Amac, I realize you may receive your intellectual stimulation here since you were never were allowed to think with a "worldly wisdom" and all. Some people just use more words than others. Let it be.
Gerard
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY 158 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlanF
For Amac:
: 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....
Then why are you arguing with me?
: 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.
Verbally is no problem, but physically ... well, you'll have to find me first.
Seriously, my remarks have not been especially pointed at you, since I don't know you from a hole in the wall. They're meant generally for people who, like your remarks seem to indicate about you, have little or no appreciation for the value of human relationships. While I'm sure you're offended at that statement, consider the fact that my remarks that you quoted above, prefaced by your comments that provoked them, would be appreciated by 99% of people, and without a lot of explanation. In the past dozen years I've talked to many, many people who've had little exposure to JWs about the way JWs shun people and have little regard for their families when organizational interests get in the way. They're uniformly horrified that anyone, for any reason, could so easily abandon father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter. So when you say that it wouldn't bother you much if your wife abandoned you or your children shunned you, and worse, that you've fooled yourself into thinking that you wouldn't suffer any harm if they did, what do you think most people would conclude about you? Would it be along the lines I've described? Or would they think you're a fine family man?
: I have been married for over 10 years and DO have children, so I can't help but take these comments personally.
Good! I hope you take my above remarks to heart. I can only wonder what your wife or children would say if they read your comments about how little you care for them -- despite what you say here. Do you really think that your wife (assuming she's normal) wouldn't be immensely bothered to hear you say that you wouldn't be "psychologically injured" if she abandoned you? I know what my wife would think. How about your kids, if they heard you say you wouldn't be "psychologically injured" if they began to shun you? Do you really think they wouldn't be hurt? I'll even propose a test: You arrange that you, your wife, your kids and I get on a telephone conference call, and I'll read your comments to them. You can't tell them in advance about the questions, though, since that would be cheating. The point is for you and me to see their reaction cold.
: 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.
I have no reason to doubt that that's true apart from your remarks in this thread.
:: 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.
So you agree that there's a difference bettween passive assent, and active instigation. That point is crucial to my entire argument as to why the JWs need to be severely censured, if not banned outright.
:: 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.
Fine. As long as you understand that there are levels of enforcing, varying from extremely weak to extremely strong, we agree. In any case, I feel that your wording tends to play down the severity of the problem, whereas mine tells it like it is.
:: 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."
We certainly agree on the latter, but I don't think it's off on a tangent -- it's central to this discussion.
: 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.
The fact that 35 boys were molested by one man in a 20 year period shows that my assumption is correct. The odds that a molester in one JW congregation could remain undiscovered (obviously, except to his victims) is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. If you disagree, then by all means call your local Child Protection Services or whatever they call it, and run this example by them. Then you'll see that I'm really not assuming anything, statistically speaking. Unless you call percentages like 99.999999% "mere statistics".
: 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.
Which is precisely why Watchtower leaders, along with a few other screwy religious leaders, needs to have a threat of banning hanging over their heads in order to force them to do what's right! On their own, they'll simply continue to do what they've always done, to the harm of children.
: 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.
Good! We're in full agreement!
: We both know that would more than likely never happen as they would more than likely comply rather than be banned.
Probably true. But remember that Watchtower monitors these boards, and has since Rutherford's death bowed in the direction that the wind is blowing. My aim here is to produce some wind. As soon as enough pressure, through the media, politics or court action, is applied they'll go along because if they don't, the Brooklyn properties will be forfeit, just as the Anglican Church in Canada was bankrupted by lawsuits stemming from their toleration of molestation.
:: 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.
Then you and I have no real disagreement about 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?
: Than rather than banning,
So now you admit that shunning can produce physical as well as psychological harm. Good!
: 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. "
I fully agree with Waiting's sentiments.
:: 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.
