I can not stand the pain the angry looks the angry voice. I cry as I cry almost every other nite. My little ones heart breaks and says daddy mommy is crying. His responds oh she is playing you. vulgar words come from his mouth you stupid cunt you stupid bitch why did you move the table why did you move the stool. What, my explained as I lied in bed. I was thinking dreaming how wonderful this day would be. Try to look at all positive on life, of what is left. I hear the screaming down the loud steps the hall stupid bitch stupid bitch. Why, Why. Then I remember the table was push almost down the hall. the step stool was out with his boots on. I thought the baby got it out so i put it up. I didn’t know that his boots where drying.. I sit here and cry that my 3 year old says Mommy why do you cry. While my husband says she playing you son. Why did you do that bitch. Evil bitch is what I am called in front of my 12 and 3year old sons. So I grab his boots one of them isn’t even wet, the other one is damp. I grab it and put my hair dryer in it. As the pain grows I start to shake in pain feels like my heart is cumpling. He grabs his boots shuts off the hair dryer. Still instincts on calling me a bitch. My 12 year old grabs another pair of boots. Would these work for you dad? I cant wear those in and out people homes? Really is there some sort of rules and regulations of which types of boots you wear? He stills says I can’t believe you would do such a thing of hiding my boots, not keeping them dry. I thought for a second that I did have a fire going. Why you didn’t put it by the fire?? I didn’t know that you were drying your boots. Yes you did has he screams at me, Evil bitch who does such a thing. Wear are my wool socks. He had a sock.. So I get up to try to find it. Pray to God that I find it to ease the pain. I found it THANK GOD. Those arnt them you know my wool sock. Well why did you have this out. Is this a test to see what I would do. So I grab all of his "Winter Socks" and put them on the table. Where did you find them in your sock drawer? As he sits with his hands on his head. Holding his head and whisper to himself bitch stupid bitch. As my 12 year old goes out the door with his head down in shame looks at me and said by mom I love you. Tears swell up my face. My chest hurts and say I love you too son. Have a good day at school.

They say words will never hurt you. You know the saying stick and stones my break your bones but words will never hurt you. Sometimes I wish that I do get hit with stones then called bitch cunt stupid bitch, evil bitch. At least the wounds from the stones will heal. The words stick with your Soul, Piece your heart like a spear. Remember in the back of your mind. It eats away all the good in your sole. Rips away the pleasure that you have in everyday life. Thinks that you are no good. Feels that no matter what you do or say that it will come back and hunt you. Rips away your self. Yours self of happiness, your self of living.

Like Rules and Regulations. And also where to get a map.

in a foreign country for murder? I think her race plays a major factor as to why most Americans feel that she received an unfair trial. The same thing happens when White children go missing. The media broadcasts 24/7. It’s like a country wide man hunt. Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, Black…these children don’t receive a fraction of the media coverage if they go missing. Back to Amanda Knox; do I think she’s guilty? Who knows. If she’s guilty of anything, it’s taking drugs. Maybe she and her boyfriend were too doped up; there’s no telling what really happened. If Amanda was Black, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be all over it. The majority of White America would assume that the Black person was guilty as charged. I’m sure the family has already contacted their Congress person and that person will probably contact Hillary Clinton; as if she could really do anything about this? America is full of double standards; White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, European. No one is immune. I will say this; when it comes to White people getting themselves into hot water in foreign countries, all of a sudden the foreign countries rules and regulations are "unfair." Wake up Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas any more. You’re in Italy!
Read the news Tom http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1207/p06s22-woeu.html
www.csmonitor.com/2009/1207/p06s22-woeu.html
Italians aren’t White.
Rome - Italian judges angrily hit back Monday at American accusations that the 26-year prison sentence for college student Amanda Knox for the murder of her British flatmate was based on flawed evidence, a botched investigation, and a coerced confession.

The chief prosecutor in the case, whose call for Ms. Knox and an Italian man to be sentenced to life in prison was rejected by a jury in the Umbrian hill town of Perugia, said US criticism of the 11-month murder trial was unfair and unfounded.
American skepticism over the fairness of the trial has hurt Italian national pride, with the country’s leading daily newspaper, Corriere della Sera, commenting: "The (US) administration cannot close Guantanamo, yet it finds the time to think about Perugia." (The US State Department has not commented on the verdict.)

What about a personal bail-out for each American taxpayer a decent stimulus check?…. It really all does not matter.They(government) ain’t gonna give the working man poor a dime…

We (the working man) will never see nothing..

You have to be part of there scheme of things.Like you have to be (special interest group) and a working truck driver is not a special interest group..

As far as i am concerned and the way i see it,the government created this mess because they are thieves,con’s and scum..lol,lol..

The truth is the government does not have the interest of the working man.Never did and never will…

It’s all SMOKE AND MIRRORS…..TAKE A LOOK AT THIS 100% REALITY OF WHAT ARE ”CROOKED GOVERNMENT” has done to the working people in this country….This is the work of the ”government legal extortion” other known as the ”government mafia” with there brother mafia ”wall street”

They have destroyed America and ran off with all the ”peoples money”..And they did it ”legally”..

THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM WE AS WORKING AMERICIANS HAVE.They are ain organization no different from the mafia of years ago.The only difference is the ”government” found ways to do it ”LEGALLY”..

What we need is a modern day ”BOSTON TEA PARTY”…lol

At first I thought this was funny…then I realized the awful truth of it.THIS IS OUR ”GOVERNMENT” AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO US AMERICIANS FOR 100 YEARS NOW….WHEN DOES IT END?

You all think that your votes count each time you go stand in line to make you opinion count?

Think again what you vote for is not counted…. the votes that are counted are those of the government… our legislators our governors our representatives our senators our POLITICIANS… Those are the only votes that count!!!!

You think that you voted our President in?? past or present?? Think again!!

You think you vote for any laws or regulations or taxes??? Think again!!!

Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
then his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his A.Z.Z..
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom…"

When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

And I am sure that there are many more but this is all
I can think of off the top of my head….. SO……

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English!?!?!?!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!!! YOU can help it get there!!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!!!!

what are the rules and regulations for hunting say deer with rifle.
and are there any safety courses that must be taken before one can get a license??

