JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04

by 4JWY 158 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Sunspot

  **Wait till they gore your ox, buddy. Then you'll know.

  AMEN, AlanF, AMEN!

  When it becomes "personal", THEN they "get it".

  Annie
• 

  sf

  4Forums.com - Evolutionism v Creationism.
  ... Quote: Originally Posted by XQsThaiPoes Not really the ball park is too wide. ... Quote:
  Originally Posted by XQsThaiPoes Not really the ball park is too wide. ...
  www.4forums.com/ political/showthread.php?t=1851&page=4 - 64k - Cached - Similar pages

  4Forums.com - Atheism vs. Creationism
  ... Quote: Originally Posted by XQsThaiPoes You follow atheism because you don't understand
  theism. ... XQsThaiPoes. Registered User. Join Date: Dec 2003. Posts: 442. ...
  www.4forums.com/ political/showthread.php?t=1835&page=2 - 95k - Cached - Similar pages
  [ More results from www.4forums.com ]
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  After reading parts of this thread I find it interesting the Watchtower apologists are coming out of the woodwork to post on a "JWs-are-banned" thread, angrily. They get angry over what they fear most. The end of their faith. Doesn't matter what we think of it here, it's for the courts to decide, and decide they will, one way or another, eventually. What I believe is eventually the truth about JWs, Christianity, whatever -- the truth will come out. What people will be left with then is a strange bit of history.
• 

  amac

  AlanF said:

  Disfellowshipping and the associated shunning; demanding that molested children have two eyewitnesses (an impossible standard) or a confession from the molester before they'll do anything to protect the child; demanding that followers die to follow the Watchtower Society's insane and unscriptural ban on blood transfusions; demanding that cult members shun family members and friends who leave the cult and speak about their reasons for leaving; telling outright lies in their literature and shunning people who point this out. Those are the big ones.

  Above you mentioned shunning three times, so to be a little more concise, would you agree that the harms they commit that you consider dangerous enough to consider banning for are 1) Organization backed shunning; 2) Enforcing their views on blood transfusions; 3) Their two witness rule for taking judicial action against accused molesters; 4) and telling lies?

  First I'd like to pursue my initial line of thought before answering yours. To start, I'd like to emphasize that I too fully disagree with the WT DFing, blood, teaching and child molester reporting policies, but I do not think they warrant anything more than appropriate laws and legislation, and certainly not banning of an entire organization and way of life for 6 million people or for however many JWs are in the country considering banning.

  1) Shunning - Is this harmful to others? No doubt in that it can be psychologically hurtful, but I do not see it as warranting banning. Withholding love and association is hurtful, but is not aggressively harming others. You can't legislate against people NOT being nice, otherwise we'd all be in trouble at some point.

  2) Blood transfusions - If it is a person's conscience choice to join and remain in a group that demands they withhold a certain medical treatment for themselves based on a silly superstition, it is still their choice. Although that group may use emotional blackmail to keep their members in check, they still have the choice. For those born into it and too young to decide for themselves, than I think the government has the right to step in and create laws that require them to be a certain age before refusing a certain medical treatment. But I see no need to ban the entire organization over something that could be legislated much easier.

  3) The two witness rule - you stated "demanding that molested children have two eyewitnesses (an impossible standard) or a confession from the molester before they'll do anything to protect the child." This is not technically accurate. In states that require it (I believe there are only 13) the elders are told by the organization to contact the authorities with an accusation of just one witness of child molestation. This is in effect, protecting the child. The other states still require two (now seperate witnesses are acceptable) witnesses in order to report to the authority. Again, this could be resolved by updating the laws in those states (which should be done for the sake of all religions and organizations, not just the JWs.) Not a reason for banning.

  4) Lies - What public organization DOESN'T lie. Not that it is OK, but if we are to start banning based on this, we better start the line now.

  As you can see from my above reasons, I don't see any harm grave enough to warrant a banning of an entire religion.

  Now on to your questions...

  If I influenced your wife abandon you, would that be harmful to you?

  Truthfully, I would not enjoy it, but I would not be physically or psychologically injured from it. But IF I was (and I'm sure some people WOULD be psychologically damaged), I would be harmed by my wife's choice to abandon me, not directly by your influence. And if this is a basis for your reasoning on the banning of JW's then an even more obvious extension of this would be the outlawing of adultery. I'm sure that's not your intent.

  If I influenced your children to shun you, would that be harmful?

  Same answer as above. Except that an obvious (to me at least) is the banning of any institution that lends itself to peer pressure.

  If I formed an organization whose purpose was to do the above things, should I be held legally liable in some fashion?

  No. Just as I wouldn't expect to hold the man who steals my wife through adultery legally liable. (Maybe people actually do this, I'm not sure, but if they do, I think it silly.)

