The Librarian

“Be of good courage and say: ‘Jehovah is my helper.’” —Hebrews 13:6 "Pure Language" District Convention held in the United States, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia. [3,624,773 publishers with 212 countries reporting in 1989, 5.6% increase over the 1988 service year, 60,192 congregations.] see w90 vol., pgs. 20-23. yb89-E * Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnessesw-E * The Watchtowerg-E * Awake!hb * How Can Blood Save Your Life?op * Our Problems - Who Will Help Us Solve Them?sh * Mankind’s Search for Godsi * “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial”Talk by Theodore JaraczJehovah's Witnesses - The Organization Behind the Name - Video Are You Ready to Face a Faith 11 90 KM.docx Non- Witness Publications / Events 1990_Richard_Wheelocks_suicide_Jumping_from_3rd floor_Towers.pdf Witnesses Won't Set Prices For Publications - The Los Angeles Times, 10 Mar 1990 (Page 426).pdf

You ok @ARchiv@L?

@Chelita at least one prominent news media voice is now speaking out.

Pour répondre à lÂ’accroissement, les Témoins de Jéhovah construisent un plus grand siège national, dans le quartier de Logbessou, à Douala. la source

On pense généralement que les transfusions de sang sont sans danger et quÂ’elles sont lÂ’unique moyen de sauver la vie de patients devant subir des interventions délicates. De nombreux conférenciers ont remis en question ce point de vue. la source

He was a racer and still allowed to be part of a theocratic building team? What is going on over there?

These younger JW's don't realize that racing is against what Jehovah wants? Every true JW knows better than to dream of a racing career.

Anyone know what state this is in?

This issue contains the study articles for December 3-30, 2018. Source

Ce numéro contient les articles d’étude pour la période du 3 au 30 décembre 2018. la source

Diese Ausgabe enthält die Studienartikel für den 3. bis 30. Dezember 2018. Quelle

Tejmur Achmedow erzählt von seiner Haft in Kasachstan. Er weigerte sich, gegen sein Gewissen zu handeln, und blieb Jehova treu. Quelle