This is just a rough draft, I have problems with awkward wording and comma splices. If someone could just look over it and let me know where I might need to revise I would greatly appreciate it…Thanks
Hunting: More than Just a Sport
Hunters today face a controversial issue, many people view hunting as a bloodthirsty sport or a meaningless hobby. In order to steer people away from this mindset we must point out the side of hunting that a majority of the population may not see or are completely unaware of. Hunting in itself does not have to be merely a sport, in one of its best forms hunting is a relaxing and fulfilling time with nature that is passed down through generations as a strong family tradition. Teaching children not only about hunting alone, but also about a respect for the environment, wildlife conservation, and family values.
Days in our society can often be long and busy. This being said, nearly every soul on the planet could benefit from stepping out into the pure basics of wildlife and enjoying the peaceful quiet of nature. When I look back on my childhood, the memories that stand out the most are those times out in the woods with my father. As my father would point out various bits and pieces of wildlife, he would always take the time to explain each of them to me. It was there in those woods that I derived a pure and deep respect for wildlife, a respect so deep because it was acquired through years of passed down knowledge and an honest love for the environment.
Hunting is wildlife conservation in its most basic form; it is through hunting that an understanding of the need for wildlife conservation can be logically drawn. If not for hunting, many animals could become overpopulated and die of starvation and/or disease. Without an understanding of the need for wildlife conservation, the animals of our planet and ultimately the human race, will suffer. Wildlife conservation is the conservation of not only wildlife, but also of life itself. Take away conservation and we could not have many of the things we enjoy, and often take for granted currently.
In the woods some of the most important and meaningful family values are taught. Honesty and integrity are taught when a parent explains that they always follow the rules and regulations whether or not someone is watching. A child learns that every organism on the planet has value as parents show their children how to carefully walk through the wildlife as to not disturb anything more than they have to. Children are taught not to be greedy and to never take more they need as parents teach them to kill only what they are willing to eat. Hunting provides parents with a wonderful opportunity to teach these values and many others that will be useful in the woods and in everyday life.
Hunting is an important part of our culture and can be used not only as a pastime but also as an incredible tool for teaching the children of our society. We cannot let a misunderstanding of its intents and purposes stop us from seeing the good that can come. Hunting may not be the pastime of choice for everyone but through a greater understanding of the sport itself, we as a society can begin to accept it, and through this hunters of the future may not face such a controversial issue.

I was not asking for a critique on my opinion on hunting rather for critique on the structure and/or grammer of the Essay itself. Bt thanks for your opinion anyway

What about a personal bail-out for each American taxpayer a decent stimulus check?…. It really all does not matter.They(government) ain’t gonna give the working man poor a dime…

We (the working man) will never see nothing..

You have to be part of there scheme of things.Like you have to be (special interest group) and a working truck driver is not a special interest group..

As far as i am concerned and the way i see it,the government created this mess because they are thieves,con’s and scum..lol,lol..

The truth is the government does not have the interest of the working man.Never did and never will…

It’s all SMOKE AND MIRRORS…..TAKE A LOOK AT THIS 100% REALITY OF WHAT ARE ”CROOKED GOVERNMENT” has done to the working people in this country….This is the work of the ”government legal extortion” other known as the ”government mafia” with there brother mafia ”wall street”

They have destroyed America and ran off with all the ”peoples money”..And they did it ”legally”..

THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM WE AS WORKING AMERICIANS HAVE.They are ain organization no different from the mafia of years ago.The only difference is the ”government” found ways to do it ”LEGALLY”..

What we need is a modern day ”BOSTON TEA PARTY”…lol

At first I thought this was funny…then I realized the awful truth of it.THIS IS OUR ”GOVERNMENT” AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO US AMERICIANS FOR 100 YEARS NOW….WHEN DOES IT END?

You all think that your votes count each time you go stand in line to make you opinion count?

Think again what you vote for is not counted…. the votes that are counted are those of the government… our legislators our governors our representatives our senators our POLITICIANS… Those are the only votes that count!!!!

You think that you voted our President in?? past or present?? Think again!!

You think you vote for any laws or regulations or taxes??? Think again!!!

Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
then his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his A.Z.Z..
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom…"

When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

And I am sure that there are many more but this is all
I can think of off the top of my head….. SO……

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English!?!?!?!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!!! YOU can help it get there!!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!!!!

In a conversation regarding hunting regulations, Chris had stated. “How I feed myself is none of the government’s business. F*** their stupid rules.”

I just saw this mentioned in the Hunting section. It must be fairly fresh, and have something to do with gun regulations. Can someone enlighten me? Thank you.
Flika-This could be very interesting. Thanks for answering.

DRASTIC: SEVERE ::
(A) uneasy : calm
(B) internal : external
(C) foreign : exported
(D) national : regional
(E) stormy : violent

INTIMIDATE : THUGS ::
(A) celebrate : champs
(B) boil : eggs
(C) hypnotize : elephants
(D) frown : pigs
(E) scrub : floors

PROMENADE : WALK ::
(A) climb : trudge
(B) lounge : lie
(C) delay : prevent
(D) stumble : fall
(E) stroll : run

INSTIGATE : HALT ::
(A) hesitate : pause
(B) start : begin
(C) assemble : construct
(D) oppose : promote
(E) stumble : falter

NIMBLE : GYMNAST ::
(A) cold : fire
(B) speedy : antelope
(C) shallow : depths
(D) weak : strength
(E) ancient : child

INITIATIVE : FIRST STEP ::
(A) invitation : rejection
(B) juice : pulp
(C) wing : curve
(D) valley : treasure
(E) regulation : rule

ALTERATION : CHANGE ::
(A) method : system
(B) custom : belief
(C) ink : pen
(D) manner : polite
(E) nail : polish

MEDLY : SONGS ::
(A) flatware : plates
(B) dozen : eggs
(C) salad : vegetables
(D) flock : shepherd
(E) bowling : pins

DISCREET : CARELESS ::
(A) hunted : lost
(B) dressed : clothed
(C) messy : sloppy
(D) pitiful : sorry
(E) proud : ashamed

INDIVISIBLE : UNITED ::
(A) unspoiled : fresh
(B) shrill : loud
(C) faithless : honest
(D) empty : low
(E) untroubled : difficult

A U.S. church raised money to send Bibles, printed in the Pashtu and Dari languages, to American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, a report on Al Jazeera documented Sunday night.

It is against military rules to proselytize — a regulation one of the soldiers filmed by the network readily acknowledged. "You cannot proselytize, but you can give gifts," says the soldier. It is a crime in Afghanistan to attempt to convert anyone from Islam to any other religion. "I also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out." The footage is said to be roughly a year old.

The Al Jazeera report also shows a military preacher urging army parishioners to "hunt people for Jesus."

Full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/soldiers-in-afghanistan-g_n_195674.html

please help me improve my essay!
the question is basicly to decribe the key features of the police force in the 19th centruy and stuff, and i pretty much have to explain how bad it was!

heres my essay:

At the start of the 19th century, the enforcement of law and order in England and Wales was the same as it had been during the Middle Ages. Before 1829, the streets of many British towns and cities were patrolled by watchmen and parish constables, who prevented disturbances and robberies. In 1750, law and order in London broke down completely during the Gordon riots.