That's technically but not necessarily practically true. You know as well as I do that few JWs act in such matters on their own, but get a great deal of advice from elders, and of course from reading Watchtower publications. In my own case, when I found that the Watchtower Society was a dishonest organization, I leaked a little bit of what I found to my wife (we had been married since 1975) over a period of some years. She talked to elders during this time, and ultimately, with their help, decided that I was an apostate and not worth viewing as a husband. That led, in a few more years, to a divorce. I know for a fact that all this is true because of certain revealing statements that she and elders made, and due to the fact that I found a bookmark left by her at the Watchtower article that set forth the doctrine of "absolute endangerment of spirituality" in 1988 or so. The point here is that when an individual cult member is strongly influenced by cult leaders to act in a bad way, whether those leaders are local elders or the cult leaders themselves (i.e., the Governing Body), the boundary between individual and corporate decision-making becomes blurred. But as people who were thoroughly indoctrinated in the JW cult at one time, we know very well that our 'individual' decisions always conformed to what the GB said. When we got to the point that they didn't, we were no longer members of the cult.
: 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.
You're absolutely right. But if the "rules" didn't exist, a great deal of heartache would not have come about. In particular, I would still be married to the wife of my youth, if that means anything. But for the record, I'm perfectly happy with my second wife, whom I wish I had met when we were young.
: 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.
My point has nothing to do with "the sanctity of marriage." It has to do with what people normally want. People normally want their families to love them. You can take it from there.
::: 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?
YES! There are many examples in court records where this very thing has been condemned. The notion of "alienation of affection" comes to mind. Do you think that JWs don't actively practice alienation of affection? Or do you think that that's a perfectly fine thing for organizations to instill in their members?
::: 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.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You ignored my example of someone being threatened with death if he didn't sign a check. Anyone who is threatened into making a 'choice' has certainly made a choice, but not freely. My point about this is with respect to those raised as JWs and those who converted later in life but gradually realized that they were snookered.
It seems that you, along with a great many people, including some prominent sociologists of religion, don't know the difference between free and coerced 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.
Once again you're making the classic mistake of the cult apologist: "everyone is free to choose." That's a gross oversimplification of reality. In some cases people make free decisions. In other cases they're unduly coerced by any number of forces, such as threat of shunning.
You're confusing physical confinement and physical forcing with psychological forcing, and minimizing how strong psychological forcing is. Much of the time it's stronger than any kind of physical forcing.
When I was a young man, living in the New York area as a young JW, my physical and psychological well being were intimately tied to being a JW. I did what I was told and I did it gladly. But various things happened that indicated to me that all was not well in JW-land. I tried to quit the JWs but my parents, who I lived with because I had focused my energies for awhile on pioneering, decided, on the basis of various Watchtower articles, that if I went off on my own, they'd kick me out of the house and have nothing more to do with me. Certain elders also encouraged this view because it made me tractable -- able to fool myself into believing things I knew not to be true. But what does a 19-year-old know anyway?
:: 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!
Unfortunately, I agee. But you and I are talking about what ought to be, not necessarily what we think is possible.
: 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!
No, they had plenty of time to change their tune. Many other religions have gotten approval.
:::: 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?"
You can't be serious! The passage's context makes it crystal clear what it's talking about:
"There six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord [sends forth contentions] among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19; NLT)
: Is their some deeper meaning to the Greek word translated as "contentions" that denotes breaking up human relationships?
It's Hebrew, but I think that the full passage, along with a little thought, should answer your question. But if you really need me to hold your hand and explain this, I'll do it.
: 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.
"Sowing discord" is the watchword here. Not mere simple disagreements that are a part of everyday human relationships, but the kind of discord that the Bible writer classed along with killing the innocent and lying about others.
:: 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...
Thank you.
: 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.
You've pretty much proved my point about your not having a clue about human relationships. You class spitting on someone as worse than deliberately breaking up a family. Yes, I really do pity your family.
:: 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.
