JW Insider

From the Babylon Bee News Network:
 

UNIVERSAL CITY, CA—To show his hard stance against guns and encourage a national discussion on gun control, Matt Damon has collaborated with Universal Pictures to remake the entire Jason Bourne series but with bananas instead of guns.
"People often pointed out how I was against guns but was in these really violent movies where I shoot everyone," Damon told reporters. "But no longer. Now, Jason Bourne will take on those dastardly CIA conspirators with healthy, organic fruits instead of firearms."
Bourne will point at the bad guys and say "Blam blam" or "Pew Pew Pew" while pretending to shoot the banana. Whenever he uses an explosive or throws a grenade he will instead lob a bunch of bananas. The bananas will create all kinds of wacky hijinks where characters slip on them, while cars that drive over the peels will spin out and sometimes fall into the water, having to be fished out by a Lakitu.
In one iconic scene that's been remastered in the rerelease of The Bourne Supremacy, Damon's character talks on the phone to the CIA's deputy director, Pamela Landy. Finally, he reveals he's been watching the CIA from a nearby rooftop for the entire conversation through a high-powered scope attached to a giant, GMO-laced banana. "Get some rest, Pam," he says. "You look tired." The CIA office then freaks out, realizing how much danger they were in.
"We could have been a banana split," Landy says as the hunt for Bourne resumes.
Other Hollywood studios are following suit in order to remain consistent with their far-left position on guns, as John Wick, The Matrix, Mission Impossible, and hundreds of other franchises will all be getting an all-banana reboot.
 

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.

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.

People take their self-righteousness so seriously!  ....or is it virtue signalling. ... showing off their purity.  
I have had people half-naked open the door on me... women and men.  I just give them a brochure (i always gave one ready  in my hand) ; try to focus on the face and not the dangling bits or underwear;  and move on. 
I got a very good return visit once by keeping my cool on a Palestinian woman who opened a door in her bra and panty.  She was a big woman.  That was really unexpected because they usually make sure they have on a hijab before opening a door!   
I do take it seriously though when someone threatens my life!  That is serious stuff.  Offensive appearance... I keep my cool and do not feel offended too quickly. Values differ.
In Sweden individuals will get totally naked and jump in water or the sea.  Their clothing is exceptionally tight and revealing. 
What will you poor people do if they put you in prison and take all your clothes off to shame you?  It is a possibility you know!  Hitler, from a most cultured civilization, did that to his prisoners. It is a well-known KGB etc. tactic to break people's morale and dignity. 
I come from Africa.  I have seen dangling bits in public since a child, even murder.  So when westerners,  who live cushioned lives and live in a world of unreality (because they have never really seen shocking poverty or absolute lawlessness)  get all superfine-apostle on me ....  I shrug it off.  Who will have the bigger shock when Armageddon arrives and there is no law and order..... I wonder.... 

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/

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/

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? 😉

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? 😉

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

You know, I actually did see that point when I looked it up, and deliberately overrode it for the sake of more easy understanding.
I know that this is not your mission, but you can credit yourself with causing me to back down from my 80% probability rating that global warming is a hoax. It is now more like 50-50.
Whenever I follow the mainstream, I also follow that which would be its opposite. In the case of climate change, there are many in the opposite camp and they are often very well informed persons who present data persuasively. The long-term respected, even loved, TV weatherman in my area (who has been replaced for the last few years, so that he is now independent) is among them—I mean, it is not that the other side is all dodos, as they are typically presented. This man is a lifelong student of climatology.
And you have caused me to look at matters anew. It is a significant achievement, for I, too, am as stubborn as the day is long.
I even think you capable of convincing me completely, were I too devote more energy to the problem. But of course, I cannot. I must devote my energy to kicking in the teeth (verbally) of those who would malign sacred things, trusting that my absence from the climate change field will not alter the game.

That one little piece of logic makes it crystal clear that Jehovah's Witnesses management had it right to begin with, "no blood or blood fractions", but then they caved to rescue their money and real estate from lawsuits.
The Lawyers and Accountants are now running the show, and deciding what is proper theology, based on money.
We had it right .... and THEN, screwed it up.
Mammon would be pleased. (Matthew 6:24)

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.
 

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.

Tell her to put up one in which the pole is encased in a Slinky. They are unbeatable. As the squirrel (or maybe cat) climbs up the pole, he gets almost to the top, and his paws grab the Slinky, at which point he abruptly slides to the ground and lands on his squirrelly rear end. She (and the birds) will laugh so hard about this that whatever project she undertakes that day will succeed. 

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.
But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.
:))

WE have the exact same understanding on that issue.
... and except to learn how to diagram sentences, which has served me well my whole life,  I did not even pay attention in English Classes.

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. 
“Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all.
These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!”
For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.)
It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them.
It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith. 
 

Perhaps it can be said in this way.
When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.
But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

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?

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. 

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.
 

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

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.