London’s population had grown to 1.5 million, yet there were only 450 constables and 4,000 watchmen. The growth in population meant that the number of crimes committed increased. Law and order had to improve. ‘Bow Street Runners’ were appointed in London and the Thames river police were set up in 1800.

There were many problems with London’s police force. They lacked professionalism and whenever there was a serious problem the army had to be called in. The tactics they used were often inefficient and often caused more problems.
The need for a preventative police force was highlighted by the Peterloo Massacre in 1819 – whereby 50,000 people met at St Peter’s Fields in Manchester to hear Henry Hunt speak in favor of the reform of Parliament. The Manchester magistrates panicked at the sight of the crowd and ordered special constables to arrest Henry Hunt. The constables were trapped inside the crowd. They began to lash out with their swords, and finally called on regular army units - which cleared the area within a matter of minutes. The incident showed just how badly trained the police were. The fact that they panicked and began to use their swords highlighted their poor training and immature behavior when put under pressure.

Also, the growth in homicide, robbery, theft and burglary were all increasing with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
In 1829, the Home Secretary, Sir Robert Peel, set up the Metropolitan Police Force. The act set up a force of 3,200 men to cover an area extending 7 miles from the centre of London. There were 17 divisions, each with four inspectors and 144 constables. The policemen were known as ‘Peelers’ or ‘Bobbies’ after Robert Peel.

The metropolitan police force was given a blue uniform, with a tail-coat, a top hat, and as few badges and decorations as possible. All of these served to make it as distinct as possible from the army. They were unarmed except from truncheons – however from the 1840s and 1850s, inspectors in the police force began to carry revolvers at all times.

The metropolitan police force was set up to carry out the functions of both he watchmen and special constables. Their duties were to patrol the streets in order to keep order and deter crime, but were also used to tackle major disturbances such as riots.

There were many problems at first. On many occasions the force had to be backed up by the army, and there were frequent death of demonstrators. Most early recruits were unsuitable due to drunkenness and either resigned or were sacked.

Another problem was that the police force was highly unpopular. Many people - rich and poor alike – hated the police, they thought they were pointless and they did not like being told what to do by somebody in uniform. It was also unpopular because of its methods of crowd control. The most common tactic was the baton charge – in 1833 a constable was killed during the riot. The event showed how unorganised the police were.

A third example of the problems the new police force had was that the metropolitan police force was not copied anywhere else in Britain. Also, Peels police force reforms were only applied to London, law and order did not really change in the rest of Britain.

There were many successful developments in police work during the 19th century. In 1842, the Metropolitan Police developed a Detective Department. The department had two inspectors and six sergeants. When this department first started the use of detectives was under great suspicion and opposition. The public was concerned that plain clothes-men could not be identified, and the home office was concerned detectives would become too friendly with the criminals.

In 1869 the National Criminal Record was set up to deal with the most notorious criminals, and in 1877 a Criminal Investigations Department (CID) was established with 200 detectives increasing to 800 by 1883.

In 1879 the Detective Department introduced its first set of rules and regulations to establish the department’s ideas of professionalism for instructions in dealing with murder cases. For example, ordering investigating officers, "the body must not be moved, or anything about the body or anything in the room or area, and the public must be excluded."

Forensic progress was also made during this time. A great example of this was in 1884 when John Tomms was convicted of murder because the po

Jesus gave us a loving pattern to follow in regards to talking to our brother or sister and confronting them with either (1) problems in our relationships, or (2) with regards to unconfessed sin on their part. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus outlines three steps to take in talking to your brother, in attempting to settle difficulties or to right the wrong. If the three steps prove unfruitful, he says, "Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer." Math. 18:17b

In Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians, he had heard of a fellow Christian who was cohabiting with his stepmother, and he wrote the Corinthians and told them not to associate "with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not to even eat with such a one…" (1 Cor. 5:11) Similar counsel was given regarding unruly ones in the church, who would not respond to initial counseling (2 Thes. 3:14,15). But in the case of the Corinthians, both the church and the individual failed to respond, and so Paul wrote them and said, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."

The purpose of disfellowshiping is (1) to cause the repentance of the errant Christian; (2) to remove a stumbling stone from the church, so that others would not be infected (1 Cor. 5:6,7); (3) to instill the others with fear of God’s judgment for pursuing a wrong course, and (4) to keep the church free from a marred reputation with the world (Rom. 2:23,24). If the errant brother was to seek forgiveness and display heartfelt repentance for his actions and attitude, he was to be forgiven and accepted back into the church. Thus he would not be overly abused by Satan, whose authority he had temporarily come under by being cast out into the world (2 Cor. 2:10,11).

The tendency for unloving elders to abuse their authority is usually checked by the church having little authority over the lives of its members. But if the church or religious organization becomes an ecclesiastical system which demands absolute subjection to its authority, the Scriptures become a powerful tool to browbeat and coerce the individual into submission, out of fear of losing something very valuable to him. Elders are therefore counseled to walk in humility (1 Peter 5:16) and to become examples to the body (1 Tim. 4:12). They are to have tender affection for others (Rom. 12:10). Yet at the same time, they are to be ready to pray for the sick (James 5:14,15), correct those stepping out of line (Gal. 6:1), stop gossip and misleading talk (1 Tim. 1:37; Titus 1:9), and to warn the flock against false doctrine and false teachers or ideas that may be present in the body (Rom. 16:17,18; Titus 3:10,11. If necessary in order to protect the flock, the offender is to be marked as bad association (2 Thess. 3:14,15) or disfellowshiped (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Considering 2 John 9, 10:

In this passage, the elder John minces no words in warning against teachers who went too far beyond the gospel, in promoting new teachings which denied the real meaning of the gospel. By the end of the first century, there were already many such teachers, notably the Gnostics and Docetists. To protect the church from false teaching, the apostle makes the acceptance of visiting Christians conditional on their confession that "Christ is come in the flesh" (2 John 7). The Greek verb used is in a present continuous sense, as contrasted with 1 John 4:2 and 1 John 5:6, where Christ is spoken of as having come in the flesh (past tense perspective). Howard Marshall, in The Epistles of John, states:

It seems unlikely . . . that the false teachers simply denied the reality of the incarnation. The use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed "in flesh." We know that some Gnostic thinkers taught that a heavenly power (the Christ) came upon Jesus at his baptism in the form of the Spirit, but that it departed from him again after the crucifixion, so that there was no lasting union of the divine Christ with the human Jesus, and hence no real, lasting incarnation. The elder’s formulation of the orthodox faith in Jesus Christ seems to be designed to exclude such interpretations of the person of Jesus. For him it was axiomatic that there had been a true incarnation, that the Word had become flesh and remained flesh. (p. 70, 71)
If this interpretation is true, then those who deny that Christ presently has a glorified body of flesh would be classed among the antichrists, and not only certain unorthodox groups in the first century.