  If I formed an organization whose purpose was to do the above things to a large number of people, should the government support it by licensing it?

  I had the hardest time with this question. If you could PROVE that this was the PURPOSE of the organization, their might be legitimate reason to withold license. But even in DFing the WT is careful not insinuate that people should be "abandoned" but that association outside of "family business" is not approved. I think you would have a hard time proving that the purpose of this organization is to have people abandon their families, especially when they spend so much of their literature talking about keeping families together.

  If I formed an organization for some good purpose but it gradually deteriorated into one characterized by the above odious practices, should it be banned?

  Again, only if that became the purpose of the organization, which I don't think it is, and even if someone believes so, would have a hard time proving.

  Do you agree with the spirit of the following scriptural passage? "God hates anyone sending forth contentions among brothers." (Proverbs 6:19)

  No I don't. I think the bible is such a convoluted mess so as to have no idea what God likes and doesn't like. So I can only go on the reasoning I believe he gave me, which ENJOYS contentions among brothers and feel that entertaining thoughts I disagree with is the best way to learn.

  On a scale of one to ten, with one being deliberately spilling coffee on a friend's shirt and ten being murder, where would you place ritual child molestation and deliberately causing a person's family to shun him?

  Ritual child molestation - 11 (there are some things deeper than death and murder.)

  Family shunning - 6

  I'm not sure how these are related. I'm also not sure if you are using "ritual child molestation" in reference to your disagreement with their molestation reporting policy. If so, I believe it to be inaccurate as child molestation is NOT a religous or ceremonial act amongst JW's as endorced by the WT. Their inability to effectively handle accusations is no where near to performing or endorcing the performance of ritual child molestation.

  Given the places you assigned these things, where would you draw the line on banning a religion?

  When an organization teaches people to go out and harm and kill others, that's when you ban. (Uh oh, does that mean we have to ban the gov't?)

  If you can answer the above questions with solid reasoning, then I think you'll understand my position.

  I think I understand your position, and if I don't feel free to correct me. But I don't agree with your position, and I don't agree with your reasoning.

  Note that I've agreed with Hillary_Step that perhaps government licensing of religions may be a better way to control harmful religious practices (as defined by whether they violate the law or norms of society) than outright banning

  I also would not be opposed to the government taking an active role in demanding safe doctrines. And I think HS post was a definite middle ground that could satisfy many people with concerns about this. However, I personally feel that there are a great many more important things that I would rather the government work on first.

  It's too bad we don't rule the world, we could have had this Russian problem solved with a few posts and then referring back to HS, Mr. Diplomatic himself.
• 

  plmkrzy

  hi H_S,

  I think I completely understand where AF was attempting to go with his comments and what I responded with still stands firm.

  educate yourself and do some research pat

  This is the ONLY way for anything positive to come about with regard to any and all JW issues and

  Someone said in response to this thread in another analogy, "Hate is Hate" no matter how you look at it,

  but I don't think this poster realized what he/she was actually saying because if he/she did then he/she would also realize this is applies to us all and not only JWs.

  "Hate is Hate"

  Think about it.

  Every time AF responds to anyone who is trying to be reasonable and or without bias it is with a undertone of "hate" and a closed mind brought on by his personal views and his personal opinion. Wouldn't it be better to communicate with people with out that getting in the way?

  From my own experience I can say more people will listen closer to a reasonable remark before a remark that sounds off the wall and shot from the mouth of an extremist.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Stolen from another thread

  In Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query xvii, "Religion", he states:

  "The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed (sic) equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren... The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reining sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibted the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets... The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century."

  WHY?

  Some may see the point but no doubt others will ignore

  it's for the courts to decide, and decide they will, one way or another, eventually.
• 

  amac

  XQsThaiPoes made a good analogy with alcohol on another thread.

  AlanF - Alcohol and cigarrettes are much more damaging than JWs. Do you think those should be banned? If not, why?
• 

  Gerard

  the elders are told by the organization to contact the authorities with an accusation of just one witness of child molestation. This is in effect, protecting the child. >> amac

  When the molester decided to "perform" without an audience of one witness (as usually happens), has your beloved cult protected the child?
• 

  amac

  AlanF -

  Just curious if you have any comments on my reply?

  Gerard -

  When the molester decided to "perform" without an audience of one witness (as usually happens), has your beloved cult protected the child?

  The one witness is the victim, not a bystander. In other words, in states that have laws requiring it, if someone goes to the elders with an accusation of child molestation, they report it to the police.

  Gerard, please take any sensationalism back to your "THE WT AIRPLANE CONSPIRACY" thread...the WT is not my "beloved cult."
• 

  Gerard

  The light is getting brighter! >> amac