ronde = Voice of Reason = Troll
"Ronde = Voice of Reason = Troll "
If that tickles your fancy.
Color us tickled.
Ronde responded to this point: "Watchtower never 'apologizes' for its sins. It simply blames them on Brother Some."
...with this [once again] opposite statement:
"Those are not sins."
Ronde (alias Voice of Reason), when the GB/F&DS knew of the many child abuse issues in various congregations and never warned the other sheep (its members) that this problem existed - so as to forewarn people, THAT is called a sin of omission. So, it's a sin! (James 4:17)
www.silentlambs.org
p.s. Recall, due to the 2-witness rule being applied to minors in these child abuse cases, the molestor went free! Any reasonable person can see the need for a warning - something like there have been accusations of child abuse in our congregation.
btw: Speaking about reasonable, I think we all choke when we see your knew alias: Voice of Reason. I mean, it's not even funny.
Joepublish said:
"p.s. Recall, due to the 2-witness rule being applied to minors in these child abuse cases, the molestor went free! "
And what is the alternative, do deprive the accused of due process?
"Any reasonable person can see the need for a warning - something like there have been accusations of child abuse in our congregation."
The warning is always present. So what is one to do? The same thing if there is no accusation. Treat all with caution.
"btw: Speaking about reasonable, I think we all choke when we see your knew alias: Voice of Reason. I mean, it's not even funny. "
Well, since everything I say is reasonable, I am the voice of reason.
Ronde (alias VOR) said: "Well, since everything I say is reasonable, I am the voice of reason."
From the Watchtower:
"RELIGIOUS PRIDE"
"Pride is specially prone to flourish in the field of religion. Few choose their own religion on the basis of searching Bible study. They inherit it from their parents, or acquire it from their neighbors, or absorb it from their friends, or adopt it for business advantage.
"Once having committed themselves they are balky about changing. Pride is quick to protest any admission of error.
"To change would be to say their parents were wrong, or their neighbors, or their circle of friends, or their business associates. So they cling to their religion, too prejudiced to examine its teachings in the light of the Bible, too proud to acknowledge the possibility of wrong, too hardened in pride to consider a change, and many times too indifferent to care."
Ronde, keep that elevated view of yourself and you will continue to cement the reputation that you have earned on this web-blog. I wonder what your JW peers are going to think of you when they read some of your very worldly posts - how many are you going to be quilty of stumbling? (God only knows.)
Joepublish said"
From the Watchtower:"
Well, since I don't follow the Watchtower, what is your point?
""RELIGIOUS PRIDE""
Of course we should have religious pride. I take great pride in Jesus.
And people who find fault with what I have to say also find fault with the Christ and his way too.
Do you follow the Watchtower magazine?
We'll be happy to use whatever terminology you'd prefer.
JWs do what the 'organization' tells them to do. The 'organization' is their 'Mother'.
"Do you follow the Watchtower magazine? "
No, I follow the Atalaya magazine.
Atalya, Despertad, it's all the same.
"Lies and deceptions, since 1874."
Again a copy-n-paste originated from JWD forum + 1 reply posting.
It's a lot of work to sift through the various Internet forums, dedicated to sheddling light on JWs.
I personally like what GBL does, by posting the 'Best Of' from these forums.
Ronde (alias Voice of Reason) admitted: "Well, since I don't follow the Watchtower, what is your point?'
The elders from Ronde's local congreation met with him to discuss why he doesn't follow the MAIN channel for dispensing spiritual food.
Here's Ronde's response: "God Damn you elders, I don't follow the Watchtower, nor should you! And, you better not have a problem with me using God Damn because I've already explained on this web-blog why it's okay to use this expression!"
LOL... some please stitch me up... my sides are splitting from the laughter! You're too much Ronde... strike up that Rocky theme music! LOL
"I personally like what GBL does, by posting the 'Best Of' from these forums. "
Best of.
BA HA HA HA HAH AH AAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
AHA
HAH
HA
HA
HAH
That is like saying that there is a Best of William Hung.
