I saw this posted on Brenda Lee's wall. There were several posters that stated that as much as the JW's have hurt them personally, they either don't want to sign a petition that (very realistically) won't have any effect on anything due to freedom of religion laws and/or as much as they disagree with JW beliefs they don't want the government to infringe any further on our basic rights. She called those posters out by name, and then reposted the petition saying there would be no comments about it, and any comments would be deleted. Which seems to be the case with what few things AAWA related I've seen where anyone posts a less than positive view about it. This only serves in my mind to make me think that they could have a pretty good thing going with their organization, but they don't necessarily put their energies into making the best decisions, and their continued attempts to supress any debate or other way of thinking whatsoever don't make them much different than the organization they are trying to bring down.
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
-
-
OUTLAW
.
..You Signed My Name on a AAWA Petition?!!..
.............................................................................
...OUTLAW -
Band on the Run
We aren't discussing whether shunning is a moral thing. The discussion is about signing a petition. We can't discuss anything. Some self apponted leaders have already decided for us. Well, let us see how far the petition goes. Their target audience has no experience with the WT. No need to hate it. Indeed, no reason to care. Any staffer deciding on what to do with petitions is likely highly socialized to value the First Amendment.
-
wearewatchingyouman
their continued attempts to supress any debate or other way of thinking whatsoever don't make them much different than the organization they are trying to bring down.
Funny how that works, isn't it.
"I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.” - Booker T. Washington
-
JHK
Human rights are the most important thing in our democratic societies. If not respected, we return to the Middle Ages. We must make this request in other countries too.
-
Simon
If the religion was teaching that those who want God's favor MUST beat up gays, yet they aren't forcing it, you can bet the law would do something about that.
Well of course, but then that is promoting a criminal activity. If they were saying that they should not associate with homosexuals then it would be OK. Look at the crazy Westboro Baptism church and what things they are allowed to say and do.
What is the point of making a false analogy?
The religion draws people in from LIES, lies and twisting, very evident in that on the website it makes it appear they don't shun ex members. Or nowhere in a bible study, in bible teach book, etc, do they teach that one must obey the GB. (it's quietly put in after one is attending meetings, from the WT's), etc.
That is why it's so important for all of us to share our experiences so people can see that what they say doesn't match what they do.
they should be forbidden from teaching emotional abuse/blackmail on others. If one doesn't believe in the religion, then forbid them from requiring members to shun them, especially own family members.
And again, we're back to "how". How does the government do this? A judge will tell mommy to talk to her son or vice versa? Does that also mean that kids being protected from their crazy pushy religious relatives could be forced to listen to their propaganda?
However, I don't see that is the main issue with disfellowshipping. How should we feel, if Jehovah's Witnesses made the following public announcement: "So-and-so is an unrepentant wicked sexual pervert and should be strictly avoided?" Would that qualify as slander or should it be protected under freedom speech and freedom of religion? Should one's private religious views be the subject of public comment (even indirectly) by Witnesses? While the announcement Jehovah's Witnesses is benign, we know it is a coded message for what I said more directly. We also know the character of the individual is harmed the moment that announcement is made.
Again, a false analogy. If they make a false public statement then yes, you could take them to court for it. It would be an individual case-by-case issue. The fact they are subtle and use coded language simply makes it difficult if not impossible to do. Yes, they are morally low but the government is not going to arrive like batman and make things 'right'.
What aboout child abusers? Should they be allowed to DF them or are we now saying we want them silent and to just keep them hidden within the congregation? The trouble with this campaign is someone has come up with a half-baked argument and not thought through all the implications or even whether the demands correlate with other campaigns being made.
Can you see why this is an utterly and completely ill conceived and badly written petition?
I'd never give my email address to anything from AAWA, the group that compromised the privacy of so many of us in the recent past.
Maybe we can start a petition to protect people from them.
She called those posters out by name, and then reposted the petition saying there would be no comments about it, and any comments would be deleted. Which seems to be the case with what few things AAWA related I've seen where anyone posts a less than positive view about it. This only serves in my mind to make me think that they could have a pretty good thing going with their organization, but they don't necessarily put their energies into making the best decisions, and their continued attempts to supress any debate or other way of thinking whatsoever don't make them much different than the organization they are trying to bring down.
