JW Insider

Agree with inefficiency of the battery powered car for the type of travel we are used to. I notice in Paris and London that a lot of parking spots have the charger hookup and they are constantly in use. The Chevy Bolt hardly even works on standard 110v (typically 15 Amp). You need an electrician to hook up a 240v 32 Amp line just as they would for an electric dryer or electric stove. Even then it's about 25 miles for every hour, thus 8 hours would get you 200 miles. and 9.5 hours would get you the full 238 miles that it's battery can make use of before recharging. You could only get 5 miles for every hour on a 110v. 8 hours on 110v should get you 40 miles. (That's about the same difference between 110v and 220vas many electric dryers. They run on 220/240, but if you don't have that hookup, you can plug many models into a 110v standard plug and it will take about four times as long to dry clothes as a 240v.) There are public DC-to-DC charging stations (for money) that can give you an additional 90 mile range in 30 minutes. Reminds me that my youngest son built some experimental DIY solar panels which each produce about 60 Watts and keep a stack of 4 deep-cycle batteries powered in the garage. We had to use them during hurricane Sandy (and a separate outage from a tornado) for low powered items (laptops, fish tanks, lights, clocks, radios, small TVs, phone charging) but to run my refrigerator I needed a generator, and since I don't have one, I hooked up one of the two cars with an inverter and used it as a generator.

To bring this blood discussion more directly in line with the topic, one should consider that almost the exact same thing was done by WT lawyers in the Bulgaria case, where the WTS legal team came up with a way to appease the officials who were determining the status of our work in Bulgaria (by publicly denying that there would be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion). Then, to clarify, internal communications from the WTS to the congregations stated that nothing had changed, and that there would definitely continue to be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion. https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/

When meat is processed as kosher, then you do NOT have to understand the term fraction. There are no blood fractions in kosher processed meat, only very small quantities of WHOLE blood. The point might have been missed because it's not part of the Watchtower's doctrine. The publications have put a lot of emphasis on potential health risks of accepting and health advantages of abstaining. We shouldn't care so much that whole blood has been studied and has had a history of many complications, nor the fact that fractions, too, have been studied and has had a history of many complications. We don't abstain from blood for health reasons, that's just a potential advantage of abstaining from blood. It's also a potential advantage of abstaining from blood fractions. *** w91 6/15 p. 9 par. 5 Saving Life With Blood—How? *** Yes, the central reason why they were to avoid taking in blood was, not that it could be unhealthy, but that blood had special meaning to God. *** w04 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers *** Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood? . . . Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians I'd say so too, but your idea looks like a tacit admission that the WTS changed its doctrine to allow fractions for the wrong reasons. Making temporary health benefits more important than God's law. And here you state it more explicitly, that this was the reason: "Therefore, . . . due to health." And, in fact, your entire post is about health and cost considerations, among the various therapies.

I abstain from blood in every way possible but, like many of us have stated in the past, it's not possible to get every bit of blood out of slaughtered meat. It's a matter of doing what we can within reason. You don't have to be a vegetarian to abstain from blood. You seem to agree with this point, and I agree with most of the points you made here, too. I absolutely agree that the red liquid juice is the protein called myoglobin which is "distantly" related to hemoglobin, as it handles the same purpose in muscle tissue (oxygenation) that hemoglobin handles for many parts of the body by carrying oxygen through the bloodstream. The only thing you say here, which I think could be misleading is when you say that "Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction)." In actuality, just as was pointed out in previous conversations, any meat still contains a small amount of whole blood, not so much any "fractionated" blood. By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction." Coincidentally, my own response in the previous conversation used the word "ironically" too, but I had chosen the word for less serious reasons, because I was talking about how hemoglobin carries oxygen and iron, too. Deja vu! I think everyone would agree with that, as stated above. The rest of your points are more related to health considerations and the medical dangers of blood transfusions, including the historical development of understanding dangers, limitations, and transfusing blood types (which were figured out by 1901). This is all interesting information but likely has very little to do with the reasons that Christians were told to abstain from blood in Acts 17, etc. I cannot claim that it was about money or lawsuits, but there are some historical indications about the timing of various statements the WTS made with respect to doctors, patient rights, our use of term "martyr," the JW Bulgaria blood transfusion announcements, medical articles for journal publication from M. Gene Smalley and J. Lowell Dixon, MD (Bethel Doctor). I have looked over these developments from 1989 to 1994 especially, and compared them to later discussions since 1998. Our "public" language about the topic became quite different in 1998, and updates came quickly between 1998 and 2000, which was the same year (rumored) that the number of attorneys at Bethel apparently doubled (no verification on this) and the same year that the Governing Body changed their roles and stepped away from their roles as WTS corporate directors (verified). For anyone interested in a challenge from an obviously apostate source on the topic of changes to our blood policy, they can look at this page, written in the year 2000: https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/