Source

la source

I was just reading a very interesting Florida Appeals Case. In it the court ruled that a priest would not be allowed to testify in a case involving child abuse because it was made during a confession and that the FRFRA prohibits the state from forcing the priest too. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Fr. Vincenzo RONCHI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida and Loren Tim Burton, Respondents. Case No. 5D18–194 Opinion filed June 15, 2018 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John Marshall Kest, Judge. Attorneys and Law Firms Kevin W. Shaughnessy, Caroline M. Landt, and Meagan L. Martin, of Baker & Hostetler, Orlando, for Petitioner. Aramis D. Ayala, State Attorney Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and Jenny R. Rossman, Chief, Sex Crimes Unit, and Cherish Renee Adams, Sex Crimes Unit, Assistant State Attorneys, Orlando, for Respondent, State of Florida. No Appearance for Respondent, Loren Tim Burton. Opinion PER CURIAM. *1 Father Vincenzo Ronchi, a Catholic priest, seeks certiorari review of an order requiring him to testify in a criminal case regarding certain communications that took place during the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly referred to as “Confession”). We have jurisdiction.1 Concluding that the trial court's order contravenes Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“FRFRA”), we grant the petition. In June 2017, Loren Burton was charged in a four-count information with committing sexual offenses against a minor. The charged offenses were alleged to have occurred when the alleged victim was seven years old and when she was thirteen years old. The record reflects that the criminal investigation of Burton commenced after the alleged victim, then seventeen years old, disclosed to her mother that she had been sexually abused by Burton. In August 2017, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce child hearsay statements at trial pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2017). That statute permits the introduction of out-of-court statements made by a child victim with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of sixteen or less that describe any act of sexual abuse against the child provided that, inter alia, the time, content, circumstances or the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability.2 Here, the State alleged that when the alleged victim was fifteen years old, she disclosed to Ronchi that Burton had sexually abused her. *2 Upon being served a witness subpoena, Ronchi filed a Motion for Protective Order Limiting Testimony. In his motion, Ronchi alleged that the State intended to question him regarding communications that may have taken place between a penitent and Ronchi during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The motion further alleged that requiring Ronchi to testify as to any aspect of a Confession would violate the “sacred seal of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation” and, as such, would violate Ronchi's constitutional rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ronchi further alleged that any such communication would be privileged under section 90.505, Florida Statutes (2017).3 Ronchi contended that the Catholic Church forbids a priest from disclosing any aspect of a penitent's communication during the Sacrament of Reconciliation and, indeed, is sanctionable by excommunication from the Church. Ronchi subsequently filed a supplement to his motion, alleging that the coercion of his testimony would violate FRFRA (§§ 761.01–.061, Fla. Stat. (2017) ). In its written response, the State proffered that the alleged victim, now an adult, had waived any privilege attached to her prior communications with Ronchi regarding Burton. The State further argued that the only evidence it had to corroborate the alleged victim's anticipated trial testimony was her prior statement to Ronchi. The State contended that based on the alleged victim's waiver, her communications with Ronchi were no longer privileged under section 90.505. Finally, the State argued that it had a compelling interest in the successful prosecution of child sexual abuse and that the least restrictive means to further this strong governmental interest was to compel Ronchi's testimony. In a supplemental written response, the State proffered that it would produce evidence that during a conversation between Ronchi, the alleged victim's mother, and a friend of the mother's, Ronchi had acknowledged the alleged victim's disclosure of sexual abuse to him. The trial court subsequently conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the mother's friend testified that during a conversation between her, the alleged victim's mother, and Ronchi, Ronchi acknowledged that the alleged victim had previously disclosed to him that she had been molested by Burton. This conversation took place shortly after the alleged victim had disclosed the sexual abuse to her mother. The alleged victim's mother appeared to have a different recollection of the conversation. In response to the court's question as to whether Ronchi had acknowledged that the alleged victim had previously disclosed the abuse to him, the mother testified “[N]ot directly, but it could be understood from the conversation.” Ronchi did not testify at the evidentiary hearing, but did present the testimony of Father Joseph Waters, both a priest and a judicial vicar in the Catholic Church. Waters was examined extensively about his affidavit that had previously been filed with the court. In his affidavit, Waters averred that a Catholic priest is prohibited from disclosing any aspect of a penitent's communication during the Sacrament of Reconciliation including but not limited to, the penitent's participation in the Sacrament, the nature of the confession, the priest's mental impressions of the confession, and the priest's communications to the penitent during Reconciliation, even if disclosure is agreed to by the penitent. Reverend Waters further opined that violations of the Sacrament are considered among the most grave violations of Church law and would subject a priest to excommunication from the Church. The trial court ultimately entered a written order granting Ronchi's motion for protective order, in part, and denying the motion, in part. In its order, the trial court found that the communications between Ronchi and the alleged victim had occurred within the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This finding is supported by the record. The trial court then focused almost exclusively on the application of Florida's Evidence Code in ruling on Ronchi's motion. Specifically, the trial court determined that: (1) the communications between Ronchi and the alleged victim were privileged under section 90.505, (2) the privilege could be asserted by both Ronchi and the alleged victim, and (3) Ronchi had partially waived the privilege during his conversation with the alleged victim's mother and her friend to the extent that he disclosed the identity of the penitent and that “the subject of the disclosure was sexual abuse.” The court concluded that Ronchi must respond to the subpoena and could be questioned about “the existence of the confession, the identity of the penitent, and that the subject matter involved sexual abuse.” However, the trial court granted the motion for protective order “as to the content of any other communications between [Ronchi] and the victim during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and [Ronchi's] impressions, actions or omissions as they relate to communications made during the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” *3 Although the trial court focused on whether the communications between Ronchi and the alleged victim were privileged under section 90.505 and whether that privilege had been waived, we believe that this case is controlled by the application of FRFRA. The Florida Supreme Court has declared that the protection afforded to the free exercise of religiously motivated activity under FRFRA is broader than that afforded by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So.2d 1023, 1032 (Fla. 2004). Because the protections afforded an individual under FRFRA are broader than those afforded under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unnecessary for us to address Ronchi's argument that his constitutional rights have been violated by the trial court's order.4 FRFRA expressly provides that the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. § 761.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). A substantial burden on the free exercise of religion is one that either compels the religious adherent to engage in conduct that his religion forbids or forbids him to engage in conduct that his religion requires. Warner, 887 So.2d at 1033. In the instant case, the record establishes that if Ronchi complies with the State's demand that he testify as to his communications with the alleged victim during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Ronchi would be forced to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the Catholic Church (and, indeed, would subject him to possible excommunication from the Church). Thus, the trial court's order can only be upheld if the State establishes that coercing Ronchi's testimony furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means to further that interest. Here, it is undisputed that the State has a compelling governmental interest in prosecuting sex offenses perpetrated against children. See Grady v. State, 701 So.2d 1181, 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“We find the charged offense in the instant case, ..., falls within [the] category of crimes where the state has a compelling interest in protecting underage persons from being sexually abused or exploited.”). However, we disagree with the State's contention that coercing Ronchi to testify regarding communications that occurred during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in contravention of his sincerely held religious beliefs, would be the least restrictive means to further its compelling governmental interest of prosecuting Burton. First, as the State acknowledges, the testimony of Ronchi would, at most, be corroborative evidence. There is no allegation that Ronchi was a witness to any sexual abuse. Second, this case does not involve a child victim who, because of his or her tender age, might be unable to adequately testify as to the alleged sexual abuse. The alleged victim in this case is now an adult, and there is nothing in the record that suggests that she would be unable to testify as to the relevant events. Third, pursuant to section 90.803(23), the State could seek to have the alleged victim testify as to her purported prior disclosure of sexual abuse to Ronchi.5 *4 Because we conclude that the trial court's order contravenes FRFRA, we grant the petition and quash the trial court's order to the extent that it required Ronchi to “respond to the subpoena and ... be questioned about the existence of the confession, the identity of the penitent, and that the subject matter involved sexual abuse.” PETITION GRANTED.