Jehovah’s Witnesses And Disfellowshiping

Jehovah’s Witnesses practice disfellowshiping, not only for unrepentant sinners, but also for a number of other reasons. Since 1973, for instance, a member who smokes is subject to disfellowshiping. So would be those who work directly in defense departments or the military, or who are employed by any kind of religious organization. Walking into a church could merit this penalty, as could taking a blood transfusion, saluting the flag (or any act of patriotism), celebrating holidays, talking to a disfellowshiped person (including relatives), disagreeing with ANY doctrinal points, and the list of punishable offenses grows greater each year.

It was not always so legalistic in the Watchtower. Like many religious movements, grace abounds in the beginning; but as they get more structured, rules and regulations take the place of grace and mercy. Note this early statement by the Watchtower:

We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord’s channel.
If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience. WT April 1, 1920, p. 100, 101.
It didn’t take long, however, for the "persecuted" to become the persecutors. By 1930, those who disagreed with President Rutherford were classed as "evil slaves" and were classed with the "man of perdition," to be destroyed. (WT 1930, p. 275-281)

In 1952, a distinct disfellowshiping policy was laid out. Witnesses were not to even say a greeting to disfellowshiped ones. The March 1, 1952 Watchtower said, "Those who are acquainted with the situation in the congregation should never say ‘Hello’ or ‘Goodbye’ to him. He is not welcome in our midst, we avoid him." (p. 141)

By 1955, associating with a disfellowshiped person was grounds for disfellowshiping for a JW. (WT 1955, p. 607.)

In January of 1972 it was declared that homosexuality and bestiality by one’s marriage partner were not considered as porneia (fornication), and were therefore not grounds for divorce (Matt. 5:32). If one divorced under such conditions, he would lay himself open to adultery and could be disfellowshiped. (WT Jan. 1, 1972, p. 32.) Yet, by December of the very same year, they had reversed their stand, saying that ALL types of illicit sexual intercourse are grounds for divorce, including the above-mentioned acts. (WT December 15, 1972, p. 767, 768.)

By 1974, the Governing Body entered the bedrooms of their subjects. Standards of conduct were laid out for married couples in bed. Oral or anal sex, or anything classified as a "perversion" or "unnatural practices" in the sex act would subject them to disfellowshiping. (WT November 15, 1974, p. 704. See also WT of 1974 pages 160, 484-486.)

Oddly enough, in April of ‘74 they had seemingly relaxed the tension towards disfellowshiped persons. In the April l974 WT, for instance, on page 467, they said:

Congregation elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish Rabbinical writers fomented towards Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies.
The gist of the article was that disfellowshiped ones were not to be treated with unnecessary cruelty; especially members of one’s family or those in obvious hardship situations. They stated that ‘we don’t want to be like Pharisees’ who walked on the other side of the road when a Gentile was in trouble. (WT Aug. 1, 1974, p. 467.)

With the Feb. 15th issue of 1978, the bedroom rules were now not to be enforced by elders, and publishers were not to be intimidated or spied on any more; although the previously banned practices were still considered unclean. (p. 32)

A reversal of this trend of grace was in store for the ’80’s, however. With the unrest in the organization over the 1975 debacle, and now the headquarters shakeup in 1980, a hard line was taken in 1981 against any disfellowshiped or disassociated person.

The Light Gets Blighter

With the failure of 1975 to bring the end of the world, as well as the headquarters shakeup in 1980, a hard line was taken in 1981 against any disfellowshiped or disassociated person. Even if they were members of one’s own family, they were now to be shunned except in the most necessary functions of life. (WT Sept. 15, 1981, p. 26-31 under "If a Relative is Disfellowshiped.") The Watchtower plainly says that Witnesses shouldn’t even say ‘hello’ to a person who has left the organization. On page 25 of this magazine they say:

And we all know from our experience over the years that a simple "Hello" to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?
In spite of the ban, however, some Witnesses were speaking out in discontent or disagreement with the Watchtower. An even greater number were subject to "witch hunts" where suspected dissenters were asked a series of questions to determine if they still believed the Society was "God’s channel of communication." Many of those questioned were automatically disfellowshiped, often without a fair trial and in secret meetings. Yet, the word got out through the grapevine that all was not well with the Watchtower’s doctrine. A special problem began to develop within families where one dissenter might speak to several others, and yet remain concealed from the eyes of the elders.

In order to choke the grapevine, the Watchtower of January l, l983 (p. 30,31) contained a "Questions From Readers" article on "How can we assist those in our congregation who have a disfellowshiped relative?"

In the first part of the article, they attack the "heart condition" of such a person, denying any possibility that they may have left the organization for a valid reason. Here is a sample quote:

It is to illustrate that if someone is disfellowshiped, he must at the time have had a truly bad heart and/or been determined to pursue a God-dishonoring course. Peter said that the condition of such a person is worse than before he became a Christian; he is like "a sow that was bathed but has gone back to rolling in the mire."
However, the Watchtower reluctantly acknowledged that people are human (an ever-present hindrance to their techniques). They continued:

But human emotions and attachments can have a powerful effect, making it difficult for people to act in accord with the disfellowshiping decree if a relative is involved.
As the article continues, those who left the organization (including relatives) were put down for interfering with the rest of the family’s "happiness." Using an illustration involving three generations of a family: (1) children, (2) parents who have been disfellowshiped, and (3) the grandparents (who are typical JWs), they comment:

Of course, the grandparents have to determine if some necessary family matters require limited contact with the(ir) disfellowshiped children. And they might sometimes have the grandchildren visit them. How sad, though, that by their unchristian course the children interfere with the normal pleasure that such grandparents enjoyed!
However, the reader must see some vestige of human consideration in the midst of this relentless tirade. So the following sentence, humorous in its irony, is injected:

We just need to go out of our way to be warm, genuinely interested and, above all, spiritual.
The attack continues with the example of a couple, one of which is disfellowshiped: ". . . the expelled mate has proved that he is not the sort of person that we want to be around…So maybe a visit can be made when the disfellowshiped one is known to be out of the house.

