Gerard, this thread had a respectful discussion going on with people who are open to considering the ideas of others......until you came along.
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY 158 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Sunspot
LOVED the ostrich, Gerard! LOL!
It's hard for "them" to get their heads out of the sand AND keep their noses in the air all at the same time, huh?
hugs,
Annie
-
Pistoff
amac wrote:
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
That is complete hogwash. I would like to see proof that the elders actually call the police and tell them anything.
Why on earth would you defend this simpering bunch of criminals?
-
plmkrzy
It's hard for "them"
sunspot just exactly who are you referring to as "them"
I can only speak for myself but with 46 years experience under my belt with about 100+ years of additional experience to reference through parents and grand parents so if you think I am some kind of "outsider" not "in the know" about what?s what you are mistaken honey. I've been there and back and there and back again.
That?s IF you are including me in your short sited response. IF NOT then disregard,... every man for himself. I've learned to try and keep my personal "emotions" out of areas that require better judgment.
-
waiting
This is a great thread - many pros & cons on the freedom of religion, banning, licensing, and perhaps taxation of religious organizations.
Agreeing with AlanF & HS on the issue of licensing religious organizations - why not? Along with that, taxation like any other organization. Bound by laws - which would include the freedom to take that organization to court if the organization worked outside the law.
If the religious organization were found outside the boundary of law, then their license to operate could be suspended until they complied.....and monitary penalities enforced.
Taxation would put those (imho) money-making organizations on an even keel with other organizations, and help the economy too.
Perhaps if these religious organizations were under the same liability of businesses which orientate the mind control of their employees in regard to every aspect of the employee's life (perhaps there are few other orgs that do that?) - then perhaps these religious organizations would be more *employee friendly* - and not so destructive.
It's not so long ago that the thought of women suing for being fondled on the job, raped, etc., was laughable. Not any more. Men also have sought the same protection.
The alternative is that some of these religious organizations hurt people so badly....that some of the survivors are strong enough to sue - causing the religious organizations into bankruptcy....or just more deeply hiding their assets. Speaking of the Hare Krishna group (children physically/sexually molested) and the Canadian Anglican Church specifically.
Sorry if my post isn't coherent -posting while supposed to be working. ugh.
Great thread by all posters! Thanks!
waiting
ps: No, I can't envision killing my sister....but I can envision still be a jw - and NEVER speaking to her again because she chose to leave (JW Agape love). I would have been compelled to....because I had a "trained conscience." And I can envision my sister doing the same to me under reverse situation.
I wouldn't want to do it.....but most likely, I would have. Have to "keep spiritually strong."
-
AlanF
For Amac:
:: 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)
Yes, except that I'm not talking merely about organization backed shunning, but about organization instigated shunning. On their own, JWs would likely not shun their families any more than anyone else would.
: Enforcing their views on blood transfusions;
No, because you've minimized what they do. It's not mere enforcing, in the sense that the Catholic Church weakly enforces its ban on birth control. It's far more serious than that. My wording speaks for itself.
: 3) Their two witness rule for taking judicial action against accused molesters;
Yes, because that rule comes pretty close, as William Bowen says, to creating a de facto pedophile paradise. Not that JWs want this, or specifically set out to create one, but that their organizational blinders along with overriding stubborness (which "is as the sin of witchcraft", as my dad was fond of reminding me) has resulted in a situation where pedophiles have been able to practice their craft with impunity.
A case I first heard about on the radio about 1997 illustrates the problem. Near Longview, Washington, a JW elder was arrested for molesting -- he confessed to this -- some 35 boys over a period of 20 years. I couldn't believe it when I heard it, so I called a police station near Longview and an officer confirmed it. Other sources recently re-confirmed the events. Now, how is it that an elder could have molested 35 boys over 20 years? Only with the cooperation of many JWs in the congregation and of the Watchtower Society itself. Now, it's obvious that most JWs would never voluntarily subject their children to this sort of thing, so the only conclusion left as to why the elder got away with such depravations for so long is that both local elders and the Watchtower Service Department conspired to cover up the elder's behavior. Why would they do this? To protect "Jehovah's name" -- meaning, to prevent the Watchtower organization from adverse publicity. So it's unarguable that the "two witness rule" acts to protect, not molested children, but the Watchtower organization itself. And because the Society takes advantage of various State laws (which I also find abominable) that exempt "clergy" (which the JWs self-admittedly don't have but claim to when it's convenient) from having to report instances of child molestation, they claim to be oh-so-righteous, when common sense tells us that a responsible organization -- such as the Catholic Church has been forced by massive lawsuits to become -- would voluntarily require clergy, or elders or whatever you want to call responsible church leaders, to report instances of molestation irrespective of whether parents decide to do it. And I think we all know of or have read of instances where elders actively discouraged victims from reporting to authorities in states where the law didn't require it.
