What I read - was - that the UN has to make suggestions of policy reform, Chaserious, that offer protection to prevent future serious harm to the public - is what I saw on the UN site. It doesn't say they review all future material - but makes certain recommendations. I agree with you, it is hard to prove - but if coercive practices are not allowable by corporations - or the use of hate speech, I know that hate speech is considered "criminal" - and there are places to report that as well in the government - to get that corrected, or recognized. Even the FBI has a link about reporting "hate crimes" - I don't know how the FBI handles those reportings of "hate speech", just I have read - they encourage the reporting of slander against people, or groups of people. It just makes sense. Okay - I want to explore other topics, outside of this one. I really have nothing else to contribute, since anything I comment on - seems to go into debate here. I hope everyone has a good new year.
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso 170 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I believe what is being said here is, a religion should not have the power to impose "threats" upon placing any restrictions on human rights, or it should be looked at as a form of extremism, if it results in deaths by suicide.
Define in this context "human rights". What "right" are you referring to? Is it the "right" that your family talk to you? Define this right.
What other "forms of extremism" would be included in your definition? Who decides what is "extreme"? You? Me?
When someone commits suicide, it is tragic. However, in what way should others be held legally responsible for someone killing himself? If I divorce my wife, and she kills herself after, am I now responsible for her death? Are you saying that I would need to LEGALLY be forced to stay married to prevent the possibility of her killing herself?
The JW's are a corporation - that act as a religious institution, and any corporation that imposed "hate speech" upon blacks or gays would not be tolerated - so why call people "mentally diseased" (in the present day - with the present zero tolerance of stigmatization "craze" that is sweeping our nation) those who wish to convert?
First, I believe the WTB&TS as a corporation has legally disconnected itself with the body that produces doctrine, not that it matters much.
Second, define "hate speech".
Third, hate speech against gays and blacks, or any other group, is most definitely tolerated - and should be! If it were not tolerated, free speech would be meaningless. Are you saying that members of the KKK should be fined and perhaps sent to jail because they might say horrible things about blacks and jews? Of course it is distasteful, but agreement is NOT toleration. You tolerate something you don't agree with by definition. If you agreed with it, you wouldn't have to tolerate it, because you would agree.
Tarnishing the reputation of those from their own family associations? It needs to be investigated.
Slander is a different story. But there are specific laws that define such an offense. It is not simply "that-guy-said-something-bad-about-me" sort of thing.
But I do believe, if anything is done by the legal departments of the agencies, this has to spill out to the other religions that shun, as well.
If anything is done by "legal departments" or "agencies", then it would spill out to more than religions. It would spill out to any group not currently in political power - which might include YOU!
MMM
-
adamah
Poconos said-
The JW's are a corporation - that act as a religious institution, and any corporation that imposed "hate speech" upon blacks or gays would not be tolerated - so why call people "mentally diseased" (in the present day - with the present zero tolerance of stigmatization "craze" that is sweeping our nation) those who wish to convert?
Welcome aboard, and as a recently-separated JW, here's a little tid-bit for ya': ALL religions are corporations that act as religious institutions.
As far as your comment, it's good that the goal is ONLY to "shame" the GB to motivate some 'inspired' 'spirit-directed' "New Light" that leads to a self-initiated loosening of their shunning policies. Fact is, religions do change their policies, based on responding to public pressure and the need to stay relevant to prospective members.
But as Simon pointed out, a basic element of WT eschatology is that they will be opposed by the UN in the end of days, and it's unimaginable that the AAWA wouldn't know that?
Certainly SOMEONE at AAWA is old enough that they were in the JWs to see pictures like this, showing the UN Building in the background?
So to oppose the WT on the basis of relying on the principles of the UN attacking them seems hare-brained, at best, and I'm even more strongly suspecting that AAWA is actually a planted 'false flag', an organization that secretly serves the GB to create the sense of persecution coming from the UN to force their prophecies to seemingly come true (every JW like to think of their efforts being opposed by Satan, and in the 21st century, sometimes they have to create their own villians in order to distract from other issues, like losing cases in civil court over accusations of sheltering pedophiles).
