truth_b_known summed it up precisely. They did the same thing with blood transfusions. You can no longer be disfellowshipping for it, rather you're viewed as disassociating yourself. If you're 'sorry', you don't have a committee and aren't reproved, they just announce that a matter regarding you was taken care of.
Watchtower fined in Belgium
by Vanderhoven7 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Phizzy
The Org will find ways around this if an Appeal fails, but their guns will have been severely spiked, they certainly will not be able to take much overt action against those JW's who choose to have a normal relationship with family members who have left for whatever reason.
But the Org RELIES upon the awful Shunning technique to keep members in, so they will circumvent this in any way they can.
The heartening thing is that this Case has taken place in an E.U Country, all E.U Countries will take note of the eventual outcome, and even non-E.U Countries often follow closely, and emulate, decisions made by E.U Courts.
-
Rivergang
Of course, there is nothing like trying to have it both ways:
- every individual is free to act according to their individual consciences
- however, it their individual consciences do not coincide with the dictates of the Governing Body, then look out!
Talk about Hobson's Choice.
-
-
menrov
Hi Vanderhoven7, you said "Could this be a dangerous precedent?" Why is this to be considered dangerous? Personally I am happy when a judge makes it clear that religious rules are not above the law. In a country there is one set of laws that apply to all people. In that same country, you have often multiple religious organizations with their own set of rules. If these rules are above the national laws, people have no option to appeal or challenge the rules.
-
Corney
That was the point of the Judges ruling. He said that the JW disfellowshipping policy was promoting something that is a violation of ones basic human rights. He wasn't talking about forcing anyone to talk to someone if they chose not to, he was talking about your right to choose for yourself who you talk to and the rights of the disfellowshipped person to being treated justly and within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization.
0. Have you been able to read the judgment? I hope you don't make conclusions based on a short quotation from a media report. Because...
1. Your words about "rights" is nothing but demagoguery. There is no "right to be treated justly", and the "right to be treated within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization" is, dependent on what you mean by it, either not existing, or any claim about it is circular.
2. In a free and pluralistic society, people are free:
- to associate or not associate with anyone;
- to influence how others exercise that right;
- to exercise the said rights jointly, through associations and communities, including strict ones, that may create and enforce their own rules, as far as it doesn't involve violence or other means of coercion.
At this point, it is not clearly established, to say the least, that ostracizing and boycotting constitute unlawful coercion. There are reasons for this. For sure, shunning as practised by the Jehovah's Witnesses often cause pain and suffering. But other forms of boycotting and similar behaviour - not institutional, less organized, less strict, both collective and individual - can have the same effects. So, where to draw the line? Don't forget that it not the role of government and law to protect people against everything causing them distress. And notwithstanding the attempts to deny or minimize that, the issues in question seriously affect fundamental rights like the freedom of speech, association, and conscience, and the right to private life.
That said, I'm not suggesting the recent decision is necessarily wrong. I would like to read and examine it and future decisions before making ultimate conclusions. What I'm cautioning against are oversimplification, tricky arguments, and hasty conclusions not based on careful consideration of facts and arguments. For example, "religious rules are not above the law" is a nonargument because the real question is what exactly "the law" says.
-
vienne
You may find this response interesting. https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-fined-in-ghent-for-their-ostracism-a-wrong-decision/
-
Vanderhoven7
Hi Menrov
Hi Vanderhoven7, you said "Could this be a dangerous precedent?" Why is this to be considered dangerous?
Well what other religious beliefs or practices might state legislation prohibit? I remember the flap created by bill C16 regarding the use of preferred pronouns.
I believe that an appeal will overturn the current verdict on the basis of freedom of association rights.
However, the state has the right to remove tax exempt status from any church institution and perhaps they might consider that option.
-
StephaneLaliberte
The basic situation is this:
Some religions/cults are actively abusing their members by breaking apart their family and social circle. What ever the legal arguments and path to make it punishable, religions are presently orchestrating the emotional abuse of thousands of people and this needs to stop.
Now, I understand that the legal systems is not easy, but it doesn't mean that it can't do anything about it. I believe this type of judgement is a step in the right direction.
-
StephaneLaliberte
what other religious beliefs or practices might state legislation prohibit?
Anything that is abusive, violent, or causes harm to others. That's not too difficult. Do we accept stoning? Or cutting your hand if you steal something? Or do we accept the concept that a women might be owned by any man? Of course not. You want to wear a cross or a head covering? Go ahead! But black mailing people through organized shunning is clearly abusive.