How many countries are JWs banned in?

dmouse

Looking at some older branch letters in the KMs I noticed this one from April 1977, which makes the claim that it is to be expected that opposition will increase. In 1977 the number of countries that banned JWs stood at 40. According to the latest yearbook, 28 'other lands' (which used to mean lands where reporting was restricted) were at the end of the report. Does this mean that things are, the deeper we get into the 'time of the end', actually getting better?

Branch

Letter

Dear Kingdom Publishers:

In this "time of the end" it is to be expected that opposition to the Kingdom message and its proclaimers will increase. This is in line with Jesus’ prophecy that "people will lay their hands upon you and persecute you," and that "you will be objects of hatred by all people because of my name." All of this, Jesus said, "will turn out to you for a witness."—Luke 21:12-19.

In view of Jesus’ words, it is not surprising that the Christian work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is now restricted in more than forty countries. The list continues to grow. In April 1976 it was Benin. Then, in August, Argentina and the Central African Republic followed this course. On December 23 the Southeast Asian country of Indonesia placed a ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Protestant section of the Office of Religion, supported by the clergy in local areas, have long agitated for this. In January 1977 the Congo announced a ban.

Our brothers in all these countries, like those elsewhere, are very courageous in the face of these actions and continue to do everything possible to witness about the Kingdom. It is good to pray for them. Seeing the enemy forces closing in throughout the earth, all of us can take courage from Jesus’ promise: "As these things start to occur, raise yourselves erect and lift your heads up, because your deliverance is getting near."—Luke 21:28.

As recorded in Matthew chapter ten, Jesus also gave encouraging counsel to those facing opposition. Whether it comes from family or friends, people in the territory or from official sources, we want to show loyalty to Jehovah and his kingdom and continue faithfully in our privilege of representing Him.

Your brothers,

BROOKLYN BRANCH OFFICE

primitivegenius

not nearly enough dude not nearly enough

rocketman

prim, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Actually, I'm not really in favor of bans. But anyway, if the number of countries banning them has decreased, that does go contrary to what they "expect". But, alas, they'd find a way to explain it, saying that God was 'opening up' new opportunities, etc. They are never wrong, you know.

seedy3

What I find interesting is that the "Free" nations like France have considered banning them, or at least not giving them recognition.

Seedy

Mary

Oh man, I guess we're all starting to think the same. As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I thought "not nearly enough." I think Quebec is trying to get some law passed so that the Witnesses can only go out in Service on certain days and times LOL!!! Should be interesting to see what happens there.

You know that new "Do Not Call" list that the USA has, for people who don't want to be bugged by telemarketers? Wouldn't that be a scream if they also made it law where Bethel also had to abide by this Do Not Call list?? ROFLMAO!!

Oh my god, every person in the country would be signed up for it, and there'd be no one left to call on!!! How the hell would they go out in Service then?!!!

ashitaka

not nearly enough dude not nearly enough

LOL.

You know that new "Do Not Call" list that the USA has, for people who don't want to be bugged by telemarketers? Wouldn't that be a scream if they also made it law where Bethel also had to abide by this Do Not Call list?? ROFLMAO!!

I had actually thought of that, too. I think it's do-able, the only thing is, it would probably go to the supreme court if there was any sort of organized do-not-call list. Would be nice, though.

ash

garybuss

I'm not for banning them. I am for not giving them tax free status because they do not allow their members basic freedoms allowed under the constitutions of the countries of the Western world. If the Jehovah's Witnesses were a country, they would be viewed by the United Nations as a fascist third world country not allowing basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom from religion without sanctions. They practice taxation without representation and restrict modern medical treatment for treatable illness and injury. They discriminate on the basis of sex and they labor children without compensation. They have an identifiable double standard and they do not follow their own rules and guidelines. They harbor criminals without disclosure and they offer no programs or treatment to victims of crimes perpetrated by their own leaders.

Their behavior is not respectable and they do not merit religious or tax free designation by any country.

Reborn2002

I see everyone was thinking the exact same thing when they opened this thread.

I was going to type "not nearly enough" also.

Granted, if more countries banned them it would only feed the Witness belief that it is Satan's world and everyone is against them. However they fail to realize people want them banned because they are a dangerous, destructive cult.

It WOULD be nice to be eternally rid of them though. I personally HATE Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and the fact that they come knocking on my door to proclaim their message of lies.

Simon

No, bans often play into the hands of groups like these and they use it to convince people that they are the true religion because they are being persecuted.

Religion is like SPAM email - the best way to tackle it is not head-on but by making it economically unviable to continue due to taxation (just making them pay what they should) and making them pay their way in terms of employment, liability and legal accountability for wrong-doings.

Scully

Hi Mary:

You must be thinking of the town of Blainville, a suburb north of Montreal. They had a by-law restricting door-to-door canvassing (not just religious calls) that required people who wanted to engage in the practice to obtain a permit ($100) to do so. In addition, the permit only allowed for people to go door-to-door for two months out of every year. The WTS took the city to court after 14 JWs were arrested for defying the by-law, citing restrictions of individual JWs' constitutionally protected freedom of worship and freedom of speech. The JWs won, and the city is appealing the decision.

What irks me about this case is not the freedom of religion issue or the freedom of speech issue. I have no quarrel there. However, it has been reported that one of the Bethel "heavies" in Canada described how - in front of an audience at a Special Assembly Day - the Society assigned several JWs to go into Blainville and defy the by-law, with in-your-face kind of behaviour to bait the police into arresting these people. For them to now insist on collecting damages to the tune of $50,000 in total, when the Organization orchestrated the whole scenario is, in my opinion, disturbing and dishonest.

Add to that the Organization's policy of allowing known (either confessed or convicted) paedophiles to engage in the door-to-door work, and you have a huge public safety nightmare. I don't care that the WTS claims that these individuals are always accompanied when they are out preaching. The fact is, most of the time, the people accompanying the paedophiles have NO CLUE about the person's tendencies or history, because the WTS and the elders are hell-bent on protecting the privacy of these people. That being said, I still don't want a child molester at my door, even if they are accompanied, the same as I wouldn't want the likes of Paul Bernardo or Karla Holmolka at my door, even if they had 15 armed guards with them.

I agree with you that a Do-Not-Call registry would have the WTS experiencing a huge cramp in their style. All it would take is one JW to have a complaint made against them for trespassing and harassment by someone who explicitly stated that they did not want JWs to call on them. Do you think the WTS would defend that JW in court?? What about the local congregation? What I think will happen is that the JW who - even inadvertently - calls on someone who is a Do Not Call, will be hung out to dry, and it will cost them individually - they will have to hire their own lawyer and pay out the settlements themselves. So you're going to end up with a scenario where you have the WTS defending child molesters in court against accusers (like in the Berry case) and spending HUGE amounts of donated money to do so, but they will drop someone like a hot potato for doing the door-to-door preaching that the WTS demands and expects of every rank and file JW.

The more JWs who realize where their donations are going the better.

Love, Scully

How many countries are JWs banned in?

Share this