So, in other words, the Watchtower has, indeed, gone so far as to develop the attitude of the Jewish Rabbinical writers in Jesus’ day and have no doubt surpassed them on occasion. Not only are Witnesses currently not to speak to anyone who may leave the organization, but they are to avoid them like the plague. Those who have seen this attitude in practice could add that JWs usually avoid even making eye contact with such persons, and might even move out of the neighborhood. This has happened in some cases. It is all part of the attitude that they must "punish" those that leave, and this punishment is almost always of a psychological nature.

Due to an increase in lawsuits directed against the Watchtower over disfellowshiping since the late ’70’s, the Society officially stopped disfellowshiping people who voluntarily want out of the organization as of July 1, 1984. Though provision had previously been made for this in the book, Organization For Kingdom Preaching published in 1972, virtually all were disfellowshiped who disassociated from the Watchtower, regardless of the reason. Though this practice has continued in some cases since the July 1st article, others are now allowed to be considered as "disassociated," though the treatment is the same as if they were disfellowshiped.

However, evil motives or wicked sins are automatically attributed to those who wish to disassociate. Notice the way the Watchtower expresses their thoughts regarding these ones:

Or, as mentioned in John 6:66, occasionally a Witness on his own initiative will decide to leave the way of truth. He may even make known his decision after the committee begins to look into his wrongdoing. . . . Then it will no longer be necessary for the elders to continue their investigation. (WT 7/1/84, p. 31)
The implication is that he is a "wrongdoer" either because he is leaving, or more likely, because he is involved in some kind of sin.

The December 15, 1984 WT added this barb in an effort to prevent Witnesses from learning too much:

We have been forewarned that there will be apostates and people who just like to have their ears tickled. Counsel such as at 2 John 9-11, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 Timothy 3:5 allows no room for associating with those who turn away from the truth. Nor do we purchase or read their writings. (p. 19)
It became obvious that too many were still questioning the Watchtower, reading literature that exposed their past, or were talking to disfellowshiped relatives. So in the July 15, 1985 WT, the Governing Body applied the injunction in 2 John 10 (against antichrists) to those that disassociate themselves. No mention at all is made of the context of this passage (verse 7 tells us that these ones deny Christ as come in the flesh). Nevertheless, the penalty meant for true apostate teachers is now applied to ANYONE disassociating himself. The article is not specific as to whether this total shunning is to be carried out with relatives living in one’s own home or not. Quoting from their AID book in reference to "apostates," they say,

Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the "antichrist." (1 John 2:18,19)
A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. (p. 31)

The Witnesses are then counseled not to even say a simple greeting to such ones, and to avoid having them in their houses at all. In the case of a married mate being an "apostate," there might be concessions made, though this is not indicated here.

Still, some Witnesses continued to entertain doubts and talk about these in private. In November of 1985, the Watchtower warned its readers of "sharing in the sins of others." How might they do this? By failing to tell the elders of a fellow brother or sister who is a "wrongdoer." Since being a "wrongdoer" includes disagreeing with the Watchtower, members are encouraged to tattle on friends and relatives who hold to any variation from Watchtower doctrine. If they don’t, then they share in the "apostate’s" sin. (WT Nov. 15, 1985, p. 19,20)

The Governing Body is taking the stand that those who reject any of the teachings of the ‘mother’ organization are ‘apostasizing’ from the true Christian faith. The March 15, 1986 issue of The Watchtower even provides the reader with visual aids, as it shows a picture of a JW demonstrating how to throw ‘apostate’ literature away as soon as it hits the mailbox. They say,

Now, what will you do if you are confronted with apostate teaching-subtle reasonings-claiming that what you believe as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the truth? For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature, open it and see right away that it is from an apostate? Will curiosity cause you to read it, just to see what he has to say? You may even reason: "It won’t affect me; I’m too strong in the truth. And, besides, if we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test." In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt. (p. 12)

Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip. (p. 20)
The Governing Body is cultivating in the minds of their followers an abject fear of any dissenters. They thereby hope to cause the Witnesses to run at the sight of anything that seriously challenges their authority. In the April 1, 1986 issue of The Watchtower, an effort is made to support their disfellowshiping of those who disagree in the slightest with Watchtower teaching. They accuse the clergy of having no authority because they are not able to agree on all matters of doctrine. Then they take Galatians 1:8,9 out of context in order to "prove" that the churches are teaching a different gospel than the apostle Paul, which is not true. They quote 1 Cor. 1:10 as an attempt to "prove" that the early church was not divided, but the context of the verse proves the opposite, since the Corinthians DID have a problem with divisions. Paul never actually says they settled the differences, either. Furthermore, the church was full of divisions over minor issues according to the Revelation of John (chapter 13). A key statement is then made:

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? (p. 31)
They then list the beliefs necessary:

1) Their view on the issue of God’s sovereignty.

2) Jesus was a preexistent creature prior to his birth.

3) The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are the sole interpreters of the Bible.

4) Christ returned in 1914 and set up his kingdom in heaven.

5) 144,000 will go to heaven.

6) Armageddon is near, followed by the Paradise earth, where the rest of the Witnesses will live.

The Governing Body is thusly confusing the issue, by painting a false picture of the New Testament church. The church was divided on many things, according to the New Testament. On the major doctrinal issues they agreed, though, such as the message of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3,4), the incarnation of Christ (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), and that he is the promised Messiah in the Jewish context (1 John 2:22,23). Later heresies would demand further clarifications of orthodoxy, such as the Deity of Christ, the means of salvation, etc. The orthodox churches today are in agreement on these issues. Furthermore, the Witnesses admit that, since 1918, they have been teaching a "new gospel not taught in centuries past," namely, the invisible return of Christ and setting up the kingdom in 1914 (WT 5/1/81, p.17). Therefore, they, not the churches, fall under the condemnation of Gal. 1:8,9 of preaching a different gospel, and a different Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4).

As time goes on, we can expect the Watchtower to become even more paranoid regarding the questioning of their authority or doctrine. This is largely for two reasons: (1) there is an ever-increasing amount of information available that exposes their scholastic dishonesty, and (2) there is an ever-increasing number of dissenters who will not remain silent. Their only recourse (assuming they want to maintain their present absolute authority over their members) is to fortify the "Watchtower Curtain" against people defecting towards freedom. Please pray with us that this curtain will be lifted.

——————————————————————————–

reprinted from the Bethel Ministries Newsletter of Jan/Feb 1987

SIMON SAYS . . .

Shun Your Own Family
by Joe and Helen Ortega and Randy Watters

"Simon says" is a game normally played by children; a kind of follow the leader. Sometimes, however, it is played by adults, with serious consequences. This article is about such consequences, as observed among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It was not too long ago that this Newsletter ran two articles on disfellowshiping, so I apologize for any redundancy. Perhaps after reading the letters written to us in this issue, you will understand why there is a need for another article. There are some days I cannot hold back the tears when I read these letters and see the pain and suffering that so many are experiencing upon leaving the Watchtower.