So this petition thingie plays right into the GB's wishes: they couldn't have ASKED for a better scenario to confirm their fakey predictions, creating an event of a faux attack coming from the UN that will likely drive current members in only deeper, when it's merely the GB casting shadows with their hands.
With active JWs, image is EVERYTHING, and it takes little to feed their confirmation biases and persecution complexes.
There was absolutely ZILCH need to even MENTION the UN charter in that petition to achieve the same objective, i.e. the petition could've left out ALL references to the UN, and it would have the same exact impact it will likely have, without giving the GB a late Xmas present.
Adam
-
MeanMrMustard
@PoconosKnows:
" My comments and points were torn apart since my original post. I am defending them - 1 by 1 -like anyone else did - when they see unfair remarks on a topic."
But that is expected in a forum like this. And yes, you are defending them 1-by-1, and that is fine. You aren't being silenced, after all you ARE defending yourself on each topic. But we have to be realistic. In other words, the petition's purpose is to ultimate stop the WT shunning doctrine. OK, nobody here agrees with that doctrine - not even from a Biblical perpective. However, getting the authorities involved is a horrible idea for all the reasons listed - you give the goverment a hammer to bash someone, then it still has the hammer, and the next thing bashed might be YOU!
MMM
-
Simon
Wow. I didn't know my freedom of expression of thought was not welcomed here.
And we're straight into the mischaracterization, insults and persecution complex that the AAWA is becoming famous for when anyone questions or disagrees with them about anything ... you people just want blind support from everyone don't you?
Freedom of expression IS welcome here which is why people HERE can have these discussions. How dare you come here and insult me and my forum when it's YOUR group that doesn't allow anyone to voice any criticism without them being immediately deleted and the poster being lambasted and attacked and their personal identity even exposed in retaliation. Pretty hypocritical to complain about the WTS when the AAWA seems to be almost a carbon copy in how they behave and how they want to control people.
Now, you can defend your words as you see it just as we are allowed to critique and have an opinion on them. My opinion is that it is nothing but hyperbole.
Yes, I'm sure shunning could be a contributing factor in some people's suicides. Do you have numbers or is it going to be another wild "250,000 people have died from ..." claim?
People breaking up relationships have also committed suicide ... were their rights abused too? Will the UN step in? Will Gia Allemand's boyfriend face extradition by the UN?
I would have more respect if you simply admit that it's a publicity stunt. But given that, I think a better job could have been made of it and getting more input on it first would have been better. Of course you listen to the criticism because you changed the wording but then complain about the people who helped improve it.
-
Simon
PokonosKnows: we're not out to get you. I just wish people would engage with the community more and get people's input before doing things, not simply demand their complete support in retrospect OR not complain that other people have an opinion and should be entitled to share it.
It would help to craft things better and perhaps lead to more effective campaigns which is what all of us want.
-
Watchtower-Free
Welcome ""PoconosKnows"
-
besty
Okay - I want to explore other topics, outside of this one. I really have nothing else to contribute, since anything I comment on - seems to go into debate here.
somehow you managed to open your account at JWN in the middle of a fairly controversial topic - its a bit like barging into a private party and loudly joining the conversation - a lot of new people open with a thread about themselves and what brought them here...
anyways - it will be nice to get you know better on other threads :-) please keep posting
-
Band on the Run
Well, I see assertions made that a law firm is involved. Precedent matters in common law. Yet you cite no precedent. Indeed, you don't even seem to know the agencies that are involved in human rights violation. I know there are treaties involved. Whether or not they are self-executing matters. It gets quite complex. If a law firm were involved, there would be controlling precedents cited. It is funny how professionals realize how little they know. Someone with no education thinks they know so much. If I wanted to research this properly, it would take months to complete research.
Another issue of fairness which is so important considering what happened with Facebook is what about the people who signed the old formulation of the petition. It is presumptous that they will now decide to sign a newly drafted petition. This is oh so comical. Except it is not comical, it makes all ex Jws look like utter ineffective fools.
But, hey, you get highs over leadership of your dinky group. Please post a disclaimer that I am not involved. Reading this thread, I am not alone.
Any more of this "activism" and we will wind up in the sewer.
-
besty
Please post a disclaimer that I am not involved.
BOTR - how does that work? Do the petitioners have to state on the petition 'Band On The Run' is not involved?