: 4) and telling lies?
No, I didn't say that. I said: "telling outright lies in their literature and shunning people who point this out." The point goes back to shunning.
: 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.
Perhaps you're right about appropriate laws and legislation, but if they prove ineffective, how would you handle a religion that refused to reform itself and follow the laws?
: 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.
Shunning is extremely harmful, not just psychologically -- the harmfullness of which no one ought to minimize -- but can be in a practical sense. Many JWs who had businesses had lots of JW customers, which were lost when the person was officially shunned. You don't call that physical harm?
: Withholding love and association is hurtful, but is not aggressively harming others.
Sure it is. You think that, say, if a woman quits the JWs because she can't stand their lies anymore, and talks to a couple of friends and is disfellowshipped for apostasy, and her husband divorces her for "absolute endangerment of spirituality", that's not harmful to her? In such a case it was Watchtower's rules that actively broke up the marriage.
: You can't legislate against people NOT being nice, otherwise we'd all be in trouble at some point.
We're not talking about individuals doing this on their own. We're talking about organizations that actively mandate shunning, and enforce it with a further threat of shunning.
: 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.
Not necessarily. Your choice of words implies free choice. A choice that's not free is not a real choice. If I get hold of one of your personal checks, make it out to me, hand it to you along with a pen, point a gun at your head and say, "In ten seconds either your signature or your brains are going to be on that check," have I really given you a 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.
Once again, how would you handle an organization that refused to obey the law and constantly tried to circumvent it?
Another problem with blood transfusions is that the Watchtower fails to fully inform people about the blood issue. They create fear by lying to people about the dangers, and they use obfuscatory language to make it difficult for most JWs even to understand what they're supposed to believe. Should government dictate to a religion what its beliefs should be? Should government mandate "truth in advertising" for religions? I think that a real threat of banning over issues like this would force changes -- all for the protection of people too dumb to think for themselves -- once again, a basic activity of government.
: 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.
Only in those states. My statement was oriented towards JWs in those states where the law doesn't require reporting. Also, JWs have a long history of failing to obey the law even in states or countries where the law requires reporting. The case of Vicki Boer is a good illustration.
The point here is that the Watchtower organization's two standards -- one for reporting states, another for non-reporting states -- along with its demonstrated history of influencing people not to report, shows that its basic concern is for itself, not its members. Only legal threats can force the leaders of such a nasty cult to reform.
: 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.
And if laws are updated and religions refuse to comply?
: 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.
That wasn't one of my points.
: As you can see from my above reasons, I don't see any harm grave enough to warrant a banning of an entire religion.
I'll be interested to read your answers on how one should deal with a group that refuses to conform to legislation.
: Now on to your questions...
:: If I influenced your wife abandon you, would that be harmful to you?
: Truthfully, I would not enjoy it,
Good!
: but I would not be physically or psychologically injured from it.
Nonsense! It appears to me that either you've never been married, or if you were you really had no regard for your wife.
When a person abandons his or her mate, divorce almost always results. Have you ever been divorced? I have. I know the pain and the psychological harm and even the physical harm that results. Do I really have to explain to you exactly what sort of harm is involved here?
: 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.
Of course you would be harmed by my influence. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, you've certainly harmed him. Laws exist that rightly equate any such influence with direct action.
: 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.
The problem I'm addressing is not comparable to adultery. Adultery is an individual act, just as is an individual's self-determined choice to shun someone. I'm certainly not advocating that governments get involved in such things. Your comparison is between apples and oranges.
:: If I influenced your children to shun you, would that be harmful?
: Same answer as above.
Then it's obvious that you have no concept of what love of your children means. A pity.
: Except that an obvious (to me at least) is the banning of any institution that lends itself to peer pressure.
What?
:: 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.)
Apples and oranges again.
:: 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.
Good! There's hope for you.
: If you could PROVE that this was the PURPOSE of the organization, their might be legitimate reason to withold license.