Hitting them where it hurts... in the checkbook!!! Republicans have quietly imposed a new tax on churches, synagogues and other nonprofits, a little-noticed and surprising change that could cost some groups tens of thousands of dollars. Their recent tax-code rewrite requires churches, hospitals, colleges, orchestras and other historically tax-exempt organizations to begin paying a 21 percent tax on some types of fringe benefits they provide their employees. That could force thousands of groups that have long had little contact with the IRS to suddenly begin filing returns and paying taxes for the first time. Many organizations are stunned to learn of the tax — part of a broader Republican effort to strip the code of tax breaks for employee benefits like parking and meals — and say it will be a significant financial and administrative burden. It also means political peril for lawmakers, many of whom were surely unaware of the provision when they approved the tax plan. Churches’ tax-exempt status, in particular, has long been considered sacrosanct and Republicans are relying on the faithful to back them in the November elections. Though many organizations are still unaware of the tax, more than 600 churches and other groups have already signed a petition demanding it be repealed. “There’s going to be huge headaches,” said Galen Carey, vice president of government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of evangelical Christian organizations. “The cost of compliance, especially for churches that have small staffs or maybe volunteer accountants and bookkeepers — we don’t need this kind of hassle.” The Jewish Federations of North America is looking at a new $75,000 tax bill this year because of the change. “A lot of people are just finding out about it and the more people find out about it, the more pressure there will be on Treasury and Congress to either delay implementation or consider changing this,” said Steven Woolf, senior tax policy counsel for the group. At least one Republican lawmaker is now proposing to rescind the tax, though House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady — one of the architects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — is defending the provision. It will simplify the code when it comes to how workers are compensated, Brady said through a spokesman. The debate comes as Republicans celebrate the six-month milestone of the law’s enactment. They’ve emphasized the benefits of its big cuts in taxes on businesses and individuals. But to help defray the budgetary cost of those changes, Republicans simultaneously pared tax breaks for workers’ fringe benefits, which is projected to raise around $40 billion over the next decade. They were mainly trimming deductions companies have long taken for entertaining clients and providing meals for employees. But Republicans also wanted to treat nonprofits equally, which proved challenging. Because those organizations don’t pay income taxes, lawmakers couldn’t take away fringe-benefit deductions. So instead they created a 21 percent tax on the value of some of nonprofit employees’ benefits. The main benefits affected are transportation-related, like free parking in a lot or a garage and subway and bus passes. It also targets meals provided to workers and, in some circumstances, may affect gym memberships. “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act included provisions that provided grater parity in the tax treatment of different types of employee compensation,” said Rob Damschen, a Brady spokesman. “These provisions apply to both employers that are taxable entities and those that are tax-exempt entities.” “Providing this greater parity helps to reduce the extent to which decisions about the elements included in the employee compensation package are driven by tax considerations,” he said in an email. The proposal got virtually no attention when the legislation was making its way through Congress late last year, and many groups are outraged to now learn of the requirement. “What we’re talking about is an income tax on the church for providing parking to its employees — that’s what we’re talking about,” said Mike Batts, chairman of the board of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which is circulating the petition denouncing the tax. “It's absurd." He scoffs at the idea of treating businesses and nonprofits equally. “The whole idea of tax exemption for nonprofit organizations that are doing charitable, religious and educational work is for them not to be on the same playing field as for-profit businesses when it comes to taxes, in order to incentivize the good work they do to make our society better,” said Batts, who is also managing partner of an accounting firm that specializes in religious nonprofits. He and others complain that, thanks to nonprofits’ tax-exempt status, many don’t have experts on staff who can help them understand the provisions. They also note that while companies also lost fringe-benefit breaks, they simultaneously got big cuts in their tax rates and new incentives for investments that more than made up for the lost deductions. Many nonprofits say they are confused over how exactly the tax is supposed to work. Churches and other groups want to know how they are supposed to go about calculating the value of things like parking spaces for employees. Some wonder if the garages provided as part of clergy residences are now taxable. Other nonprofits have their own questions. Universities want to know if the bus services they provide for faculty and students are taxable and how they figure out how much they owe. Orchestras want to know how to treat musicians who may perform in different locations. “At what point is something a travel reimbursement? And at what point is it a commuter benefit?” said Heather Noonan, vice president for advocacy at the League of American Orchestras. Treasury is now working on regulations spelling out the details of how the tax will work, though the groups are supposed to have already been paying the tax. It took effect Jan. 1 and nonprofits are supposed to pay it quarterly. A host of groups, including the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Goodwill Industries, the YMCA and the National Council of Nonprofits are demanding the tax at least be delayed, saying it is unfair to ask them to be paying a levy they don’t understand. Earlier this month, Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) introduced legislation to kill the tax. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/republican-tax-law-churches-employees-670362