I really didn't notice anything like that. So there's nothing to worry about or defend. Yes. You understood me. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not worried about whether anyone agrees, but I'm glad you understand. Yes. You are seeing the issues. The article that said no blood transfusions for pets was written at a time when we were still being told that our conscience doesn't allow certain fractions, which our consciences are now allowed to allow. So where does this leave our pets? Can we get a medical therapy for a dog that allows hemoglobin as long as it is not in the form of full red blood cells, but just the portions of that cell from which someone squished out the hemoglobin? And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets? 😉

Yep. I've heard this and was not surprised. It's been on those "TED Radio Hour" type of public radio shows. The next episode I listened to was about how a few widely published sommeliers agreed to a blind test comparing some of their highest rated wines with a few cheap $10 bottles thrown into the mix. I think the tests were set up with three bottles at a time, two highly rated and one cheap wine. The results actually showed that these nationally known experts would often confuse the $10 bottle with $200 bottles. Again, not surprising. Self-made expertise is often not science. I think the climate change situation is more like those old pictures of military "experts" sending improperly protected military personnel into nuclear testing sites soon after a blast to take measurements. It took a while for data to become overwhelming enough to shame the experts. Similarly, we still have people denying the cancerous effects of cigarettes, and part of the reason was that real doctors were once employed by tobacco companies as experts to make statements to this effect. So I'm also not surprised that big oil companies have been caught paying scientists to promote anti-global-warming papers over the years. But I'm also not surprised that a small percentage of climate scientists fake their data in order to gain credit for work they didn't really do. Even though this happens, it does not discount the actual work of the majority of scientists who did not fake their data. This "experts" argument can cut both ways, of course, but if you listen closely (even to the weatherman's video) you can see that there really is no money to follow in predicting doom and gloom. At best the claim is who can make "future" money off carbon taxes, and there surely will be some abuse and mishandling wherever money is involved. But so far the "follow the money" argument argues much more strongly for fraud on the part of the "experts" who deny climate change.

In our generation, I think that most former "global warming" deniers have already begun accepting global warming as a fact, and have repositioned themselves as only denying that it's man-made. I think that some have held onto that original position, because one of the reasons for the original position was political: not wanting to see taxpayers overburdened, enormous national debt , not wanting China to be able to rise to the world's most powerful economy, etc. And Exxon confuses them by saying we should all be ready to pay up anyway, because it's happening, no matter whose fault it is. I know this isn't a JW portion of the forum, but Sunday afternoon, most of our service group was already using the door-to-door sermon about whether people might be blaming God, with all the bad things happening in the world, such as all these recent gun killings we're seeing on TV. (Then reading Job 34:10-12.) One householder held that both of these mass shootings were going to be proven to be hoaxes. What do you do with a person like that? (The obvious answer is that we these same people will never deny that there have been thousands of acts of gun violence in Chicago, for example. This agreement will get us to nearly the same place about desiring change in the world.) I just watched Kevin Williams do his 2010 Tea Party speech, claiming no statistical global warming since 1995, and that in the 135-year thermometer history, that 1930's was the hottest decade. He gets expected applause over his claims that there is no warming, sea levels are barely rising, that hurricanes are not strengthening, and that global ice masses are actually starting to increase. Turns out he is absolutely wrong on all counts. This particular weatherman (meteorologist not climatologist) does NOT present data, he just makes false, agenda-driven claims like any politician: In fact if you do a search on the heat waves of the 1930's, you'll find that this particular issue is some of the first major evidence of man-made global warming. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-to-1930s-20115