We certainly agree on that.
: 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.
Because of various lawsuits brought against them, they've had to be very careful with their phrasing of their shunning doctrine. But the technicalities of such phraseology are not the point. The point is the intent of the shunning. The Society has made it quite clear that it's a very desirable thing to cut off all association if at all possible. That has often meant that families who lived together broke up. You don't think that's harmful?
: 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.
The point is not about how one goes about proving such a thing. The point is about, having proved it, how we ought to view it.
:: 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.
My example was meant to be an extreme case in order to show the "edges" of the problem we're discussing.
:: 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.
Really. Then I pity your friends and relatives.
: I think the bible is such a convoluted mess so as to have no idea what God likes and doesn't like.
On that we agree. But you're missing the point again. I didn't ask if you agree with the Bible itself, but with the spirit of that passage. I could have simply stated the principle outright.
: 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.
We're not talking about simple disagreements. Good lord, I enjoy learning from simple disagreements as much as anyone! We're talking about the sort of contentions that are designed to break up human relationships.
:: 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.)
Alright.
: Family shunning - 6
I think I'd give it a 6 or 7.
: 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.
I'm not. My point was to see if you'd be willing to draw a line somewhere. And having drawn it, perhaps to explain why you drew it there.
So now let me continue further and ask a couple of more questions based on your ranking.
11) If a religion advocates ritual child molestation and refuses to abandon its beliefs, would you advocate banning it?
10) If a religion advocates murder and refuses to abandon its beliefs, would you advocate banning it?
9) ...
8) ...
7) ...
6) If a religion advocates active shunning and enforces it by punishment, and refuses to abandon its beliefs, would you advocate banning it?
See if you can give examples of things to place in categories 7, 8 and 9. Tell me where you'd draw the line with banning and explain your choice.
: 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.
That's true, but it isn't what I was talking about. However, the Society's attitude is well illustrated by its handling of the convicted molester Daniel Fitzwater. Nothing I'm about to tell you hasn't been said on this board before. Let's just summarize by saying that Fitzwater eventually confessed to Watchtower elders to molesting 17 young girls (he'd been at it for at least 20 years). He was convicted in court of molesting four of them and is now in prison in Nevada. He was never disfellowshipped. Now that he's in prison, the Society is using him to "witness" to other inmates. What does that tell you about Watchtower's attitude toward child molesters?
:: 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.
What about ritual child molestation? What about the categories above?
: (Uh oh, does that mean we have to ban the gov't?)
Probably. Or at least, get rid of certain moronic leaders.
:: 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.
Done.
: But I don't agree with your position, and I don't agree with your reasoning.
As I've pointed out above, there are, um, problems with your thinking. Perhaps you'll address the ones I've pointed out.
:: 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.
True, but we little people have our part to do. I'm not, and I think you're not, in a position to influence world-sized issues much.
: 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.
AlanF
-
amac
That is complete hogwash. I would like to see proof that the elders actually call the police and tell them anything.
Why on earth would you defend this simpering bunch of criminals?
The only proof I can provide is my personal experience, that is what they did in two cases I was personally involved with (on the victim's side of course.)
It has also been attested to by numerous others on this board that current policy is for an elder to call Bethel when approached with an accusation. If the elder is in one of the states that requires them to report, they are then told to report the accusation to the authorities. Perhaps you can do a search on this topic and see the threads for yourself.
Finally, I'm not defending them. We are discussing whether or not it is proper to ban them.
-
Gerard
That is complete hogwash. I would like to see proof that the elders actually call the police and tell them anything.
It is complete hogwash that child abuse has to be filtered through some cult Elder who will decide on whether to contact the police or not. That is not protecting a child! As a parent I'd bypass the bastards.
PS: Yes the cult should be banned. Too much blood and suffering in their hands.
-
waiting
Hello amac,
The only proof I can provide is my personal experience, that is what they did in two cases I was personally involved with (on the victim's side of course.)
That is your personal experience - and valid. However, a friend of mine told me about her experience with two presiding overseers in two congregations within the last 2/3 yrs. Her approx. 13 yr old daughter confided in her that her step father had molested her. She contacted a sister who was a social worker - jw sister told her to call the police. Police & social services responded immediately & took steps to protect the young girl. There was enough evidence to put man in jail.
