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?
Posts by amac
-
158JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
-
60
Harmful or Dangerous?
by Sunspot inin view of the recent ban in russia, and the statement that the government feels that the wts is considered harmful and dangerous, my thoughts are these;
i think that anyone or anything that purposely tampers with the very fabric of people's families, is dangerous, but that's just the way i see it.
maybe this sounds extreme, but then the watchtower society is extreme, and too, i speak from personal experience.. .
-
-
amac
Good analogy XQsThaiPoes, I don't think that anyone would suggest banning alcohol again although it is much more damaging and tears many more families apart than JWs.
-
60
Harmful or Dangerous?
by Sunspot inin view of the recent ban in russia, and the statement that the government feels that the wts is considered harmful and dangerous, my thoughts are these;
i think that anyone or anything that purposely tampers with the very fabric of people's families, is dangerous, but that's just the way i see it.
maybe this sounds extreme, but then the watchtower society is extreme, and too, i speak from personal experience.. .
-
-
amac
There are many things in our society that are NOT HEALTHY, this does not mean it is OK for a government to tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives, as long as we are not causing harm to others. And although DFing and shunning are hurtful to others, it does not cause them harm. You shouldn't ban people's religion, simply because they don't talk to people. That's how I feel.
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
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.
-
44
Found a Second Aircraft Owned by The WT
by Gerard inthis aircraft is the same model owned by the wt.
it is a twin-engine piper pa-31-310 navajo and it's n number is n254sw
as their other cessna twin-engine, this one is also based in alaska.
-
-
amac
My point is that they use them to visit fishing lodges with them. That is a fact.
No it is not. It is your speculation. That's why you must have been such a good JW, just because you think something is true does not make it a fact.
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
amac
In this post I wasn't addressing the banning aspect. I think that has been covered well already. I don't purport to have the answer.
I'm still trying to cover the thread topic of the banning of JWs in Russia as there are still points I'd like to discuss. Namely, the reasons why AlanF and others consider the JWs dangerous enough to ban. AlanF are you still following this? If so, it would be nice to see your response.
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
amac
amac: Apparently you are not familiar with how cults operate. Have you researched this subject?
The condescension on this list can be so tiresome...yes, I am familiar with it, was raised as a JW, full time service 6 years, served at Bethel, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.
Are children who are born into the JW religion, given the freedom of making a choice of how their mind is being trained? Prior to the 18 year old mark, that is?
There are many ultra religous people in this country who indoctrinate their children and demand strict adherance to moral guidelines and rules. That does not give the government right to legislate their parenting tactics. Are you proposing that all children have the right to decide for themselves how their mind is trained? Don't tell that to a mob of parents, you might get attacked...
-
7
Have any of you ever addressed the society re: jw's who are 'news worthy'?
by orbison11 inthis has bothered me for a while now, maybe due to there being a few high profile poeple who are/will be/were jw's.. my x was a professional musician when we became jw's.
he was advised, i don't know how may times, to basically get out of the profession, etc.
to a point when he would on occasion do a wedding as a gift, his songs were written down and scruitinized by the elders, blah.
-
-
amac
now we have a pic of selena williams in people kissing her beau of six months, running with the american flag , prince being involked into the rock n roll hall of fame, list goes
Well the list DOESN'T really go on...The Williams girls are not practicing JWs and Prince is probably one of the only other JWs in the spotlight, besides him Larry Graham is the only other one I know of and he is pretty low key.
-
44
Found a Second Aircraft Owned by The WT
by Gerard inthis aircraft is the same model owned by the wt.
it is a twin-engine piper pa-31-310 navajo and it's n number is n254sw
as their other cessna twin-engine, this one is also based in alaska.
-
-
amac
Oooooh! What scandal!!!! Psssst!! I hear they own a few cars too! They use those to visit whore houses!!!
-
158
JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04
by 4JWY injehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.
is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.
moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.
-
-
amac
Bttt - for Alan's response...
4JWY -
If people choose to adhere to the controls and guidelines of a select group of people, that is their choice. In addition, the "multiple" controls you mentioned can pretty much be wrapped up into mind control. It is not as if people are forced into being a JW or their minds are involuntarily "zapped" into mind control.