This is very true. As JTR often says: "Follow the Money." In spite of the past controversy, ExxonMobil now runs a Climate Change page on their site that admits: "We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress." The following is the first page that is returned when I Googled "Exxon Mobil Climate Science Special Report." ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy The ExxonMobil climate change controversy concerns ExxonMobil's activities related to climate ... In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to company's executives that ...... What links here · Related changes · Upload file · Special pages · Permanent link · Page information · Wikidata item · Cite this page ... Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers Under ... https://www.huffpost.com/.../tillerson-exxon-climate-donations_n_5873a3f4e4b043ad... Jan 9, 2017 - Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers ... President-elect Donald Trump has nominated outgoing Exxon Mobil ... In October, reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles .... Special Projects. Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ... https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-... Oct 26, 2015 - Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it ... This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world's .... and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost ... independence in reporting developments in science to our readers. ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and ... www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-d... May 25, 2016 - Each of three working groups issued its own voluminous report: I) The ..... 2005: Given the rich variety of attention paid to climate change over the .... One might argue that ExxonMobil's specific mention of hurricanes as a risk ... Climate change | ExxonMobil https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy...environment/environmental.../climate-cha... We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it's going to take all of ... have placed “pay to play” news stories, released flawed academic reports and ... Understanding the #ExxonKnew controversy | ExxonMobil https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/...environment/environmental.../climate-change/un... Jun 14, 2019 - The investigation was widely founded on claims that scientists and researchers ... claim their effort is based on investigative reporting by InsideClimate News (ICN) and the ... those stories were bought and paid for by many of the organizations listed above. ExxonMobil's continuous action on climate change. Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups ... https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott.../exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-grou... Aug 31, 2018 - Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups? ... a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that it had spent at ... Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ... https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/exxonmobil-chevron-distort-climate-science Oct 23, 2018 - Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ... *(Earlier this month, this group released a special report detailing the impacts .... writing reports about it to company executives, the company was paying for ... Inside an investigation into Exxon Mobil's climate change - The Verge https://www.theverge.com/.../exxon-mobil-knew-climate-change-misinformation-harv... Aug 23, 2017 - For decades, the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has waged a ... How Exxon sowed doubt about climate change, according to an author of a new study ... But Exxon's communications with the public through paid editorials, ... doubt about the reality of global warming,” Inside Climate News reported. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/.../exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-den... Jul 15, 2015 - Alec has for decades worked to block action on climate change, by drafting ... Keil did not respond to specific questions about Exxon's financial ...

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life. (Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground. (Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . . A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep. (Deuteronomy 19:10) In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you. (Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’) (Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . . Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library. The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it. Also, notice that the article indicates that the only correct way for a pet to eat blood is if it "helps itself" to [whole] blood after killing another animal. A direct act by us makes us responsible. (My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.) *** w64 2/15 p. 127 Questions From Readers *** for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him. As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

Brutus is in the nominative case (Latin). The vocative case (when addressing someone) is Brute (broo-tay'). Else . . . excuse your French!

I expect that we are just on two different wavelengths here. I'm also guessing that I see more that's right in your answer than you will see in mine. These are just opinions for consideration, even if they seem to get a bit too serious.

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land. Yes, we think we are being cautious as serpents, but to ALSO be innocent as doves we can have no dishonesty and no guile. If we think this is part of Christianity in the method we practice then we are denying Christ if we hold back from telling out all that is profitable. I'm using "shame" in the sense of having something to hide. When I pass up a gas station that doesn't have its prices on display, I also assume that they are "ashamed" of them. Yes. I don't expect that shame was the only factor. There are and were definitely other factors, too. I don't think these other factors discount what I meant by the part that shame has played. And I think it is much stronger than you think, especially in the way all of us wish we didn't have deal with such a topic. The best and most critical point in the recent articles on the topic correctly move the shame to its proper targets, but there are still several potential pitfalls related to shame. A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children. Yes. A provocative stretch. I'm using the term disfellowship with the sometimes ambiguous idea that comes from Leviticus in the expression "he should be cut off from the congregation." Sometimes you can't help but see this as a euphemism for the death penalty, especially when the full punishment is stoning. I think you are already aware of older Watchtower articles that also say, effectively, that it is a good thing we don't live in the time of the Israelite law, when one would be stoned to death. And of course the more infamous one about disfellowshipping children in a household that says, effectively, that it is too bad that we don't live under the Israelite law when we would have been able to stone our disfellowshipped children. *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets: *** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers *** Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it? . . . How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. . . . In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God. . . . What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. . . . But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? . . . Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. . . . It would be a violation of God’s Word. If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks? And since the blood (and fat, and even remaining portions of a carcass) of an animal had to be poured out upon the ground during the time of the Mosaic Law, then what if an olive tree grew over that spot some day? Was that spot fertilized by blood, and becomes forbidden? Should we be told what our conscience can and can't allow in all these cases? Should we impose our conscience on children, or on their pets? And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?