This is a perfect example where getting input from the community first could have created a much better and finely crafted petition and prepared support for it in advance - all things vital for success. But then they know better than everyone else and are unwilling to listen and we all know this has ZERO chance of achieving anything other than publicity for themselves. They got their logo on another site which is a success for them. The only one they are capable of.
If anyone questions anything they are put on the naughty list and their comments deleted. You will never see one comment of dissent allowed to remain visible - such is their lack of confidence and determination to enforce complete control. They are like a smaller replica of the WTS.
Pretty amazing when you think about it that they then have the audacity to accuse *me* of being controlling simply because I allow the discussions to take place here and (shock, horror) also have an opinion of my own!
What I dislike immensely about the AAWA is that their stupid pronouncements force sensible, reasonable people into defending the WTS position. That is why their badly worded, idiotic, half-baked campaigns like this are so awful.
-
besty
A petition to change the rules of a religion you have left? Seems completely nuts to me.
Are all the people signing the petition also agreeing to re-join the WTS if they do change their rules?
-
Nathan Natas
I'm with BandOnTheRun & Simon & Besty on this - this is an ineffective waste of your time.
-
wearewatchingyouman
wearewatchingyouman, you sound like a statistical outlier, and while your example may be noteworthy it won't be representative. I only heard of one ex-JW that joined the Services out of many that got disfellowshiped, DA'ed, faded, etc.
What exactly does me being a statistical outlier have to do with anything? Of course I'm a statistical outlier. I watched as 99% of my friends, and family my age, took the plunge. I'd say 50% of them actually believed, and the other 50% of them did it out of pressure from their parents or just because it was the thing to do. Everyone knew the consequences. Hell, most of them had an older sibling who was already DF'd.
It was a living hell for me from the ages of 15-18. Basically being the only kid my age not to be baptised. The pressure from my father was immense due to his fear of losing his position because of me. I was looked at as a black sheep in the congregation even though I was arguably the most respectful, honest and well behaved kid there. I was honest with my family, and the elders, about my doubts, not only with the organization but the existence of God. However, I wasn't rebelious about it. I didn't actively try to bring others over to my side.
I didn't give into the pressure. I made my decision. I stood tall. Now, I still have a social relationship with all my JW family. Those who felt the same way I did, but still took the plunge due to a lack of spine don't. It's that simple. Everything in life comes down to a choice. Those choices have consequences. IMHO, and experience, if you're honest with yourself and others about who you are and what you believe life works out pretty darned good. If you do things just to fit in with a group, because you feel a need to belong, or be accepted, shit goes downhill fast. You reap what you sow.
-
rawe
Hi Simon,
"Again, a false analogy. If they make a false public statement then yes, you could take them to court for it. It would be an individual case-by-case issue. The fact they are subtle and use coded language simply makes it difficult if not impossible to do. Yes, they are morally low but the government is not going to arrive like batman and make things 'right'."
An obvious first defense against a charge of slander or libel is the truth test. Basically, what is said in the disfellowshipping announcement would pass the truth test. Since the faith gets to define who is and who is not a member, a simple benign announcement that "So-and-so" is no longer a member would pass the truth test. But, I chose my wording of the more direct and dramatic slander, because it follows closely the model Witnesses cite for their Biblical justification -- namely 1 Cor 5. I would argue that the analogy is far from false. Not only do Witnesses publish the fact they use 1 Cor 5, but the obvious effect of the announcement is clear.
But there is another aspect of the true/false question. Can one be the subject of slander, libel or invasion of privacy, if the public statement is a truthful one? The case of the gay teen shows courts will consider the impact of even a truthful statement and rule in favor of privacy. For example, if someone where to say, "So-and-so has HIV/AIDS" they may not be able to defend that on the basis of truth -- because invasion of privacy is involved.
"How" is indeed the question. Because we wish to avoid unintended consequences, in cases like this we let obvious harm and abuse of free speech to go forward unchecked. In the Janice Paul case, the court directly acknowledged the harm she had experienced.
Also, I've noticed a couple things as of late. On jw.org the defense of their shunning policy does not reference 1 Cor 5, nor "sins" like stealing and adultery. Rather a vague reference to the Bible's "moral code" is offered.
Cheers,
-Randy
...OUTLAW