She then called the PO in her cong. He was furious - didn't even want to know about the situation. Paraphrasing him "I'm tired of hearing all this dirt. I didn't become an elder to know this!" She asked who she could talk to? He told her to call PO in neighboring cong. that used to go to our cong.
She called this brother - who really is quite intelligent. He was furious at her too. Why?
"Sister..............., who have you talked to about this situation?"
The police.
"WHY did you do THAT? NOW we can't handled this matter within the congregation?"
Because it's the law and she's my daughter.
"I can't be of any help to you now."
This sister and her daughter were left with NO cong. support through the situation which lasted several years. The stepfather pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and served jail time. After 1.5 yr in jail, he was df'd. During all the previous time.....he had regular visits from the brothers in the congregations. He was a "well-liked" brother. No elder or brother ever visited this sister or her molested daughter.
This is one of a half dozen personal experiences I know of personally. My two elders cancels out your two experiences, but not the validity of the experiences.
But that's the problem - they're personal experiences.....not definitive proof of what the WTBTS actually enforces as their policy.
I've enjoyed reading your posts on this thread - thanks for the counterpoints.
waiting
-
amac
For AlanF,
For starters, I think you are very intelligent, much more than myself, and that you are very quick at thinking things through and presenting a coherent argument....HOWEVER, I do not appreciate the snide remarks and condescension, such as:
if you were you really had no regard for your wife.
Then it's obvious that you have no concept of what love of your children means. A pity.
Good! There's hope for you.
Really. Then I pity your friends and relatives.
Remarks like this make it hard for the recipient to reason without focusing on these remarks and wanting to strike back, verbally or physically. I have been married for over 10 years and DO have children, so I can't help but take these comments personally. If you knew how much my life revolves around my wife and children and even my friends, and used that as fuel for judgement rather than a few post on a DB, perhaps you wouldn't make those remarks. Well, enough about me...
Yes, except that I'm not talking merely about organization backed shunning, but about organization instigated shunning. On their own, JWs would likely not shun their families any more than anyone else would.
Yes, instigated would be a better description than backed, I agree.
No, because you've minimized what they do. It's not mere enforcing, in the sense that the Catholic Church weakly enforces its ban on birth control. It's far more serious than that. My wording speaks for itself.
I was simply trying to make a more concise explanation of your point for the sake of reply. But I stand by this one. They enforce their blood transfusion policy. They impose it as a compulsory action, they force it. The Catholic Church does not enforce their ban on birth control, otherwise a lot more Catholics would be getting the boot.
Now, how is it that an elder could have molested 35 boys over 20 years? Only with the cooperation of many JWs in the congregation and of the Watchtower Society itself. Now, it's obvious that most JWs would never voluntarily subject their children to this sort of thing, so the only conclusion left as to why the elder got away with such depravations for so long is that both local elders and the Watchtower Service Department conspired to cover up the elder's behavior.
Now I think we are both going off on a tangent here because I think we are in agreement on how abominable it is that the WT hides behind state laws to protect the "name of Jehovah." However, I must say that I think you are making a huge assumption in the first quote. There are many reasons why victims of child molestation never come forward or come forward at a much later date. So this molesters success rate does not imply the cooperation of anyone. There are many non-JW child molesters that have victimized even more than this, but it certainly does not imply any blame on the parents or associates.
Back to the point at hand, I agree that the government desperately needs to take control of this as the WT is too screwy in the head to think of others before their reputation. And to jump ahead to one of your later points YES, if the WT continued to find ways to avoid revealing child molesters, despite the law requiring them to do so, then YES I would be in agreement that they should be banned. We both know that would more than likely never happen as they would more than likely comply rather than be banned.
Perhaps you're right about appropriate laws and legislation, but if they prove ineffective, how would you handle a religion that refused to reform itself and follow the laws?
I think the first step is, of course, creating the proper legislation. If they still do not fully comply or find ways to circumvent these, then a clear plan of reform should be presented to them. If still no compliance, then I would be in agreement in banning. Or better yet, back to HS suggestions of licensing and fines.
Shunning is extremely harmful, not just psychologically -- the harmfullness of which no one ought to minimize -- but can be in a practical sense. Many JWs who had businesses had lots of JW customers, which were lost when the person was officially shunned. You don't call that physical harm?