Well you're wrong. The fact is that the guy threatened the Society with a lawsuit if they disfellowshipped him for molesting those girls because they didn't have the required two eyewitnesses to each act of molestation. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious to anyone who knows the various Watchtower leaders controlling this -- in particular, GB member Theodore Jaracz -- that they simply don't care about molested children. Their history proves it, since they only recently instituted even the rule that elders should report molestation cases in states where it's required -- after the adverse publicity generated by Silentlambs. They're much more interested in getting converts -- getting the numbers up -- by any means. It's that uncaring attitude that makes them so dangerous. So the Society was happy to go along with that scumbag and let him remain in good standing with the Watchtower organization.
:: 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.
Your, um, thinking problem is not the mere fact that, um, you and I think differently on this issue. Your problem is that you're wrong about the value of human relationships, because your words indicate that you don't have enough regard for your family to care whether they stick with you or not. That's a peculiarly JWish problem.
AlanF
-
amac
Then why are you arguing with me?
Because your ego precedes you. Being smart does not make you right. Also, a simple apology for your offensive post would have done nicely, but you prefer to rest on your viewpoint rather than apologize. So...your ego precedes you.
Seriously, my remarks have not been especially pointed at you, since I don't know you from a hole in the wall.
I beg your pardon, but they were pointed directly at me, and continue to be, even in the closing of your last post.
They're meant generally for people who, like your remarks seem to indicate about you, have little or no appreciation for the value of human relationships. While I'm sure you're offended at that statement, consider the fact that my remarks that you quoted above, prefaced by your comments that provoked them, would be appreciated by 99% of people, and without a lot of explanation. In the past dozen years I've talked to many, many people who've had little exposure to JWs about the way JWs shun people and have little regard for their families when organizational interests get in the way. They're uniformly horrified that anyone, for any reason, could so easily abandon father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter. So when you say that it wouldn't bother you much if your wife abandoned you or your children shunned you, and worse, that you've fooled yourself into thinking that you wouldn't suffer any harm if they did, what do you think most people would conclude about you? Would it be along the lines I've described? Or would they think you're a fine family man?
I think making a conclusion about anyone based solely on a couple DB posts is ridiculous.
I never said that it would "not bother me much."
I've rethought your questions about wife and child abandoning...in the context of arguing about banning a religion, I was considering "harmful" as denoting either physical injury or the type of pscychological damage that made something break up there or malfunction, because that is what I would equate with the necessary damage to require banning. After reconsidering I realize that hurt emotions are the same as psychological injury, so yes, I would be very hurt emotionally if my wife or child abandoned me.
I'll even propose a test: You arrange that you, your wife, your kids and I get on a telephone conference call, and I'll read your comments to them. You can't tell them in advance about the questions, though, since that would be cheating. The point is for you and me to see their reaction cold.
No need to be an ass about it. I actually did tell my wife what I posted and explained why I posted it. She was in agreement with my sentiments.
So you agree that there's a difference bettween passive assent, and active instigation. That point is crucial to my entire argument as to why the JWs need to be severely censured, if not banned outright.
Yes, I have always thought that the WT actively instigates shunning.
Fine. As long as you understand that there are levels of enforcing, varying from extremely weak to extremely strong, we agree. In any case, I feel that your wording tends to play down the severity of the problem, whereas mine tells it like it is.
You really like to harp on semantics don't you. I think when I said that the WT enforces their view on blood transfusions, that there isn't a single person on this board who isn't familiar with the degree with which they enforce. Sorry for not highlighting that.
The fact that 35 boys were molested by one man in a 20 year period shows that my assumption is correct. The odds that a molester in one JW congregation could remain undiscovered (obviously, except to his victims) is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. If you disagree, then by all means call your local Child Protection Services or whatever they call it, and run this example by them. Then you'll see that I'm really not assuming anything, statistically speaking. Unless you call percentages like 99.999999% "mere statistics".
The only fact that you revealed and admitted to being privy to was that one JW molested 35 boys over 20 years. That's it! Based on that, to conclude he had cooperation from his religion is ridiculous. That would mean that every single child molester who ever topped molesting 35 boys in 20 years must also have had cooperation from their religion. Perhaps you know more details that made you come to this conclusion but just didn't share them with us. In any event, this is more likely a moot point because we both agree with the errors of the WT's reporting policy.