As we know, the Jehovah’s Witness families of such ones are encouraged to treat them worse than a stranger. The outcast is to be shunned without an acknowledgment of their existence and the treatment is to be devoid of human courtesy and compassion. To those not familiar with the Watchtower organization, such treatment is shocking. Indeed, it is a far cry from the description Jesus gave on how to recognize his disciples. He said we would know them by their love (1 John 13:35).

The following is an example of the treatment given to a man who resigned from the Watchtower Society when he realized they were not "the truth." His wife divorced him when he left the WT. She is still a Witness. He had a severe automobile accident and spent weeks in the hospital from extensive head injuries. He writes:

My ex-wife never once let the children call to see how I was or even send me a card. Not one Jehovah’s Witness ever came by or wrote a note to see how I was. However, I was blessed to have some good Christian friends call me and come by the hospital.
Another letter is from a lady who was never a Jehovah’s Witness. Her daughter became a Witness. The lady’s "crime" was being a Christian and attending a Christian church. She writes these heartbreaking words: "She has stopped coming to see me and she will not bring my grandchildren either. Please tell me what I can do?"

Still another letter states: "After I was disfellowshiped, my entire family would have nothing to do with me. I cannot see my daughter or her children. It has been 5 years."

A man in Florida writes: "I have four daughters and I haven’t seen them in three years. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses." A young woman from Chicago wrote recently:

It is hard for my children to understand why they cannot go to their grandmother’s funeral. She died a Jehovah’s Witness and the entire family are Witnesses. They were asked not to come because I was disfellowshiped. They really don’t understand.
Why does this so-called Bible-believing organization have such unscriptural and heartless rules that break up family ties? Let’s reexamine their explanations from various Watchtower magazines. As far back as 1963 they said,

[Disfellowshiping] serves as a powerful warning example to those in the congregation, since they will be able to see the disastrous consequences of ignoring Jehovah’s laws. Paul said: "Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear."1 Tim. 5:20. (WT 7/1/63, p.411)
While disfellowshiping for unrepentant gross sins is biblically proper (1 Cor. 5:13), the WT cuts off anyone who disagrees in the slightest with Watchtower policy or teaching; one of the many reasons they are recognized as a cult. (For a full treatment of the Scriptural reasons for disfellowshiping, see the March/June issues of this Newsletter.) To be disfellowshiped by the elders of the Watchtower (even over minor doctrinal issues) means being totally shunned by God as well:

It is a great tragedy for one to be disfellowshiped. For this means a cutting off from Jehovah and his favor. The disfellowshiping action taken by the congregation is merely the confirmation of what has already taken place in the heavens. These visible agents of God [the elders] merely acknowledge what Jehovah has already done in heaven. (emphasis added)

A disfellowshiped person is cut off from the congregation, and the congregation has nothing to do with him. Those in the congregation will not extend the hand of fellowship to this one, nor will they so much as say "Hello" or "Good-bye" to him. (ibid., p.411,412)

[The members of the congregation] will not converse with such one or show him recognition in any way. If the disfellowshiped person attempts to talk to others in the congregation, they should walk away from him. In this way he will feel the full import of his sin. . . . the disfellowshiped person who wants to do what is right should inform any approaching him in innocence that he is disfellowshiped and they should not be conversing with him. (ibid., p.413; emphasis added)
What about blood ties? The July 15, 1963 Watchtower (p. 443) goes into this question in detail. They consider the family who does not live under the same roof as well as the family who lives together. They insist if he does not live under the same roof, the only contact with him would be when absolutely necessary. Let’s look at their words. Under the title, "Family Responsibility in Keeping Jehovah’s Worship Pure" they refer to the relative not living in the home:

What if a person cut off from God’s congregation unexpectedly visits dedicated relatives? What should the Christian do then? If this is the first occurrence of such visit, the dedicated Christian can, if his conscience permits, carry on family courtesies on that particular occasion. However, if his conscience does not permit, he is under no obligation to do so. If courtesies are extended, though, the Christian should make it clear that this will not be made a regular practice. . . . The excommunicated relative should be made to realize that his visits are not now welcomed as they were previously when he was walking correctly with Jehovah. (WT 7/15/63, p.443,444)
The Watchtower follows up with how to treat the disfellowshiped mate who is living under the same roof:

If the excommunicated husband insists on offering prayer at mealtimes, the dedicated members of the household would not say "Amen" to the prayer, nor would they join hands as some have the custom, as this would be participating spiritually. They could bow their heads and offer their own silent prayer to Jehovah. (ibid., p.446)
But wait! "New light" from Jehovah? Ten years later it seemed that God changed his attitude and rules regarding the cutoff ones and decided to show love and mercy to them. Note the August 1, 1974 Watchtower (p. 467) under the heading, "Maintaining a Balanced View Toward the Disfellowshiped One":

Congregation elders, as well as individual members of a congregation, therefore, ought to guard against developing an attitude approaching that which some Jewish Rabbinical writers fomented towards Gentiles in viewing them as virtual enemies. It is right to hate the wrong committed by the disfellowshiped one, but it is not right to hate the person nor is it right to treat such ones in an inhumane way. (WT 8/1/74, p.467)

. . . not "mixing in company" with a person, or treating such one as "a man of the nations," does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane. (ibid., p.468)
Yet, even during this time of liberality, shunning (in the form of holding back one’s affection) was practiced:

. . . How, then, can parents carry out the injunction to discipline their children in harmony with God’s Word when one of their children is disfellowshiped? They can still use God’s Word or other publications that discuss the Bible in training the son or daughter, but they use these in a corrective manner, not as though having a spiritual `good time’ with such a one in the way they could with the other children. How this is handled is for the parents to decide. This does not call for unkindness, but they do not accord such disfellowshiped son or daughter the same approved spiritual relationship granted the others. (ibid., p.470; emphasis added)
One can only imagine how this "special treatment" affected such unfortunate children.

Simon says . . . "Take a harder line."

