The police escort protected the MP from now-Nazis. So not an example of Labour anti-semitism, obviously. Pretty weird that this should be offered as evidence of Labour anti-semitism.
Where are the examples of anti-semitism abuse from members of the Labour Party? You’d think there would be tons of examples the way they talk about it on the news, but they never quote any actual instances.
So is this all they mean when they talk about bullying and “vile abuse”? I thought it meant more than debate about criticising Israel. I thought it meant Larbour people actually calling Jewish people names and targeting them. That’s the impression I got from the news. But no actual examples.
I am aware that Jeremy Corbyn has supported Palestinians and this is controversial for some. There is lots of footage and evidence of this. Similar complaints are made about his support for Irish Republicans. People make up their own mind about that.
Is that all they mean when they talk about Labour anti-semitism? Because I heard accusations of attacks, “vile abuse” and bullying. Are there any examples of this?
The people making the accusations seems to be Blairites and others on the right of Labour who don’t wish to see Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister.
But aside from motives and intrigues, I am actually interested to know what are they are talking about when they say some in Labour are anti-Semitic. Isn’t it customary to show some examples or evidence? I haven’t seen any. Where is it?
Can anyone show any examples of Labour anti-semitism?
Are there examples of Labour members being anti-Semitic? I always hear the accusation in the news, but never any examples. It’s weird. What are they actually talking about?
I have no problems with Labour factionalism. It helps the cause of independence as Labour look set for wipeout in Scotland. Corbyn did a u-turn on supporting an independence referendum too.
currently, to create one new jehovah's witness convert?.
It’s something of a puzzle to me just how ineffective JW preaching is nowadays. You would think that JWs would acquire at least some extra followers just by being so visible publicly and calling on lonely people from time to time. And it’s particlarly puzzling because it seems that their preaching was quite effective at one time. From listening to older members of the congregation, there were many converts to JWs in the 1950s through to the 1970s from the door to door work, a few in the 1980s, and hardly anything since. What went wrong? Their methods haven’t changed all that much, so why is the outcomes so drastically different?
I have a few ideas, but I’d be interested to hear what others think:
1. Society itself has changed and people are just not interested in the Bible any more or joining a church,
2. There is more information available to refute JW teachings these days.
3. JWs have lost their urgency and don’t really believe the end is near.
4. Additionally I think many JWs are fatigued by JW lifestyle and simply not terribly eager to drag others in. I recall a candid comment from someone that they wouldn’t necessarily recommend becoming a JW to anyone not already in it. Subconsciously I wonder how many JWs really feel this way. Very few JWs make great efforts to drag other family members, work colleagues, neighbours and friends, to the KH, as once was more common. So no wonder their efforts to actually convert householders is often halfhearted.
currently, to create one new jehovah's witness convert?.
I made a post on this and it got lost. Gutted. Ha!
some witnesses realize that they got into a religion and it turned out to be disastrous.
many decide they have to somehow get out.
some do it right away and others take longer.. where are you in your journey?
There should be room for recognition that people are at different stages and that everyone’s view is evolving rather than static. The absolute position that the only moral thing to do as an elder is resign immediately upon discovering the “truth” runs into a few problems. Such as how immediate is immediately? The same day, or within a month, or a year? Time to make it a good exit, or exit as soon as possible regardless of the consequences?
And is there any specific point of time when one learns the “truth” anyway? My view of JWs has been a constant evolution for more than two decades. Maybe some people can identify the exact day when their views changed radically, while for others it was a long gradual process with multiple points of acceptance and rejection of previous beliefs along the way.
I struggle to have too much respect for non atheists.But I try.
Wow. I struggle to have respect for people who have no respect for the views of others. Because I find the world such an amazingly complex and inscrutable dwelling place that I find little room for insisting upon or absolutely excluding other possible interpretations of our situation. In fact I find it difficult not to view absolute certainty in such matters as a sign of stupidity or personality problem, but as I say I struggle to keep an open mind, even on this.
so i was talking with my husband about all the things the organization is doing ie.
hiding pedophiles, lying about what 1914 was etc.
so his response was that the nation of israel had times when they weren’t doing the right thing, but it was still gods chosen organization.. another topic we were talking about was disfellowshipping.
It’s not worth getting into particulars of doctrine in my experience.
There are two things that might be worth exploring from his initial response (a very common one, the “wicked king” argument, I have encountered from JW apologists since the first pages on JWs appeared on the web)
1. It’s worth pointing out that the defence he offers for the JW organisation would not be endorsed by the JW organisation itself. Indeed if he promoted the idea that the organisation remains God’s organisation despite wicked leadership, he himself could be DFed for that. Is it logically tenable to defend the organisation using an argument that the organisation itself would reject? Maybe, but not easy.
2. The second thing is, why are JWs not allowed to even discuss these issues openly? JWs may be right that or wrong about 1914, blood, DFing, and whatever else. But why is discussion of these topics not even permitted? He may be able to defend a particular doctrine. But can he defend the idea that it’s wrong to explore and even defend these ideas, without tying himself in knots in the process? Many JW apologists have ultimately come unstuck, not over points of doctrine, but over the climate of fear to even talk about these things. It’s particlarlt difficult to justify, coming from an organisation that in other contexts, promotes scrutiny of other religions and claims its teachings can be proved using evidence and reason.