Which is precisely why Watchtower leaders, along with a few other screwy religious leaders, needs to have a threat of banning hanging over their heads in order to force them to do what's right! On their own, they'll simply continue to do what they've always done, to the harm of children.
Perhaps so, but the threat of banning is much different than outright banning such as occured in Moscow, which you seemed to be in agreement with.
: 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.
Then you and I have no real disagreement about banning.
I disagree with the banning in Moscow, but you seem to agree with it. So if you concede that other steps should be taken prior to banning, such as legislation and specified reform than yes, we are in agreement.
Probably true. But remember that Watchtower monitors these boards, and has since Rutherford's death bowed in the direction that the wind is blowing. My aim here is to produce some wind. As soon as enough pressure, through the media, politics or court action, is applied they'll go along because if they don't, the Brooklyn properties will be forfeit, just as the Anglican Church in Canada was bankrupted by lawsuits stemming from their toleration of molestation.
Are you hoping to bankrupt the WT? By all means, go for it, but it would seem to me that since they are fully supported by their members that an income would still be available. Even if they did go bankrupt, I'm not sure it would affect local congregation activity, in fact it might simply increase the donations.
So now you admit that shunning can produce physical as well as psychological harm. Good!
No, I don't consider the loss of business to be physical harm. I consider a punch in the nose or a getting a disease to be physical harm. Does shunning cause psychological harm? Absolutely...but so do rude drivers on the freeway and employees at the DMV. Not that the harm is equal, because I'm sure that is the first thing you would pounce on, saying again what disregard I have for family, but none of them are enough to ban ways of life or organizations over.
What if a religion taught people that it is best to be a hermit, dig a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere and only come out when they needed supplies and NOT to talk to anyone? Would you propose they be banned? I think you would.
I do not think they should be banned. If people want to live their life like that and be hurtful to family members feelings and emotions, that's their choice. There is no law that could ever stop people from acting like that. So if they want to get together and start an organization to get recruits, that's fine, it's up to the individual to condemn them and not join.
YES! There are many examples in court records where this very thing has been condemned. The notion of "alienation of affection" comes to mind. Do you think that JWs don't actively practice alienation of affection? Or do you think that that's a perfectly fine thing for organizations to instill in their members?
I think alienation of affection is a horrible thing, but I also think it happens and is influenced to happen in such a small number of cases that it does not warrant banning. For whatever screwy reasons, it only seems to happen when a JW leaves the organization and has a mate still in, and even then is only a percentage of that. I think the fact that it happened to you makes you more sensitive to this problem and gives you your motivation for wanting the banning of JWs.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You ignored my example of someone being threatened with death if he didn't sign a check. Anyone who is threatened into making a 'choice' has certainly made a choice, but not freely. My point about this is with respect to those raised as JWs and those who converted later in life but gradually realized that they were snookered.
I ignored it because I do not think it is a good example. Getting your head blown off is a bit more motivating then people not talking to you.
It seems that you, along with a great many people, including some prominent sociologists of religion, don't know the difference between free and coerced choice.
I do know the difference. I also understand that our difference of opinion lies in our definitions of free choice. Your idea of free choice is the ability to make a choice with no outside consequences being imposed to direct your decision. It's my impression that those rarely exist, and only differ in the amount of coercion. For example, a TV ad vs. shunning vs. getting your head blown off.
My definition of free choice is the ability to make your own choice despite outside coercion. It's this God-given free choice or free will that has added so much color to mankind's history.
Once again you're making the classic mistake of the cult apologist: "everyone is free to choose."
That's not a mistake, free will is a fact. Free will is what has allowed mankind to buck imposing injustices through out history. Free will is the one thing that every man and woman has that cannot be taken from them, but it can be given away.
You can't be serious! The passage's context makes it crystal clear what it's talking about:
"There six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord [sends forth contentions] among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19; NLT)
: Is their some deeper meaning to the Greek word translated as "contentions" that denotes breaking up human relationships?
It's Hebrew, but I think that the full passage, along with a little thought, should answer your question. But if you really need me to hold your hand and explain this, I'll do it.
