FYI: Something is going on in Brazil that's interesting

by AndersonsInfo 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  steve2

  Isn't saying publicly that this person is evil, inciting hatred upon that person, based upon wholly of sexual orientation.

  TTO, your use of language is interesting and in my opinion a little on the over-stated side. I have no brief to defend the JWs because as I've said many times, they are well-meaning but 'deluded', to put it kindly.

  Having said that, the JWs are (usually) very careful to say they hate the disfellowshipped person's behavior and not the person and theyavoid publicly stating that a named ex-member is evil and should be hated. I'm open however to any documented evidence that specific members have been called evil and JWs told to hate them. When names are read from the platform of kingdom halls advising that people have been disfellowshipped the message is brief and does not contain details of 'wrongdoing'. I have never heard of elders 'inciting hatred upon' ex-members. Indeed, what they usually do is detail how the ex-members have spread 'falsehoods' and rumors, etc.about the WTS.

  Again, the main beneficiary of any legal contest will be well-paid lawyers, dining on the drawn out court proceedings, whilst each side makes claims and counterclaims. Each side could potentially argue it has been the victim of hate speech - which simply shows that the concept of hate speech is very slippery. E.g., If the WTS cannot criticise you because you would constitute their criticism as hate speech, could they not also allege that your criticism of them is hate speech? I've read some pretty graphically emotional condemnations of named JWs on website forums. I presume JWs are not broadcasting via the net the names of ex-JWs and/or their 'sins'.

  The whole matter turns on legal definitions and let's not forget that the Catholic Church has often rubbed its hands with glee when the courts have charged the WTS with assorted crimes over the decades.
• 

  thetrueone

  If this case does go to court the prevailing factor will be the openly pointing out of an individual and the shunning thats instagted against that person.

  Simply based upon that person leaving the religion and going over to another or to regarding prejudiced indifference to that person's sexual identity ..

  The psychological effects of a person having their own immediate family shun them or have the relationship break apart completely, can be overly

  arduous to handle and profound, pushing some homosexual people to suicide.

  Some of those appearant suicides have been noted in this forum by the way toward select JWS family members.
• 

  yalbmert99

  Good work!
• 

  TotallyADD

  Thank you for the report. Totally ADD
• 

  edmond dantes

  Barbara thank you so much for all the effort you put into trying to right the wrongs of The Watchtower Corp. and bringing to the fore the error of their ways.
• 

  thetrueone

  Just thought I would re-post part of a post that I put up yesturday.

  In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender , ethnicity , nationality , religion , sexual orientation , gender identity , [3] or other characteristics.

  The question remains does any religion have the legal right to conduct itself separate from these governmental guidelines ?

  Are these religions unlawfully conducting themselves against those established human rights ?

  No the JWs are not in violation of all of these set guidelines but they certainly are when it comes to religion and sexual orientation.

  Lets keep in mind that the WTS and its hierarchal leaders see themselves as a structured governmental force within themselves,

  self created by their own pseudo belief systems.
• 

  steve2

  No the JWs are not in violation of all of these set guidelines but they certainly are when it comes to religion and sexual orientation.

  And we know that is not unique to JWs, because so too are a large proportion of other Christian-based religions, Judaism and Islam in "violation" of "hate" speech. Regarding the negative effects of shunning - yes you are right. And at the same time, shunning does not inevitably and always lead to significantly enduring problems. Let's not forget human resilience and the triumphing over adversity by developing personal skills and abilities to get on with one's life. You too heavily portray humans as victims. I would not have wanted to have been disfellowshipped and would have preferred being able to leave in goodwill. That didn't happen and is unlikely to change. So, I can either refuse to accept that outcome and become caught up in an endless round of protesting or choose to accept that it happened and that I need to now take greater responsibility for my life and the way I live.
• 

  ziddina

  "...Having said that, the JWs are (usually) very careful to say they hate the disfellowshipped person's behavior and not the person and theyavoid publicly stating that a named ex-member is evil and should be hated. ..."

  Yes, Steve2, that's true, but what might - hopefully - trip up the Watchtower Society is what they say GENERALLY about how disfellowshipped/disassociated persons are to be treated...

  Like the recent study articles and assembly program talks on associating with "apostates" and disfellowshipped ones, that have been posted on this website...

  It's true that, WHEN the disfellowship/disassociation announcement is made from the podium by an elder, that Brother/Sister "No Longer In The Truth™ " is - well, no longer a member of the Watchtower Society or no longer a Jehovah's Witness, the Society is sneaky and clever - they are VERY CAREFUL to avoid making any comments that could be construed as "slanderous"...

  But then there's the "special needs" talk, that occurs during the same meeting. Covering THEIR view of the so-called "sin" - be it premarital sex or disagreeing with Watchtower doctrine.

  No OPPOSING viewpoint is allowed. It is a closed dissertation on the person's "crime", in which the accused/condemned cannot utter a peep in their defense.

  And then there are the "encouragements" to avoid associating with "such people", printed and spoken from the various platforms - as I mentioned before...

  The success or failure of this court case all depends on how dilligent the prosecution is at digging up the facts, and presenting the case in a manner that exposes the Watchtower Society's double-speak. Whether they do so effectively, from the viewpoint of a novice unfamiliar with the Watchtower Society's devious use of implication instead of outright - and much more prosecutable - edicts and commandments, will determine the outcome...
• 

  thetrueone

  And then there are the "encouragements" to avoid associating with "such people", printed and spoken from the various platforms .

  I wouldn't call it encouragement, for it's an enforced mandate that comes with imposed penalties on to people who do not follow along.

  Not respecting these set laws or rules of behavior has dire consequences.

  Using an analogy lets say a person wanted to stop belonging to a specific church for one reason or another, does that church

  have the right to publicly announce that this person is not a member any more and that any association with this person

  should be avoided at all costs or doing in so will invoke penalties laid against such individuals ?

  This is publicly inciting hatred based on religious grounds.
• 

  steve2

  You're opening up a can of Orwellian worms if you seek legislation that prevents groups from having their own membership criteria. The state also has no place dictating to groups their membership criteria - unless you prefer an autocratic state rulership. Remember, there are probably more groups than we realize who would agree with the JWs right to expel members who break "membership" rules. Hell, even non-religious families and groups can have pretty stringent "membership" rules (e.g., refusing to acknowledge your adult child's choice of marriage partner, booting someone out of the local golf club because of their indiscretions when intoxicated). The JWs are not alone.