Malawi and MCP Cards?

[TrueTomHarley]

I suspect—and it may be that the ‘air’ of the day determines it, and it may afterward be subject to reinterpretation—that ‘everyone knows’ certain legalese is just boilerplate crap and other legalese actually means something. 

[Pudgy]

yeah …. like that silly requirement the Romans had in the Coliseum that you just put a pinch of incense on the alter to the Roman Emperor and you could go free … OR … you could refuse and you and your family would be torn apart and eaten by lions.

Whadda sense of humor!

When you make a statement “.. so help you God… “ it may be a formality to some civil clerk, but if you take an oath before God and man the presumption is that God will enforce it.

There are times when the sands of the Arena are soaked with the blood of Christians who would not make the simple gesture of putting a pinch of incense on the Alter of the Emporer … and there are times when Church Leaders don’t get to go to Europe.

If Oaths before God are meaningless … you get to go to Europe.

See?

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God."

Oh. Yes. I recall noticing that a few decades ago. That image was made available by the US Dept of State and was mined by Ancestry.com and other digital collections. It's still there for anyone to check. Typo and all, the document is legit. I had forgotten all about that typo until you pointed it out.

[Many Miles]

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

All this described is the same or similar to how religions behave. They can have doctrines and internal rules for their believers as they wish and do not allow that right to be denied to them.

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

When Justice Jackson rendered the Courts opinion he recited the alternate pledge of allegiance offered. It reads:

“I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray. I respect the flag of the United States and acknowledge it as a symbol of freedom and justice to all. I pledge allegiance and obedience to all the laws of the United States that are consistent with God's law, as set forth in the Bible.”

One can only wonder why the society felt the need for that alternative pledge of allegiance when they could have just told JWs they could pledge the same oath of allegiance sworn by all the society's top men, which reads like this:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion; So help me God."

Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

…. Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

 

Yes;

[George88]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?

I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

[George88]

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?

I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

I'm not criticizing your motivation, I'm just highlighting the information it contains. I kindly ask you not to over-hype my post, as you often tend to do. If you believe that witnesses should swear loyalty to the GB, then you are mistaken about the nature of this religion. Consider every Jewish synagogue as your model. Maybe you would feel at home in one of them.

[Many Miles]

5 minutes ago, George88 said:

I kindly ask you not to over-hype my post, as you often tend to do. If you believe that witnesses should swear loyalty to the GB, then you are mistaken about the nature of this religion.

I've not asked, and never would I ask, JWs to swear loyalty to the GB. That's a red herring.

What I did do was ask a question, which you just completely ignored. I'm not the one who offered a Wikipedia article saying "all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary" regarding the issue of the society's offer of an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

So here's the question again:

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?

I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

[Pudgy]

i would not characterize the pathetically transparent and lame diversion as a “red herring”.

That is an insult to dead, spoiled fish.

[George88]

28 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So here's the question again:

What part of the Wikipedia article expresses why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to?

I mean, the society's top leadership was already pledging the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, which is the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

If both you and Pudgy are known for your deceptive use of wordplay, just like someone I'm familiar with in the closed club, then it is the way you present your statement that renders it insincere, not the information listed on Wikipedia concerning the initial challenges to freedom of speech when pledging allegiance to the flag. 

Let's avoid blowing it out of proportion, like Pudgy did with the passport issue. You guys might control this site, but you have no authority over me, and never will.

[George88]

Basically, the same arguments were presented in the:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis

I'm sure your friend from the closed club will come around to mention "Hayden Covington" of all people.