No hand holding needed, but the context would have been nice. My scripture recollection is horrible and I don't have a bible in my office to have looked that scripture up when I replied. Knowing the full context, yes, I agree with that principle.
You've pretty much proved my point about your not having a clue about human relationships. You class spitting on someone as worse than deliberately breaking up a family. Yes, I really do pity your family.
No I didn't and you are twisting my words, shame on you. I classified spitting on someone just above shunning them. I don't imagine someone friendly associating with someone and then spitting on them. I classified it that way because I see it simply as the next step after shunning someone and the step before inflicting bodily harm on someone. You pity my family, again your ego makes you much too presumptuous.
The fact is that the guy threatened the Society with a lawsuit if they disfellowshipped him for molesting those girls because they didn't have the required two eyewitnesses to each act of molestation.
Well you didn't reveal that little fact in your question now, did you?
Their history proves it, since they only recently instituted even the rule that elders should report molestation cases in states where it's required -- after the adverse publicity generated by Silentlambs.
Well I guess you could say the same for society in general since the acknowledgement of this widespread problem has only been freely addressed in the past decade. And you could still say the same for all the states and the people in them that STILL do not require clergy or people working with children to report child molestations, because there is a lot of them.
Your, um, thinking problem is not the mere fact that, um, you and I think differently on this issue. Your problem is that you're wrong about the value of human relationships, because your words indicate that you don't have enough regard for your family to care whether they stick with you or not. That's a peculiarly JWish problem.
As I started this post, your ego precedes you. Again, you have ended your post with the presumptuous conclusion that I do not value human relationships enough. If you want to get personal about valuing relationships, I can tell you that if I thought my religious ideas would have broken up my marriage I probably would have subdued them enough to satisfy the relationship. I guess that means you did not value your first relationship enough to keep it through compromise. Does that mean I value human relationships more than you? I don't think so, but you seem to come to easy conclusions on it in my case. -
Joker10
Russian Jehovah's Witnesses complain to European rights court over ban - TV.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Financial Times Ltd.
(From BBC Monitoring International Reports)
[Presenter] Today Moscow's Golovinskiy Court passed a decision banning the Moscow community of Jehovah's Witnesses. Aleksandr Mostoslavskiy reports.
[Correspondent] This is not the first attempt to outlaw the Jehovah's Witnesses - the previous one failed in the same court six years ago. Both then and now, members of this Protestant organization were accused of stirring up religious discord, destroying families and carrying out financial machinations. Prosecutors brought these accusations a month ago adding that the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses was dangerous for life.
[Tatyana Kondratyeva, senior aide to the Moscow Northern Administrative Area prosecutor, captioned, interviewed outside the courthouse] There is a categorical ban on blood transfusion which under certain circumstances poses threat not only to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves but to their children too.
[Correspondent] Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned in 25 Asian and African countries, China among them. The Christian world does not like Jehovah's Witnesses but tolerates them. The main contradiction between the Jehovah's Witnesses [and other Christian confessions] is that they do not believe in Holy Trinity, hell, heaven and immortality of human soul.
[Unidentified woman, speaking to camera] Since I have acquired this joy, my heart orders me to tell other people about this joy. But people are getting angry, I don't know why. They reject and persecute us.
[Correspondent] Jehovah's Witnesses were banned in the Soviet time for their anti-Communist protests. In 1991, along with other religious organizations, they obtained an official registration which was confirmed by the Justice Ministry last year.
Jehovah's Witnesses are disappointed but nor surprised by today's decision to stop their activities in Moscow. Senior believers say that in the Soviet time they had already been banned, imprisoned and killed.
[Vasiliy Kalin, chairman of a managing committee of the centre of Jehovah's Witnesses, captioned, interviewed outside the courthouse] In the Soviet time a Russian had to be an atheist. The situation has changed and a Russian must be Orthodox now.
[Correspondent] The Witnesses say that despair is not their feeling. They will appeal with the Moscow City Court on Monday [29 March]. Moreover, a complaint about Russian justice has already been filed with the European Court of Human Rights.
