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

  In most modernized countries like the US for example there is a statue of freedom of religion that involves human rights.

  What does that even mean? Can you define what "human right" is violated by the WTS' policy? Can you point to and quote this "statute"?

  Freedom of religion shouldn't mean a religion has the right to impose hatered upon an individual simply for choosing another

  religious faith, breaking up families in the process and causing assorted amount of grief and anguish.

  This is what I worry about. In this case disagreement is conflated with hatred. This is such a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if you were to try to define what "hatred" is, you would find your definition would be so general that it would include simple disagreement.

  MMM
• 

  EndofMysteries

  It's more than 1/2 way there. Does anybody know what happens when it gets 3,157 signatures? Is that a random number or does some government agency review any that hit that point?
• 

  PoconosKnows

  1. The petition has been updated and is now being supported by the Zalkin law firm, and they are sharing the petition - since it does have substantial good points, and is in fact - substantiated with links to the human rights articles (people seemed to be questioning their proof of sources on this thread - bad-mouthing it, well - it is all on there - see for yourself.
  2. They are not waiting for the signatures to be completed; they are filing with the governmental agencies BEFORE they get the signatures, regardless. I have read this by the person who started that petition. They realize that gaining the signatures shows the support of people, who substantiate the cause, but are filing the complaints anyway.

  On this petition... It has CHANGED... disregard the comments regarding the old petition, since the new one is here: https://www.change.org/petitions/launch-an-investigation-to-determine-if-jehovah-s-witnesses-have-a-right-to-use-coercion-forms-of-mental-torture-to-force-its-members-not-to-leave

  All the people who have posted negative comments, really need to re-read it now, since I know for a fact, that the verbiage has changed on it since it was originally posted.

  They are going after coercion. What is being recognized by government is that all forms of religious persecution - cannot be tolerated, if it is harmful - and coerces a person to reconvert back to the religion, or would deny a person the right to "freely asociate with their own family. They DO have a case.

  Many people here are arguing points, yet they are moving forward - with or without waiting for all signatures; they are not relying on them for the success. They have the "hate speech" mapped out by the society's publications that show they are unfairly "persecuting' converts by denying them access to their families, (almost like a terrorist would, for a lack of a better example).

  It is not Christian-like to me. Nothing Jesus would advocate, and it seems to be a form of extremism. Jesus' example showed love to even the lesser people (prostitute, criminal on the "stake" next to him, and promised that the man would be with him in heaven, it was not judgmental and full of hate).

  The human rights policy says - nobody should interfere with your family; persecute a person for conversion away from a belief. Witnesses fought for the right to be restricted from the military service (as the petition also stated). Yet, do not allow the freedom of choice of conscience in their own members choice or belief. So again, I agree with all the points, because people are committing suicide over not being able to be with their family. When they have found good reason to leave the organizaiton for their flip-flop of doctrines, bible passages that were proven to be faulty, etc.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  That sounds great Poconos. It almost sounded like some of the comments here didn't want anybody to have success in stopping what the society does.

  It's even more exciting a law firm is getting involved now. Hopefully the law see's a difference between freedom of religion and this hate speech/ coercion.
• 

  Simon

  Wait, what? They get signatures for a petition and then change what the petition says? That sounds a little ... well, just wrong. I'm surprised the site allows that ... does it really achieve anything?

  I'm sure there are some individual cases that would be of interest to an attorney that specialises in those things (and I wish them every success) but I think the general points about torture, hyperbole etc already discussed still stand and it's a shame that a bit more thought and preparation couldn't have gone into this first.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  This is the site for that law firm, it looks like they have experience against churches. http://zalkin.com/
• 

  PoconosKnows

  There is a correlation in freedom of religion AND Religious coercion. Since, religious freedom was originally designed for people to practice religion without having a state religion imposed on them - it does not give them the right to trample on a person's right to "freely associate", so coercion comes into play ... it is coercive to force people to attend - without the right to convert. They are not allowing the right for conversion, so it is religious coercion - (as clearly defined in the petition) by the UN Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance, Persecution and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, As Defined By The UN Convention on Religious Intolerance. So - this argument we keep hearing about church and state may be up for negotiation - since the UN said: (pasted below):

  The Special Rapporteur then focuses on the right of conversion as part of freedom of religion or belief. In this context, he distinguishes the following four subcategories: (a) the right to conversion, in the sense of changing one’s own religion or belief; (b) the right not to be forced to convert; (c) the right to try to convert others by means of non-coercive persuasion; and (d) the rights of the child and of his or her parents in this regard. The Special Rapporteur outlines the international human rights framework and specific violations for each of these subcategories and addresses some typical misunderstandings.

  In his conclusions and recommendations, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to consistently respect, protect and promote the human right to freedom of religion or belief in the area of conversion. He reiterates that the right to conversion and the right not to be forced to convert have the status of unconditional protection under international human rights law. Freedom of religion or belief includes the right to try to persuade others in a non-coercive manner; any restrictions on missionary activities deemed necessary by States must strictly abide by article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  That is why, the former JW's can make a valid case at the UN, (to the Rapporteur - who made the above statement) - which they may have already done, (but still gathering signatures for their support.) The JW's do not allow the changing of belief, and the UN classifies that as "coercion" to "compel one's right to convert or RECONVERT" BACK to a former religion. (by keeping one's family away from them). It is by force - that makes many feel they MUST go back to the religion.
• 

  PoconosKnows

  The person who said that comment about changing the petition - as far as I can see - they haven't changed their stance on any of the matters. They changed the focus to coercion which was already within the body of the text. Links were added for their proof Articles. Maybe they were getting complaints about it. Petitions don't allow for text to be dropped that significantly changes any of the issues or it is flagged in the editing, I had one 2 years ago (non-religious), only small changes, headings, footnotes, citations, are the things I was allowed to change b/t/w
• 

  KiddingMe

  Marked
• 

  Chaserious

  They DO have a case.

  Of course they do not have a case, for the same reasons that many have stated in this thread. As you said, they didn't change the substance of the petition, only cleaned up the form so it doesn't seem so amateur.

  It is not Christian-like to me. Nothing Jesus would advocate, and it seems to be a form of extremism.

  Yes, it's un-Christian and extreme, but that's not what makes a violation of the law. I would be shocked if a law firm actually is "getting involved" in this in the sense of taking it on as a case. Maybe they will send it on their letterhead to some officials, but I would like to see a press release or something before I believe that they are actually doing anything meaningful.

  That is why, the former JW's can make a valid case at the UN

  You can't "make a case" at the UN. You can send them a letter, but there is little they can do even if they agree. The document you cited has no teeth. And besides, it's too general to even establish that the WTS violates it. It is primarily directed at governmental intrusions into someone's ability to change their religion. Do you have any authorities, other than personal opinions, that institutional shunning is "coercion" as defined by the UN? And even if it was, isn't their right to nonviolent shunning part of their own right to freedom to worship as they like, according to the same document?

  It almost sounded like some of the comments here didn't want anybody to have success in stopping what the society does.

  I don't know about others, but personally, although I don't like shunning and authoritarian dogmatic religions, I hate authoritarian government overreach and censorship more, and I know that the latter can be far more dangerous if unchecked.