You gotta like William Hung!
Ronde wrote: "That is like saying that there is a Best of William Hung"
That means nothing.
Ronde admitted: “Well, since I don't follow the Watchtower, what is your point?”
Hmmm… maybe these points from Watchtower articles were directed at Ronde (alias Voice of Reason)”
“HELP NEEDED
No question about it, if we would gain life we must study the Bible. But does that in itself mean that we need The Watchtower? Cannot we individually go to the Bible and gain all the knowledge and understanding necessary? Can we? ... [NO]
To properly study The Watchtower we must approach it with the right heart attitude. ... we have no grounds for approaching a study of it with suspicion, but rather we should approach it with a sincere desire to understand what GOD HAS PROVIDED FOR US THROUGH ITS PAGES...
So, there you have it Ronde (alias Voice of Reason). Your religion teaches that GOD HAS PROVIDED FOR [you] THROUGH [The Watchtowers’s] PAGES!”
The next time you try to play this down, the readers will know (if they don’t already) that JW’s are taught that God is using The Watchtower as a life-saving provision.
And, to bring this point home, notice another Watchtower article which supports this thought:
“Others said of “The Watchtower”: “It’s just like a letter from my father; I never miss an article.” “‘The Watchtower’ gives us the truth and the truth makes us free.”
Well, there you have it. Ronde has consistently tried to unsuccessfully prove that as a representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not place undo emphasis on The Watchtower.
Ronde is always playing with words because he’s embarrassed that his own religion places such a strong emphasis on the Watchtower - a provision JW teach is from Jehovah God!
Goodness, no wonder he tries hard to hide this fact. (Ronde, open mouth and insert foot, yet again.)
BTW: What were you DF'd for?
"They were accused, baselessly, of being Nazi sympathizers"
Really? Or could it be that it was because of the Yearbook of 1934, page 134
"The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business."
As if that's not enough the next page (135)continues:
"The present government of Germany [In 1934 that was Adolph Hitler's NAZI Party!] has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors [Jews] and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nations. Such is exactly our position."
It shouldn't be too hard to verify this statement.
'GOD DAMN' THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AND ALL IT'S COMPONENTS FOR MISLEADING SO MANY AND TAKING AWAY THE 'GIFT' OF LIFE THAT GOD HAS GIVEN ONLY TO REPLACE IT WITH LOST HOPE AND A CONSTANT FEELING OF IMPENDING DOOM IF NOT 'DOING YOUR UTMOST' TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF THE WATCHTOWER...
Kimmy Jo said
"'GOD DAMN' THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY AND ALL IT'S COMPONENTS F"
Kimmy,
God stopped listing to you long ago.
That letter from the Brooklyn headquarters, filled with anti-semitic comments, sent to Hitler, is priceless. They were afraid Hitler would seize their property and $$$, evidently. They thought a letter in which they kissed Hitler's posterior might change his mind about their apocalyptic millenarian sect.
What a bunch of gutless bigots.
anon said: "It's a lot of work to sift through the various Internet forums, dedicated to sheddling light on JWs."
Wrong, it's not a lot of work, but a lot of hate
"Wrong, it's not a lot of work, but a lot of hate "
That is evident of what apostates do.
They will not hesitate to break the law to spread the hate.
Ronde wrote: "break the law"
You call it 'Theocratic Warfare'.
We call it spreading truth.
Maybe Jehovah can stop the apostates.
Well, guess not.
We'll never place our light under a basket. You'll see us at your assemblies and you'll find us on the Internet, wherever WT deceptions are being told.
Unlike JWs, we're all pioneers. We never miss an opportunity to share the truth with others.
'Ronde (alias Voice of Reason) admitted: "Well, since I don't follow the Watchtower, what is your point?'
What? You cant even follow the Watchtower? You must be thick. It is childish. Haha.
VOR (alias Ronde) made this startleling revelation on another post - here's the direct quote: "I don't trust them [the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses] for any explanation. I have said that over and over. Come on."
Post a Comment