First of all, understand that I have nothing against gun ownership. I have nothing against hunting, animal control, target practice, or even self-defense with whatever weapon is appropriate to the defense of my family. I don't own a gun, and probably never will, because I think the likelihood of needing one in this particular time period in the United States is very low. Also, I am not trained in their use, and could just as easily produce a tragedy under the same stressful circumstances that might require one. Trained police often kill innocents. Part of this is the fact that a person who has a gun tends to think he needs it more often than people who don't have guns. That said, I have a constitutionally supported reason when I say it doesn't matter what the constitution says or even exactly what it meant when it was written. That's because even if we understand it perfectly, a nation is free to change it. This is what amendments are in the first place. Some nations have done well to completely change their constitution. Rip up the old one and start over. You already understand well that our constitution was written by and for landowners. Many parts of it were also written specifically to permanently remove and reduce the perceived political power of poor whites, poor blacks, poor native Americans, etc. So when I say it doesn't matter, I mean that it can lawfully be updated according to its own constitutionally provided processes. This is good when parts of it appear obsolete or unjust. It's not likley that ALL of it will ever be seen that way, but the State has such power, if done in a careful way acceptable to "the people." (And "the people" include many more voices than were intended in the first ratification of amendments using the term.) We can know the mind of some of the framers by reading the Federalist Papers, and reading the comments and explanations of their actions when serving in office. The strength of the Federal government in the US itself is quite different now than what was originally intended. One might be afraid of what stupid people will do when they realize they have the power to change the constitution, but it's not written in stone. Checks and balances were added to keep a government as conservative and stable as possible, avoiding wholesale disruption, but it's as fluid as "the people" will allow under those constraints.

I agree completely. I gave Anna a big up-vote on her comments because she pointed this out when she said: "then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading." I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed. I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong. I think we will soon stop saying, as Brother Herd has said, that shunning our disfellowshipped children is analagous to casting out demons. Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments.

Only for those who are sure divine intervention will fix it for them. Clever-ish. There are people who push a specific agenda because of the science, and there are those who push a specific agenda because they think it gives them a political edge. And then there are millions of non-experts/non-scientists who fall for whatever the agenda-pushers are saying on their side of the ideology barrier. My impression is that the people most afraid that their position will melt (if they look at the REAL science) are those who deny man-made climate change. So most of the Snowflakes are science deniers. If someone believes that 2 + 2 = 5 you can pretty much guarantee they are not a mathematician. If someone believes that the current Climate Change issues are not at least 95 percent certain to be man-made, then you can pretty much guarantee that they are not a climate science expert. Even taking into account all that is known about external cycles, water vapor, volcanoes, natural methane, natural CO2 and sun's variability, etc., we still have no better explanation for the increase in trapped heat other than the effects of greenhouse gas increases by man. The effects are measurable and predictable based on modeling that uses data available from both before and after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800's. In fact, models now correctly show that coal burning, and volcano eruptions, due to the release of particulates, will have a cooling effect. There are additional sets of data that the best models will continually need to be updated with, because the effects of loss of oxygen-producing oceanic life, and melting snow over tundra (releasing natural methane), soil fertilization, deforestation, and other such factors, can have non-linear effects or crossover effects (a problem in one area exacerbating a linked problem in another area). Here's NASA's take. It's not rocket science. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Where did he stop for customs? Where did he get his French passport stamped?

Terrible. This would be about the 250th-plus mass shooting this year. The AP article said it was the 20th mass killing in which at least 4 persons died. About 96 persons in the US had died this year in those previous mass killings prior to this weekend. The toll must be nearly 140, and we still have 5 months to go this year. What is it about the United States that makes it the worst country in the world for this type of gun violence?

