(Bookmarking)
Court confirms:--Severe Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses is Justified!
by Atlantis 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Giordano
I read through all nine pages and found this amazing! The Swiss Court got it! Shunning was not about freedom of religion. The Societies rules were and still are against freedom FROM their religion.
It's a big open door to enter the JW world but if you want to leave it's going to be a big slap on your butt.
It is very apparent that the Society uses coercion to enforce their policy of severe shunning to the point that JW's were compelled to shun or be disfellowshiped in turn.
The Swiss court's summation used the term Bullying. The definition of Bullying among other acts is to intimidate or coerce........
Here is a section that speaks volumes in SlimBoyFats post:
"Shunning (ostracism) Baptized members of Jehovah's Witnesses who turn away from the faith or break rules are expelled from the community. Other Jehovah's Witnesses may no longer have contact with them or even acknowledge them. This also applies to close family members. Those affected often lose all of their loved ones at once, including those closest to them: parents, children, siblings, partners, grandparents, and friends. Ostracized persons often learn about the marriage, birth or death of their closest relatives from third parties. Today, children are often baptized at the age of 11 or younger. After that, they can no longer freely decide how they want to live and what they want to believe in -because otherwise they will lose their family and loved ones"....
-
slimboyfat
I think we need to bear in mind that what we are reading here, from what I can gather, is a press release from an anti-cult organisation, so let’s not get too carried away. Is there a link to official documents underlying the release? Responses from Austrian and German authorities will be interesting too.
I think the case against any form of shunning of minors is pretty watertight, and highly relevant considering Watchtower encourages baptism for young kids. It is cruel, and rightly compared with other forms of abuse, including physical abuse. It’s astonishing Watchtower has got away with it, when you look at it that way.
It’s a further argument when it comes to shunning adults, however I think the comparison with physical abuse is still a fair one. As a society we would not tolerate an organisation that encourages physical abuse. Should society tolerate an organisation that promotes psychological abuse in the form of shunning? Even if it is in the name of religion? If we take psychological abuse as seriously as physical abuse then we should probably not tolerate it.
-
cofty
Is there a link to official documents underlying the release? - SBF
It would be interesting to read the entire court judgement but I suppose they won't be in English.
Is there a reason Germany and Austria are being mentioned in the document?
-
DesirousOfChange
The GB sure seem to be making poor decisions. Wonder where they are getting their counsel/advice? Hard to believe it's from divine source like THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!! HAHAHAH
-
was a new boy
http://jz.help/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Urteil-vom-190709_-beglaubigt.pdf
-
-
Beth Sarim
DesirousOfChange;
''The GB sure seem to be making poor decisions. Wonder where they are getting their counsel/advice? Hard to believe it's from divine source like THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!! HAHAHAH,,
Remember that;
''The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or organizational direction. In fact the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading 'Beliefs Clarified", which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus question :"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave.'' (Matt 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role. Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century.""
From WT February 2017 study edition p 26 paragraph N0 12.
So,,,, there you have it.
''What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role""
and
''The GB sure seem to be making poor decisions. Wonder where they are getting their counsel/advice?''
It sure makes one wonder. For people who put their lives in the GB's hands. Who claim to 'speak for God'
-
Earnest
If the English translation of the court judgement by the German association JW Victim Help is accurate, there were ten items involved in the charge of defamation against Regina Spiess.
The court found the following statements were true and, therefore, not defamatory.
- That the plaintiff (Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland) operates a "practice of ostracism contrary to human rights" and does not grant their members freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- "Saying something sweet, asking how the day was, or hugging the child [excluded from the community] - that is no longer possible. Children experience permanent fear."
The court found that the accused acted in good faith in believing the following statements to be true and so they were not defamatory.
1. "There is a two-witness rule that favours sexual abuse: the suspicion of a sexual offence against a child should only be investigated if there are at least two witnesses for it, which is naturally never the case. In case there aren't two witnesses, the elders should put the matter in Jehovah's hands, i.e. remain inactive. The victim must remain silent, otherwise he or his family may be excluded."2. "Most people simply do not know what a problematic community Jehovah's Witnesses are. They don't seem extreme to the outside world, at best a little old-fashioned. However, a broader awareness is gradually emerging of the serious forms of violence that people experience in such groups."
3. "InfoSekta [specialist unit for cult issues] judges Jehovah's Witnesses as a highly problematic group that tries to manipulate their members down to the level of existential identification. Community guidelines violate the physical, psychological and social integrity of their members."4. "In addition, Article 18 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - a right that the Watchtower Society claims but does not grant to its members."
The court found that whether the following statements were true or not, they were not defamatory.
- "Believers keep dying after traffic accidents or women giving birth."
- "There is hardly a Jehovah's Witness family without excluded family members: parents, siblings, or children with whom no contact is allowed."
- "Young people can hardly develop prospects in the Jehovah's Witness community: Often they cannot learn the profession that suits them because higher education is considered a waste of time...".
- "And they have only limited knowledge about the world, because secular friends are forbidden and they could not have many social experiences..."
It needs to be kept in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland were not on trial, they were the plaintiff. What the court determined was whether what was written about them was both defamatory and either true, or believed to be true by the journalist. While this was a victory for Regina Spiess and InfoSekta, I doubt it will have greater ramifications.
-
Beth Sarim
Here is Kimmy"s latest upload from Kim-Mikey;
"Court confirms: - Severe criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses is Justified"
she touches on it very well.