Pennsylvania Supreme Court says priest sex abuse grand jury report needs more review The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday said it stopped the planned release of a report investigating decades of child sexual abuse in six Catholic dioceses, including the Diocese of Allentown, because “many” people raised complaints that it would unfairly tarnish their reputations. The unsigned opinion says most, if not all, of the petitioners are people named in the report who are alleging that it “unconstitutionally infringes on their right to reputation and denies them due process.” Each of the six dioceses last week issued statements saying they had not taken legal steps to block the report. Under the grand jury law, individuals who are not charged with a crime but about whom the report is critical may be allowed to see it and issue a reply to be incorporated in the final product. The court did not lay out a timetable for release of the report, which it acknowledged is of great public interest. Around 1.7 million Catholics are in the six dioceses under investigation, with up to 250,000 in the Allentown Diocese. The petitionersÂ’ assertions get at the heart of the investigative grand jury process in Pennsylvania, which operates in secrecy and is not a forum for targets of the investigation to speak. Some of the petitioners, the Supreme Court order says, “were not aware of, or allowed to appear at, the proceedings before the grand jury.” As the report developed, unknown numbers of individuals named in the report sought a hearing before the supervising judge, Cambria County Judge Norman A. Krumenacker III. In a rare public filing, Krumenacker this month denied the hearings, saying earlier rulings held that because the grand jury proceedings are investigative, they do not violate individualsÂ’ due process rights. Permitting those individuals to testify or present evidence on their own behalf “would disrupt the investigative function while affording little additional safeguards,” he wrote. His order said that besides priests and bishops, the report would identify public officials and community leaders who may have had a role in abetting child abuse. Krumenacker invited bishops of the six dioceses — Allentown, Scranton, Harrisburg, Greensburg, Pittsburgh and Erie — to testify. Bishop Lawrence Persico of Erie was the only one to accept. The others filed written responses. Krumenacker gave the individuals named in the report until June 22 to reply, but said he might authorize release of the report the next day. State Rep. Mark Rozzi, D-Berks, reacts to news the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has blocked the expected release of a massive grand jury report on child sex abuse and cover-ups in six Catholic dioceses. Rozzi has admitted he testified about the abuse he says he endured as a youth growing up in Reading, part of the Allentown Diocese. The Supreme Court on June 20 issued a stay of the release of the report. The stay angered abuse victims and their advocates, who had been hoping the report would be issued before the end of this month. The Pennsylvania Office of Victim Advocate tweeted that victims have waited long enough for the reportÂ’s publication. “The report must be released so their voices can be heard,” it said. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh ShapiroÂ’s office, which led the grand jury investigation from 2016 until this past April and then oversaw the report, said it would not object to a brief stay of a few days, according to the new court order. ShapiroÂ’s spokesman, Joe Grace, said in a statement Monday that the petitioners are seeking to “permanently suppress” the voices of victims of “widespread” sex abuse in the church. “The Office of Attorney General stands in total opposition to that position and is fighting with all of its legal ability to ensure the publication of this report,” Grace said. “While we did not oppose giving the court a matter of days to conduct a careful review and promptly rule on these motions, that time is quickly expiring.” The order says the possibility that Krumenacker might release the report the day after the response deadline provides “inadequate time for essential judicial review.” It also says the stateÂ’s highest court cannot properly judge the petitions for review because it hasnÂ’t yet seen the entire report. According to the order, the court will revisit the stay in the proceedings after resolving the issue over the petitions for review, or whether the stay remains warranted. ShapiroÂ’s office can withdraw its acquiescence to the stay and file its own objection to blocking release of the report, the order says. The investigation was undertaken after another grand jury report looking only at the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown in 2016 identified around 50 people who either committed alleged abuse or covered it up. Hundreds of victims were involved, it said. The remaining Archdiocese of Philadelphia had already been the subject of highly critical investigations. The current investigation is expected to name many more alleged perpetrators and victims, in what could be the largest accounting of any report of abuse in the United States. http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-supreme-court-explains-20180625-story.html