Than rather than banning, I would prefer that the WT be held as liable as any business would be. Waiting made this point by saying "Perhaps if these religious organizations were under the same liability of businesses which orientate the mind control of their employees in regard to every aspect of the employee's life (perhaps there are few other orgs that do that?) - then perhaps these religious organizations would be more *employee friendly* - and not so destructive. "
In such a case it was Watchtower's rules that actively broke up the marriage.
I agree on this to some extent. It is still up to the individual to decide whether or not their mate is absolute endangerment of spirituality. My last PO was married to a non-JW who was actively opposed, and he was on old guy, had been married a long time. So I wouldn't say the WT has "rules" as much as they have influences and suggestions that could result in the break up of relationships.
However, if the government is that concerned about saving marriages, it seems to me that there are many other avenues that could be pursued for the sake of the sanctity of marriage rather than banning JWs. It would seem to me to simply be a veil for getting rid of people they don't agree with.
: You can't legislate against people NOT being nice, otherwise we'd all be in trouble at some point.
We're not talking about individuals doing this on their own. We're talking about organizations that actively mandate shunning, and enforce it with a further threat of shunning.
That doesn't change my point. You think we should ban an organization because they tell people NOT TO TALK to certain people?
: 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.
Not necessarily. Your choice of words implies free choice. A choice that's not free is not a real choice.
It is a free choice. People make the choice to become or stay a JW. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't have been able to make the free choice that I did to not follow the WT anymore and to go ahead and TAKE a blood transfusion if needed. It required no action on my part besides making that resolution or choice in my head. That's free choice.
Another problem with blood transfusions is that the Watchtower fails to fully inform people about the blood issue. They create fear by lying to people about the dangers, and they use obfuscatory language to make it difficult for most JWs even to understand what they're supposed to believe. Should government dictate to a religion what its beliefs should be? Should government mandate "truth in advertising" for religions? I think that a real threat of banning over issues like this would force changes -- all for the protection of people too dumb to think for themselves -- once again, a basic activity of government.
I'd agree with this and it would nice to see the gov't this involved with ALL organizations, but it will never happen, they don't care that much! However rather than banning, if this did happen, they should be given the opportunity to comply. In Russia, they just got a straight up NO!
:: 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.
Really. Then I pity your friends and relatives.
: I think the bible is such a convoluted mess so as to have no idea what God likes and doesn't like.
On that we agree. But you're missing the point again. I didn't ask if you agree with the Bible itself, but with the spirit of that passage. I could have simply stated the principle outright.
: 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.
We're not talking about simple disagreements. Good lord, I enjoy learning from simple disagreements as much as anyone! We're talking about the sort of contentions that are designed to break up human relationships.
How do you get the "sort of contentions that are designed to break up human relationships" from "God hates anyone sending forth contentions among brothers?" Is their some deeper meaning to the Greek word translated as "contentions" that denotes breaking up human relationships? Or perhaps there is further context around that scripture that denotes it as being part of that principle? If not, then I stand by my statement and you have no need to pity my relatives or friends, because my dictionary says that "contentions" means 1) The act or an instance of striving in controversy or debate; 2) A striving to win in competition; rivalry; or 3) An assertion put forward in argument. I don't hate anyone putting forth those among brothers.
I'm not. My point was to see if you'd be willing to draw a line somewhere. And having drawn it, perhaps to explain why you drew it there.
I understand this as probably being your main overall point. Where do I draw the line? At an organization promoting any physical harm to others...it's probably easiest explained if I complete your exercise...
10) If a religion advocates murder and refuses to abandon its beliefs, would you advocate banning it?
9) If a religion advocates the maiming of non-believers and refuses...
8) If a religion advocates punching non-believers in the nose and refuses...
7) If a religion advocates spitting on non-believers and refuses...
6) If a religion advocates active shunning and enforces it by punishment, and refuses to abandon its beliefs, would you advocate banning it?
Anything above 6 I would advocate for forced reform and if refused, then banning.
Now that he's in prison, the Society is using him to "witness" to other inmates. What does that tell you about Watchtower's attitude toward child molesters?
That tells me that they are under the impression that they can be repentful and reformed. I don't agree with it, but it is their right to believe that.
Probably. Or at least, get rid of certain moronic leaders.
We're on the same page there!
As I've pointed out above, there are, um, problems with your thinking. Perhaps you'll address the ones I've pointed out.
Um, here's a, um, life lesson for you, um, just because people think, um, differently than you, um, does not mean there is a, um, problem with their thinking, um.
Thank you for the discussion, have a good day!