Apologists saying that the JWs shouldn't be banned, what the hell!??

by Crazyguy 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Drearyweather

  bibleexaminer, regarding your comment:

  I'll tell you who the hell gives the religion it's authority. THE GOVERMENT

  Some points what I feel:

  1. Religions have predated all existing governments. In fact, many governments are formed and have imbibed religious tenets in them. Come to India and see how religion plays a part in government policies. Has any government authorized or changed any doctrine from the religious text of their local religions?

  2. Government is Government, not God. They are selected to their positions by the citizens of the country. And the citizens have a right to throw out a government if they feel that their rights are trampled on rather than being protected. See what happened in Libya, Tunisia, etc. Would you want the ISIS rule over you?

  3. Citizens give AUTHORITY to the Government through mandate. A person who pays taxes has the complete right to enjoy his basic civil liberties. If the government feels that it can ban a religion and criminalize its adherents just for meeting or praying together, then that's not governance, that's dictatorship. If a government feels that a religion is harmful, then educate the masses by providing conclusive proofs and evidences.

  Watchtower uses its granted authority to persecute fellow believers.This is an abuse of the authority granted. It needs to be removed.
  

  Banning religions does not take away any authority. JW's in China, Kuwait, Saudi, Yemen, etc still disfellowship and shun ex-jw's and DA'ed individuals. Banning JW's in Russia won't change their basic doctrines. They won't meet or preach the way they did earlier. But underground, everything else would continue the same, including shunning and blood transfusions. Do you know any period when Jw's gave up their shunning practice or changed their blood doctrine during bans?

  'm willing to wait and see Blues. But I have a hard time believing a ban will have the same effect today.

  Today's dubs...

  Don't want to work, lazy bunch.

  Don't want to suffer.

  Skip houses in FS.

  May be your local congregation. JW's have a core bunch of Rutherford type dubs who can keep the organization going even under such bans. It doesn't take long to ignite the persecution complex in the JW's.
• 

  biblexaminer

  Dreary.

  So I understand you to support watchtower trampling my right to practice my religion and exercise free speech....

  "Banning religions does not take away any authority. "
  

  Ah, hell yes it does. If they are banned then they can't cause me to be shunned. And if I sue their sorry backside for defamation then the judge isn't going to site religious privilege to avoid getting involved.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Dreary: Do you know any period when Jw's...changed their blood doctrine during bans?

  No. They didn't have to "change the blood doctrine" because it wasn't there when they got banned.

  The blood doctrine (concerning blood transfusions) was developed, in and around 1945, after the ban. Many of those that were banned never adopted it to begin with *see above post about the Theocracy Publishers*

  It is the WTS that has been concerned with getting those banned JWs to change the blood doctrine, not the other way around. Any changes that happened during the banned years concerning the blood doctrine came from the WTS, not from the banned JWs
• 

  Drearyweather

  So I understand you to support watchtower trampling my right to practice my religion and exercise free speech....

  No. I'm not supporting the Watchtower. In my post I clearly mentioned that Government should adopt other ways to punish the WT, but not banning and criminalizing rank and file. If you are disfellowshipped, is that added in your public records? When you go for interviews, does your employer verify your religious status by contacting your local congregation? Many of us move ahead in life after getting disfellowhipped and try to forget the past. But thats not the case with a criminal record. If the ban goes through in Russia, individual JW's risk getting criminal records which goes with them wherever they go. This is wrong and is more dangerous than the Watchtower shunning.

  Ah, hell yes it does. If they are banned then they can't cause me to be shunned. And if I sue their sorry backside for defamation then the judge isn't going to site religious privilege to avoid getting involved.

  so do you mean that if Russia bans JW's, the witnesses will start socializing with disfellowshipped and disassociated ones? Will they change their policies? i and my family have spent considerable time in a country where JW's are banned/restricted , and yes, nothings different with regards to policies and doctrines.
• 

  Drearyweather

  OrphanCrow

  No. They didn't have to "change the blood doctrine" because it wasn't there when they got banned.

  The blood doctrine (concerning blood transfusions) was developed, in and around 1945,

  What about the witnesses in restricted countries now (30 or so lands where they are outlawed). May be like Eritrea? Have JW's abandoned their blood doctrine there?

  the point that I was trying to make is, JW's won't change their policies if they are banned. They will go underground and control their members, the way they did during the WW2 days.
• 

  biblexaminer

  Dreary. You say Watchtower will not change its way because of a ban. You are not correct.

  Just the threat of such things made them join/associate with the UN.

  In this particular court case, they are seeking to be declared a "victim of political repression".

  Wowser!! You cannot be "politically neutral" AND suffer "political repression" at the same time.

  You must first be viewed as having a "political position" or "party" before you can be designated as suffering "political repression".

  No changes huh?
• 

  redvip2000

  The reality of it all, is the fact that Russia banning the JWs should be met with joy and celebration from JWs.

  After all, the idea is that the world governments are going to ban religion, including the Watchtower. This is Jellohoba's will. So why are they complaining??

  They should be dancing on the streets, sending letters of appreciation to Putin for precipitating Jellohoba's will, and getting them closer to the big A.

  Instead, a strange aspect of cognitive dissonance sets in, and they have a knee jerk reaction to governments pushing back against them.
• 

  Village Idiot

  I think we should keep in mind the motivations of the Russian government behind this ban.

  They have banned private prayer groups - "house churches" - and have even criminalized e-mails that evangelize. They have bulldozed churches to the ground. All this is done for the official state religion of the Russian Orthodox Church who fears losing membership to protestants.

  By supporting their treatment of JWs you support the rest of their actions which is basically religious persecution of anyone not accepted by the government.
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  dreary: What about the witnesses in restricted countries now (30 or so lands where they are outlawed). May be like Eritrea? Have JW's abandoned their blood doctrine there?

  I don't know. You tell me. Have there been any reports of JWs refusing medical treatment in Ertrea? Does walking into hospitals and refusing blood transfusions make JWs in banned countries vulnerable to arrest?
• 

  scratchme1010

  It's been brought to my attention that there are xjw that say they support the witnesses and don't think Russia should ban them. I would just like to remind all of you that JWs are guilty of murder, causing higher rates of suicide, covering up child molestation, and keeping members in prisoned because if they leave they loose family, financial support, possible employment etc.

  Sure their not strapping bombs to their chests but they easily get members to kill themselves with their blood policies. They are an extremist group!!

  First, no, they are not an extremist group, trust me, I know very well what I am talking about. If you don't want to take my word for it, please look at reliable sources of information on extremist groups. In no way am I defending the WT, nor saying that they are harmful. They are very harmful, but they are not extremist.

  Second, they do have the right to exist are a religious organization. They are a legitimate religious organization, and they make sure that when/if they violate the law, they are well protected. Personally what I advocate for is for them being held accountable for their illegal practices and coverups, and of course, to stop such practices, but for as much as I don't want them to exist as a religious organization, I cannot legally do that. Doing that is giving others the rights to remove me from existing as a non-believer.

  Immoral and illegal are not the same thing. Ask any rude subway rider in New York.