Babies baptised into the Catholic Church are “infant conscripts who are held to lifelong obligations of obedience”, according to former president Mary McAleese. Saying that early Baptism breaches fundamental human rights, she said: “You can’t impose, really, obligations on people who are only two weeks old and you can’t say to them at seven or eight or 14 or 19 ‘here is what you contracted, here is what you signed up to’ because the truth is they didn’t.” The current model of Baptism “worked for many centuries because people didn’t understand that they had the right to say no, the right to walk away”, she declared. “But you and I know, we live now in times where we have the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to change religion. The Catholic Church yet has to fully embrace that thinking,” she told The Irish Times. She said conscience was “supreme” where Catholics were concerned. “My human right to inform my own conscience, my human right to express my conscience even if it is the case that it contradicts the magisterium [teaching authority of the church], that right to conscience is supreme.” Abandoned teachings She said many things down the centuries were taught “with great passion that quietly now have been abandoned by the very magisterium that taught them”. She instanced examples such as its condemnation of Gallileo or, more recently, the description in 1930 by Pope Pius XI of those who advocated emancipation and equality for women as “false teachers”. Mrs McAleese said she did not intend to attend any World Meeting of Families events in Dublin in August because it had “become a political rally rather than a religious and spiritual experience”. The meeting, which will be attended by Pope Francis, is a forum “for the reinforcement of orthodoxy”, she said. She will, however, be taking part in the Dublin Pride Parade next Saturday “under the BeLongTo banner” and with “the members of our own family, straight and gay, young and old, we’ll all be there”. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mary-mcaleese-baptised-children-infant-conscripts-1.3540624

"Women with a very narrow pelvis would not have survived birth 100 years ago. They do now and pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis to their daughters," Dr Philipp Mitteroecker from the university told the BBC.

Fun Fact: the man in the screen shot/Brother on the left was a real news reporter! Patrick Comer is an elder in Cape Coral Florida and was a news anchor for WINK-TV in Southwest Florida.

The inside story:

To keep up with expanding theocratic activity in Cameroon, Jehovah’s Witnesses are constructing a larger branch facility in the Logbessou quarter of Douala. Source

I saw this today and it reminded me of this older thread.