[Video shows court proceedings, people reading the Bible, interviews, magazines, people outside a courthouse]
Source: Ren TV, Moscow, in Russian 1630 gmt 26 Mar 04
[c] BBC Monitoring
-
logansrun
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
-
little witch
We are I believe failing to consider the Russian point of view in this discussion. Under communist rule for many years, religion was and is nearly non-existent. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion are western ideologies and undoubtedly more mysterious to those in far lands. These ideas are in constant flux even in the US.
We have a long history of religious fervor here. We have had time to adjust and weigh the benifits and harm. We have ways to combat potentially harmful groups.
Russians are not strangers to religious bans for heavens sake. They are new at this democracy thing. Their economy is in shreads, there is widespread political unrest, in doubt and fear. And who should be amoungst the first of the weasles to ferret out potential masses of religious virgins? The WTS of course!
They know that those people don't know crap from cream about religion. Thus, there are no "opposing views" to overcome. Success is all but guaranteed.
And also remember that the wts is a DISTINCTLY AMERICAN sect. To hear many comment on this thread you would think that the Russians are oblidged to welcome western ideology with open arms, no matter how contrary to their own culture.
Personally in light of what happened on 911 in the US, I hold that a government first and formost has a primary duty to protect it's citezens from harm. The Eastern Orthodox Church is more native to Russia, and it is of no suprise that they feel threatned by the doctrine and practice of the watchtower, given that they were kept under ridgid control in their own country for many years.
Further, the watchtower society are takers, not givers. Russia needs the help of caring religious bodies that care about social justice, not literature quota's.
I would hate to know that the first impression of western ideology given to Russia is a copy of the watchtower.
-
XQsThaiPoes
I think you guys are under the illusion that society is good. Society is amoral. You are trying to fabricate a moral higher ground to justify banning another society. You need to quit and just present your case for rackteering that everyone is trying to hide. Also I find it comical that you guess are so out of touch with the rest of the world to think that anyone really cares about the watchtower besides people that see dollars. I am so sick of people trying to brainwash the world and then went it fails send out the gastapo to crack heads. At least the watchtower is non violent. You should be happy.
Face it if the WTS was another country or state would you make embargos or tariffs, maybe even try to subvert it? Would you send your children to die to destroy it? If your awnser is yes why. Also Alan F I may not love anyone or anything why does that make me less of a human? Do we all have to love just for the sake of loving? I can almost see the reason not to hate be I have yet to see the reason to love.
-
Sunspot
**Russians are not strangers to religious bans for heavens sake. They are new at this democracy thing. Their economy is in shreads, there is widespread political unrest, in doubt and fear. And who should be amoungst the first of the weasles to ferret out potential masses of religious virgins? The WTS of course!
Further, the watchtower society are takers, not givers. Russia needs the help of caring religious bodies that care about social justice, not literature quota's.
I would hate to know that the first impression of western ideology given to Russia is a copy of the watchtower. **
Little Witch, I couldn't agree MORE!
ESPECIALLY with this comment; "And who should be amoungst the first of the weasles to ferret out potential masses of religious virgins? The WTS of course!"
Why does the word "vultures" come to mind?
Good post, Little Witch!
hugs,
Annie -
little witch
I would also like to address the issue of whether a multi national corporation has any inherant rights to legally operate in those countries simply by claiming religious status.
For those of you who seem to be so angry over this issue, consider this; the wts shows up in all their strangeness pretending to be a good christian group of well meaning evangelicals. What happened in the court was an unveiling of the real agenda of the group. Imagine those brothers trying to explain the pictures of American government buildings being destroyed by their god jehober!
Now if this sect has no qualms about publishing the distruction of their own government, how much more so would they become hostile to the Russian government?
In their literature, they condemn christianity over and over again, yet they call themselves "true christians" and claim religious status and brotherhood with christendom for political gain.
Imagine those oppressive russians seeing through the falsehood that is the watchtower, and trying to protect the citezenship from abuse.