JW anti-gay children movie viral in Netherlands national media + official reaction of JW spokesman Branch office

by Gorbatchov 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  I suppose I'm getting annoyed at the WT's complete unwillingness to integrate into society. Some religions know not to put anti-gay videos in front of children. The WT seems to revel in its opposition to normal society.

  And this is why they are a minority religion and are reaching their stagnation point. They fill a niche and provide a tent for the people who have those beliefs, but normal society is moving in a different direction.

  Let them isolate themselves and make themselves more out of touch with what is accepted. They become the religious equivalent of the republican party, wanting to live in the past when their discriminations were allowed and they ran society and could enforce their dogma.

  They are losing the battle, not as quickly as many of us would like, but overall religion is retreating.

  We're not at the point yet where it can be banned and I don't think that would ever do anything but strengthen it and raise far more issues.

  As soon as you step into wanting to legislate belief then we're in all sorts of problems.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  They are losing the battle - I certainly hope so.

  What also annoys me is the lack of desire on the part of politicians to monitor or criticise religion.

  The same MPs who tell us what views are socially acceptable/unacceptable or even how warm a baby's bathwater should be, suddenly become coy when things turn to religion.

  It p1$$es me off because I see religious extremists getting a free pass. It's like MPs confuse the WT with Anglicanism and assume that all religions are tolerant.

  We're not at the point yet where it can be banned and I don't think that would ever do anything but strengthen it and raise far more issues - agreed. Banning religion would be counterproductive.
• 

  Barrold Bonds

  Which news article is this from:

  The official spokesman of the Dutch Branch office in Emmen declared that

  the movie is primary for internal use only, for JW children and not intended to upset the society.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  The whole "internal use only" remark is typical WT style attempt to mislead.

  It's public. Period. They present it publicly.

  Now, it is a good thing they present it publicly because it carries more truth about what they teach. The more reality about the teachings, the better off the previously unaware public is. It will contribute to fewer ignorant/unsuspecting/under-educated in the rules and beliefs, getting sucked into this cult.
  

  Education of the public is the only real way to combat the insidious nature of a cult.

  To have a government ban this video? I don't agree with that. It is an underhanded way too "teach", but not worthy of banning. To ban hanging tires over peoples necks and setting them afire due to a religious belief, yes.
  
• 

  freemindfade

  If the video was a mother explaining to her child how Muslims can't enter into paradise this forum would be beside itself in how "racist" it is. This board is so ironic sometimes.

  Something actually worthy of social anger comes along (kids being programmed for homophobia in a cartoon) and its "what is everyone so upset about?"

  Again maybe you guys have been away from actual witnesses too long, the sugar coating in the cartoon and in watchtowers does not reflect how vitriol and homophobic witnesses actually are.

  The way this cartoon deals with children is what I find most outrageous. What does "not getting into paradise" mean to a witness??? Cofty? Simon? Steve2?? Does little Sophia and all other jw kids know what that means? Bet your ass they do. And if you think it doesnt have that implication congratulations. You've forgotten what it was like to be a witness. Even non-witness journalists have enough brains to figure out the message.

  Why don't you guys believe the the witnesses don't shun people?? Same principle. With cults its less about he definition of words and their implication in context of the cult system. You are denying the message based on the semantics of the words used when the purpose couldn't be more clear. "It didn't say her parents will die at Armageddon so the implication doesn't exist right?"
• 

  freemindfade

  For someone with a daughter who will have to go to shool with witnesses this video offends me greatly
• 

  Simon

  Why don't you guys believe the the witnesses don't shun people?? Same principle.

  Whoah, what?

  This is the problem - you make a GIANT leap and instead of going of what people actually say, you invent something that you would like to have heard.

  Something actually worthy of social anger comes along (kids being programmed for homophobia in a cartoon) and its "what is everyone so upset about?"

  Nice distortion but no one has said it's not worthy of social condemnation. Just that the condemnation should be for what they actually believe and teach, not things invented. It's especially true once you step out of the world of hashtags and into the world of law and demanding government intervention.

  You are denying the message based on the semantics of the words used when the purpose couldn't be more clear. "It didn't say her parents will die at Armageddon so the implication doesn't exist right?"

  No, the implication may well exist when you add your domain-specific knowledge and experience into the mix. But what it actually says does matter if you are pushing people to have it banned. Because they will not hear the words that you only hear in your head.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @Barrold Bonds

  Translations are mine; nuance may be lost.

  http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/editienl/jehovas-maken-kinderfilm-homos-niet-welkom-het-paradijs (National commercial TV station)

  Michel van Hilten, spokesman for JW, is not bothered by the negative reactions to the video. "We feel it is within our freedom of speech to post these videos." But he wants to emphasize he has no intention to insult or offend people with this children's animation. "I don't think the video is cause for that."
  According to Van Hilten the target audience for the video is 'primary children of Jehovah's Witnesses'. "And other people who are interested. We haven't posted the video on YouTube on purpose: it's better suited on our site, and people should watch it there."
  Moreover he says that videos posted on the site, are never intended to be pedantic, (en)forcing or directing[?]. COC Nederland [LBGT rights association] requests JW Netherlandsto remove the video. Only if the 'outrage is justified', the Jehovah's will decide to take the video offline.

  http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/kritiek-op-jehovah-s-getuigen-om-anti-homo-kinderfimpje~a4294809/ (National newspaper, a serious one, not a tabloid)

  Spokesman for JW NL Michel van Hilten doen't understand the criticism. 'I can't imagine people take offense to this video. We just want to tell our children that different principles exist in society.'
  According to Van Hilten, children don't need to convince their class mates of the ideas of JW. 'We have a complete different intention with this video. We are absolutely not homophobic. Defenitely not.'
• 

  Simon

  Education of the public is the only real way to combat the insidious nature of a cult.

  :thumbsup:

  To have a government ban this video? I don't agree with that. It is an underhanded way too "teach", but not worthy of banning. To ban hanging tires over peoples necks and setting them afire due to a religious belief, yes.

  Exactly, there are far more serious things to worry about and it does not warrant banning unless people are also happy to live in a police state and also give up their own right to express themselves and share their own opinions and beliefs.

  There seem to be a few people who simply can't look at thing objectively and also can't think through implications of what they ask for. A knee jerk "ban it" doesn't work for many reasons but in "simplistic world" it probably sounds great - "just ban anything that doesn't correspond to my own views".

  I guess "unlucky" if your views are not the ones the government picks to enforce?
• 

  lrkr

  This whole issue speaks to how far society has come on acceptance of LGBT relationships. 10 years ago, if a fundamentalist church put up an anti gay video, no one would have cared. Watchtower, being as usual, entirely tone deaf, didn't catch that it is entirely unacceptable and bigoted now.

  Just like if your religious belief is that white people and black people shouldn't marry- that may have been considered a private issue 50 years ago. Now it's just considered racism. No matter what color of religious bow you put on it.