"extremism" -- What *specifically* did Russia ban Jehovah's Witnesses for?

by Pallbearer 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Beth Sarim

  ''Such as the fact they are a specifically American cult (like Scientology & Mormonism, also banned) which fleeces Russian citizens of their hard earned cash and sends it back to a(rich) American cult.''

  yes, you see, exactly.
  
  
• 

  smiddy3

  I think the fact JW had noted that the then USSR now Russia was the King of the North in Bible prophecy and was going to be destroyed in the battle of Armageddon would have had something to do with there decision to ban them.

  And that was widely distributed in their magazines throughout Russia and her territories.

  And that it is an American based sect that sends all money collected back to America would be another factor .

  I would also add # 1-5 of your list also having something to do with the ban.

  What positive value does any JW have to any country ? when you include # 6-10 ?
• 

  Phizzy

  I looked up the specific Russian Law they were prosecuted under, and how it defined an Extremist Organisation. The JW Org TICKED EVERY BOX !

  Without looking at it again, I cannot remember exactly what the criteria were, but I do recall the JW's fulfilled all of them. With our specialist knowledge of the JW Org we would say that the Law was being applied to them when in reality it need not be, but if that is felt to be the case by JW Org, not just "we should be exempt from Caesars Law", which will never wash, but if they feel the Law is wrongly applied, they must campaign for the Law to be more tightly written. I am sure the Law was brought in to catch Terrorist Orgs, and under pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church is being applied to JW's, but the ball is in the JW's Court. ( < nice pun !).
• 

  Pallbearer

  Hello "was a new boy"!

  The video of Winston's that you posted (in which you said to "jump to 7:15") had the very information my thread is seeking--namely the specific reasons why Russia considers the JWs to be extremists. However, there's the nagging little problem that right where it mattered the most Winston failed to cite the source of what was being said. (Son-of-a-gun, Sir Winston, is that the best you can do?) It's difficult to tell whether Winston is quoting a newspaper or what, and without that important detail what was being said/quoted carries little weight.

  At any rate, thank you "was a new boy" for your fine effort at addressing the question which this thread poses. It was Winston that dropped the ball, not you.

  Paul