Ah! I remember it. It wasn't necessarily about a sister at all. All this time I thought it was about a sister in a congregation who relied too much on her husband or something like that. *** w17 January p. 12 par. 1 Treasure Your Gift of Free Will *** WHEN faced with making a personal choice, one woman told a friend: “Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier.” The woman preferred being told what to do instead of using a precious gift from her Creator, the gift of free will. What about you? Do you like making your own decisions, or do you prefer that others decide for you? How do you view the matter of free will?

I don't remember that. How long ago do you think it was? Was it a study article for sure, or could it have been a person's experience in a Watchtower? We have had several experiences in the middle of Watchtower study articles, too, about young persons who had not yet "made the truth their own" and therefore were not ready for baptism until such time as they proved the truth to themselves. I see several examples of that, but they don't really fit your context: *** w07 5/1 p. 26 par. 11 Youths—Pursue Goals That Honor God *** Many young Christians say that regular personal Bible study has been fundamental to helping them to make the truth their own. Adele, for example, was brought up in a Christian home but had never set any spiritual goals. “My parents took me to the Kingdom Hall,” she relates, “but I did not do personal study or listen at the meetings.” After her sister was baptized, Adele began to take the truth more seriously. A similar one discusses how young persons need to learn WHY they believe something, not just what they believe, in case they are asked to defend: *** ws16 September p. 22 par. 7 Young Ones, Strengthen Your Faith *** 7 Is it wrong to ask questions such as, ‘Why do I believe what the Bible says?’ Not at all. Jehovah does not want you to believe something just because others do. He wants you to use your “power of reason” to get to know the Bible and find proof that it truly is from him. The more you know what it says, the stronger your faith in it will be. (Read Romans 12:1, 2; 1 Timothy 2:4.) One way to get to know the Bible is by studying specific subjects that you would like to know more about.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first thing we can do is reword the phrase based on its meaning within the constitution. "[Because] a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security [protection] of a free State [Nation?], no laws will be made that would infringe the right of the people to own and carry guns [and other such weapons if appropriate to a well-regulated militia to protect a free State]." In that original context it appears to mean (at a minimum) that a nation needs an army of people who know how to use firearms in order to protect from potential invasion by outside enemies (or even internal tyranny). Rather than just conscripting a bunch of people at the last minute to then train them how to use weapons, wouldn't it be better to never constrict the use of firearms and allow their free ownership and use by people who will train themselves through hunting and/or target practice? That seems to be the general idea. This, of course, then turns to a discussion of the purpose and scope of such a militia. Is it a particular state's militia, or does the term "State" refer to a National militia? (as the word in used in the phrase "separation of Church and State") Then, of course, it will be necessary to determine whether the scope of such weapons ownership should also include anyone and everyone among "the people," whether or not they are willing and capable of supporting a State [National?] militia. Based on when the amendment was added, we are aware of the types of weapons that were considered appropriate at that time for supporting a militia. Whether or not additional types of weapons should be included is another matter for discussion. Tanks, cannons, machine guns, nerve gas, agent orange, grenades, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, smallpox-infected blankets, and nuclear warheads are all weapons that have become deemed appropriate for the security of the State, at one time or another. We can tell from the wording, that one of the basic meanings was probably that the United States would need an army that might need to be called in a hurry and made up, therefore, from the militias of various communities. Because of this need to keep an prepared national army, there would not be laws that restricted the ownership of weapons -- at least weapons like muskets, pistols, rifles, and cannons. One could easily extrapolate the idea from this that just because people sometimes purposely kill each other with such military weapons, and just because men, women and children are sometimes killed accidentally during the act of cleaning guns, hunting, target practice, etc., -- that these should not become reasons to change the current laws that allowed "the people" in general from owning and using such weapons. Technically, a lawyer even back when the 2nd Amendment was added, could make a case that "the people" were still being given the right to bear arms, even if the types of those arms were limited. A lawyer could also make the case that specific persons could be limited from bearing arms, as long as the people in general were not infringed. A lawyer could even make a case that it only referred to "the people" who were ready, capable and willing to join a standing militia, whenever called. But it doesn't matter what the original U.S. constitutional amendment meant. The constitution is not the Bible. It can be amended over and over again. Amendments can be clarified, expanded, constricted, or removed altogether.