Reading the statements about being "courteous and humane" sounds as if God changed his mind and felt pity and compassion for the erring ones. Sadly, this was not the case. Jehovah, according to the Watchtower Society, went back to the "old light" as "new light." Once again the unloving, unfeeling hatred for those cutoff ones was brought back. The Jan. 1, 1983 Watchtower accused any who may be disfellowshiped (for whatever reason) of having a "truly bad heart" or pursuing a course of wickedness:

It is to illustrate that if someone is disfellowshiped, he must at the time have had a truly bad heart and/or been determined to pursue a God-dishonoring course. Peter said that the condition of such a person is worse than before he became a Christian; he is like "a sow that was bathed but has gone back to rolling in the mire." (p.30)
The Watchtower did reluctantly acknowledge that people are human. They continued:

But human emotions and attachments can have a powerful effect, making it difficult for people to act in accord with the disfellowshiping decree if a relative is involved. (ibid., p.31)
The attack continues with the example of a couple, one of which is disfellowshiped. When other Witnesses come to visit the couple, they must exercise caution, for

. . . the expelled mate has proved that he is not the sort of person that we want to be around. . . So maybe a visit can be made when the disfellowshiped one is known to be out of the house. (ibid., p.31)
While Jehovah’s Witnesses would have you believe that those who are disfellowshiped are gross sinners who were rightfully disfellowshiped according to the Bible (1 Cor. 5:13; 2 John 9-11), the truth of the matter is, many of those disfellowshiped simply disagreed with some particular teaching of the organization. Raymond Franz, former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body in New York, writes:

I know many persons who clearly evidence [a] concern [for truth], yet who are labeled as "apostates," "antichrists," "instruments of Satan." In case after case after case, the sole basis for such condemnation is that they could not honestly agree with all the organization’s teaching or policies. (Crisis of Conscience, Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983, p. 32)
Franz describes disfellowshiping thusly:

What must it mean to a mother, who has seen a baby daughter come forth from her own body, has nursed that baby, cared for it through illness, has trained the young girl through the formative years of life, living her problems with her, feeling her disappointments and sadnesses as if they were her own, shedding tears along with her tears-what must it mean to that mother to have her daughter, now an adult, suddenly reject her and do so simply because her mother sought to be true to her conscience and to God?
What must it do to a father or mother to see a son or daughter marry and be told, for the same reason, that `it would be best if they did not appear at the wedding,’ or know that a daughter has given birth to a child and be told that they should not come to see their grandchild?

This is not imagination. Exactly those things are happening to many parents who have been associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses. (ibid., p.33)

Witnesses are currently instructed not to speak to anyone who may leave the organization, and are to avoid them like the plague. Those who have seen this attitude in practice could add that JWs usually avoid even making eye contact with such persons, and might even move out of the neighborhood. This has happened in some cases. It is all part of the attitude that they must "punish" those that leave, and this punishment is almost always of a psychological nature.

Evil motives or wicked sins are automatically attributed to those who wish to disassociate. Notice the way the Watchtower automatically implies they are "wrongdoers":

Or, as mentioned in John 6:66, occasionally a Witness on his own initiative will decide to leave the way of truth. He may even make known his decision after the committee begins to look into his wrongdoing. . . . Then it will no longer be necessary for the elders to continue their investigation. (WT 7/1/84, p. 31; emphasis added)
The implication is that he is a "wrongdoer"; either because he is leaving, or more likely, because he is involved in some kind of sin.

Simon Says . . . "Close Your Eyes"

The December 15, 1984 WT added this barb in an effort to prevent Witnesses from learning too much:

We have been forewarned that there will be apostates and people who just like to have their ears tickled. Counsel such as at 2 John 9-11, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 and 2 Timothy 3:5 allows no room for associating with those who turn away from the truth. Nor do we purchase or read their writings. (p. 19)
It became obvious that too many were still questioning the Watchtower, reading literature that exposed their past, or were talking to disfellowshiped relatives. So in the July 15, 1985 WT, the Governing Body applied the injunction in 2 John 10 (against antichrists) to those that disassociate themselves. No mention at all is made of the context of this passage (verse 7 tells us that these ones deny Christ as come in the flesh). Nevertheless, the penalty meant for true apostate teachers is now applied to ANYONE disassociating himself. The article is not specific as to whether this total shunning is to be carried out with relatives living in one’s own home or not. Quoting from their AID book in reference to "apostates," they say,

Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the "antichrist." (1 John 2:18,19)

A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description.(p. 31)

What Will "Simon" Say Next?

With many court cases now in progress in various parts of the United States and Canada, it is hard to say exactly what will happen in the next couple of years. Most likely, the WT will continue to enforce a hard line against any communication with disfellowshiped friends or relatives. The reason is simple: The Witness will be asked to examine the history and cover-ups of the Watchtower organization, so as to reconsider their allegiance to the New York-based organization. Since an objective examination of the Watchtower organization virtually always leads to the Witness leaving, the Governing Body wants to prevent this at all costs. To lose their followers is to lose their power. If "Simon said" then, who would jump?

I just moved to Louisiana and I am still trying to figure out all the rules and regulations. From what I am seeing, I think I am "Legally" able to hunt over corn. Is this true? If someone can find it in writing that would be awsome too! Thank you!!!
I just moved to Louisiana and I am still trying to figure out all the rules and regulations. From what I am seeing, I think I am "Legally" able to hunt over corn. Is this true? have checked the Louisiana wild life websites and did not see a yes or no. If someone can find it in writing that would be awsome too! Thank you!!!

i live in maryland and could you tell me the regulations for it? and what kind of license should i get?

AN OUTLINE IS A statement summarizing the important points of a text, a summary of a written work or speech, usually analyzed in headings and subheadings.

I am going to enter into high school this summer.

So our teacher has given us a summer assignment to turn in to our high school teachers! One of our assignments are writing about a conflict in the book-
LORD OF THE FLIES

Here is one of my conflicts-
Can anyone please read it and just give comments/suggestions?

Any help with me appreciated.

