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!