Goes back half-a-year ago to an old conversation where you used the term "an Anti-Pauline" (which up until then had been a fairly rare term, used a few times by only one other person). tmbwipute

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc] Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/ I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine." https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

The 1975 Yearbook had mentioned that Howe was immediately ready to have the sentence commuted, not to exonerate them, which, as you say, was never the point: *** yb75 p. 116 Part 2—United States of America *** On March 2, 1919, the trial judge, Federal District Judge Harland B. Howe, sent a telegram to Attorney General Gregory in Washington, D.C., recommending “immediate commutation” of the sentences imposed on the eight imprisoned Bible Students. Had the Society's defense attorneys known this in advance, I wonder if they would have gone for the immediate appeal. It's quite possible that the Fed Dept of Justice figured they should ignore this immediate commutation request and just let Rutherford's attorneys have the appeal they wanted. The appeal might have been what kept them in prison for so long, although the way it worked out in making them "seem" exonerated was probably better for the Watch Tower Society in the long run.

Rutherford and his associates were not released in 1919 because they had been declared innocent. They were simply being released on bail, because the case was on appeal. A payment of $10,000 each gave them release until the case would be fully retried. Note that even up to January of 1920, they were still being told the case was going to be retried on April 7, 1920. (This is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 20, 1920.) But by April it was looking less and less like they could ever get a conviction. The "Proclaimers" book presents the situation like this: *** jv chap. 29 p. 654 “Objects of Hatred by All the Nations” *** Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced—and with the war past—on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all eight defendants, and on March 26, they were released in Brooklyn on bail of $10,000 each. On May 14, 1919, the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the government’s attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution. Why? As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives, the Department of Justice feared that if the issues were presented to an unbiased jury, with the war hysteria gone, the case would be lost. U.S. attorney L. W. Ross stated in a letter to the attorney general: “It would be better, I think, for our relations with the public, if we should on our own initiative” state that the case would be pressed no further. On the same day, May 5, 1920, the alternate indictment that had been filed in May 1918 against J. F. Rutherford and four of his associates was also dismissed. Obtaining an appeal does not mean that they would win on appeal, but it does (at least temporarily) "reverse the judgment" of the first trial. The next trial could have turned out even worse for them. But soon after the war was over on November 11, 1918, other appeals of 1918 Espionage/Sedition cases were losing their "teeth" and being overturned, and sometimes just being dropped altogether, so it was becoming more difficult to successfully try such cases in late 1919 and early 1920. (Eugene Debs was a glaring exception, and unrelated to religion.) Judge Howe, himself, makes it sound as if he knew all along that they would be released much sooner and Howe was in agreement that they should get bail, and even says he expected the President to commute their sentence after the war. (Howe had played up his support for President Wilson for years, and had communication and contact with him while running for Governor of Vermont, which is apparently why Wilson appointed him to a Federal judgeship as soon as Howe lost the election for Governor.) Those 5 calls to have the defendants come to Brooklyn was not such a hardship on most of the defendants, because they lived at Brooklyn Bethel -- except for Rutherford who lived in Southern California. He complained that he was dying. Only a couple of months after his release on bail, he got sick and developed pneumonia. This was more than 20 years before he actually died, but he really was seriously ill back in 1919. This could even have been tied to the conditions in the Atlanta penitentiary, or perhaps in the worse conditions of the local jail back in 1918 before they were transferred. Some newspapers reported that Rutherford said he was "dying" and the courts stopped forcing Rutherford to make the trip from California to Brooklyn. This is a bit out of order but the situation by October 1919 made it look like the Feds were not quite ready to give up on the case, but were already being pushed to declare it a non-case (abandonment of action, "nolle pros"). It doesn't mean they think you are innocent, but they are giving up trying to prove it, and it becomes as if the case never happened. BTW, when the Proclaimer's book says "As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives" these are the same archives I am quoting from, although most of the newspaper quotes are coming from clippings from Newspapers.com. Also, archives of the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" are available for free online.

Because sometimes a body at rest . . . falls asleep.