Lord of the Flies
Conflict One: Ralph vs. Jack – Civilization vs. Savagery
From the very beginning it became obvious that the group of marooned children had begun to divide into two groups. When Ralph had called the first meeting after being marooned on the island all the boys decided that they would best vote for a leader. One of the older schoolboys named Jack Merridew thought that he should be the chief because he is "…chapter chorister and head boy…" (22) But another boy also nominates Ralph because he was the one with the conch and because he was the one that called all the survivors to a meeting. When it was time to vote, the choir members voted for Jack, while all the majority of the boys vote for Ralph. Jack was obviously upset on the outcome, so Ralph made him leader of the choir group. The choir was responsible for the hunting. Throughout the entire book, Jack was not the most co-operate person amongst the boys. Jack contradicted the rules and regulations set by Ralph and he had a very different outlook on what to accomplish and what is most important for everyone. For example, at the beginning of the book, Jacks says “I agree with Ralph we’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re not savages.” (42) But his opinion changes drastically later. Jack begins to break the rule of only talking with the conch at meetings. Later Ralph and Jack drift even more apart with the choir following and listening to Jack and everyone else looking up to Ralph. Ralph was more reasonable in what he thought was best for the group but Jack and his posse became irrational by becoming more and more savage. The danger and thrill of hunting excited Jack’s group, that same danger and thrill changed the humane behavior of the boys. For example, Jack and his hunters were so obsessed with the hunt that they let the beacon fire go out. That fire was in place so passing ships may have a chance to see the smoke and rescue the boys. So it is obvious that these two head boys have different objectives in mind. During the second half of the book most of the boys that were considered Ralph’s “group” have become part of Jack’s hunters. The so-called “beast” that many of the boys have so-called seen have even driven the boundary between civilized behavior and savage behavior even more apart. Many of the “biguns” have also started to believe and even claim to see such a beast after a “littlun” first claimed to have seen it. That gave the boys another reason to become more savage. They want to find the beast and kill it. Their hopes of being rescued were beginning to sound like as impossibility as they lose grip of human civilization. The cruel and inhumane ways of Jack and his hunters gains supremacy over all the boys. There is an obvious internal conflict in Lord of the Flies; to live peacefully by the rules and to rely on morals; or to let savagery take over you and act violently with no civilization. Both are two competing ways of life that conflicts every human’s life, but there are some people that strive to live with order and some to let that animalistic instinct take over their lives.

Hi - Just wondering if anyone knowledgeable about Massachusetts laws. I would like to have a crossbow for target practice and possibly self defense at home if ever needed (hopefully not). I see that in Massachusetts it is not legal to use one for hunting unless you get a doctors note that says you can’t use a regular bow (see below) - but can’t find any laws as to if it is illegal to use it for target practice and/or home defense.
Anyone in MA know?

Chapter 131: Section 69. Bows and arrows for hunting

Section 69. A person shall not carry or use a bow and arrow while hunting unless said bow and arrow meet such requirements as may be set by rules and regulations which the director is hereby authorized to promulgate. Such rules and regulations shall prescribe general design, weight of pull, and type of bows and arrows, and shall conform to standards generally accepted for bows and arrows used for hunting purposes. Nothing in this paragraph shall permit the use of crossbows by any person other than a person who is permanently disabled such that the person cannot operate a conventional bow and arrow, as certified by a licensed physician. Any costs associated with obtaining the medical documentation, re-evaluation of the information or a second medical opinion are the responsibility of the applicant claiming a permanent disability. The issuance of a crossbow permit under this section shall be subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the director.

Do those who truly live in the woods/mountains/wilderness need a hunters license, and have to follow the same hunting laws as anyone else, even if it’s truly for survival reasons?

I’m talking about someone who truly lives off of the land. Makes shelter in the forest, drinks water from the river, eats vegetation when it’s available and catches animals to eat.

Do they still need to abide by the same rules and regulations? How does this work?

This is a paragraph from the small game rules and regulations for New Mexico–

"Rabbits and Other Nongame Species:
Common nongame species include coyotes, skunks,
rabbits and rock squirrels. Residents are not required
to have a hunting license to take rabbits or other
nongame species. Nonresidents must have either a
nonresident, nongame license or any current New
Mexico nonresident hunting license.
Nongame species may be taken on State Trust Lands
opened by easement by persons holding a valid
hunting or trapping licenses for protected species on
those lands during the individual’s hunt or trapping
season. Nongame species may also be taken on U.S.
Forest Service and BLM lands open to hunting."

i am in tennessee.. the deer was born earlier this spring/summer.. it was shot on private property with no hunting signs all around.. it was shot early this morning… i know it is illegal to tresspass on this property, but i want to know the rules, regulations, and laws on shooting a deer less than 1 year old, with a shotgun on 11-11-07, in the state of tennessee, and leaving it where they shot it??? also if you can give websites showing this info, it would be greatly appreciated!! thanks!!
just to let you know, i am not the one who killed the deer.. if i did, i would not be asking.. this deer was killed and left approx 100 feet from my house…
we have had this problem before, this one guy shot a deer leg off and bragged, then 2 years later killed it and left it laying..
the deer in question now, was shot with a gun.. right now in my area it is only archery season..
the person that done it ran off this morning when we went outside to see what was making the dogs go crazy.. so they do know where it was, and they were trespassing..

I’m looking through the rules for a series of 3 horse shows that I am thinking about entering.. i would be riding my lease horse, and i am wondering if the tack i use with her follows the rules.

for hunt-seat eq. classes, the required equipment is:
- forward seat saddle
- regulation snaffle, pelhams, full bridles, kimberwicks, all with cavesson nosebands

this is the saddle we use for her: http://www.statelinetack.com/item/wintec-250-all-purpose-saddle-black/SLT700923%201650R/
is this a forward-seat saddle?

what are "regulation snaffles?" i know snaffles are a bit, of course, but what makes them regulation? also, what are pelhams, full bridles, and kimberwicks (with pictures, please)? i’m assuming full bridles are bridles with a noseband, bit, browband, and throatlatch, which is what she uses… if you could include pictures in your explanations that would be great (so i can compare it to the tack she uses).

this is a photo of snickers’ bridle. i don’t know if you can tell what kind of bit she’s using, since its in her mouth, but it has a curb chain, if that helps. does it look like it follows the rules?
http://s688.photobucket.com/albums/vv248/jillie_rox28/?action=view&current=snickersportrait.jpg

(i’ll try to add more pictures later in the afternoon of 7/23 when i get back from the barn)

thanks!

I’m sure the rules on this vary from state to state, but I live in Georgia and I only have time to go hunting maybe twice this year. I’ve gone once already this season and got a one-day hunting license for it. I’m thinking about finding the time to go again this Saturday, but I don’t know if I’ll be able to purchase another one-day license.

If anyone knows the regulations pertaining to this, it would help me a lot! I’ve scanned the code book and haven’t been able to find anything. Thanks!
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get the hunter’s safety course this year so that I could get a year-round license :-(. I have a pretty busy schedule and it SUCKS, LOL! I figure I can just get a one-day and be done with it.

I had to choose three magazine articles that some way related to one another, I chose new hunting regulations on alligators in my state, regulations on skin trade, and the death of steve irwin, I want to explain the rules of hunting the gator and compare Steve Irwins view to our states view of the Alligator. Thank you Any help is appreciated.
Thesis:
"Due to the healthy number in the American Alligator population in the Southern United States, limited hunting and skin trade is now allowed, but in the views of the late Steve Irwin the reasons behind hunting this species is morally wrong."
Want to clarify, I want to compare my states views of hunting the alligator to Steve Irwins