Drearyweather

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 764 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Drearyweather

• 
  70

  Apologists saying that the JWs shouldn't be banned, what the hell!??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's been brought to my attention that there are xjw that say they support the witnesses and don't think russia should ban them.

  i would just like to remind all of you that jws are guilty of murder, causing higher rates of suicide, covering up child molestation, and keeping members in prisoned because if they leave they loose family, financial support, possible employment etc.. sure their not strapping bombs to their chests but they easily get members to kill themselves with their blood policies.

  they are an extremist group!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  OrphanCrow

  No. They didn't have to "change the blood doctrine" because it wasn't there when they got banned.

  The blood doctrine (concerning blood transfusions) was developed, in and around 1945,

  What about the witnesses in restricted countries now (30 or so lands where they are outlawed). May be like Eritrea? Have JW's abandoned their blood doctrine there?

  the point that I was trying to make is, JW's won't change their policies if they are banned. They will go underground and control their members, the way they did during the WW2 days.
• 
  70

  Apologists saying that the JWs shouldn't be banned, what the hell!??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's been brought to my attention that there are xjw that say they support the witnesses and don't think russia should ban them.

  i would just like to remind all of you that jws are guilty of murder, causing higher rates of suicide, covering up child molestation, and keeping members in prisoned because if they leave they loose family, financial support, possible employment etc.. sure their not strapping bombs to their chests but they easily get members to kill themselves with their blood policies.

  they are an extremist group!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  So I understand you to support watchtower trampling my right to practice my religion and exercise free speech....

  No. I'm not supporting the Watchtower. In my post I clearly mentioned that Government should adopt other ways to punish the WT, but not banning and criminalizing rank and file. If you are disfellowshipped, is that added in your public records? When you go for interviews, does your employer verify your religious status by contacting your local congregation? Many of us move ahead in life after getting disfellowhipped and try to forget the past. But thats not the case with a criminal record. If the ban goes through in Russia, individual JW's risk getting criminal records which goes with them wherever they go. This is wrong and is more dangerous than the Watchtower shunning.

  Ah, hell yes it does. If they are banned then they can't cause me to be shunned. And if I sue their sorry backside for defamation then the judge isn't going to site religious privilege to avoid getting involved.

  so do you mean that if Russia bans JW's, the witnesses will start socializing with disfellowshipped and disassociated ones? Will they change their policies? i and my family have spent considerable time in a country where JW's are banned/restricted , and yes, nothings different with regards to policies and doctrines.
• 
  70

  Apologists saying that the JWs shouldn't be banned, what the hell!??

  by Crazyguy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it's been brought to my attention that there are xjw that say they support the witnesses and don't think russia should ban them.

  i would just like to remind all of you that jws are guilty of murder, causing higher rates of suicide, covering up child molestation, and keeping members in prisoned because if they leave they loose family, financial support, possible employment etc.. sure their not strapping bombs to their chests but they easily get members to kill themselves with their blood policies.

  they are an extremist group!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  bibleexaminer, regarding your comment:

  I'll tell you who the hell gives the religion it's authority. THE GOVERMENT

  Some points what I feel:

  1. Religions have predated all existing governments. In fact, many governments are formed and have imbibed religious tenets in them. Come to India and see how religion plays a part in government policies. Has any government authorized or changed any doctrine from the religious text of their local religions?

  2. Government is Government, not God. They are selected to their positions by the citizens of the country. And the citizens have a right to throw out a government if they feel that their rights are trampled on rather than being protected. See what happened in Libya, Tunisia, etc. Would you want the ISIS rule over you?

  3. Citizens give AUTHORITY to the Government through mandate. A person who pays taxes has the complete right to enjoy his basic civil liberties. If the government feels that it can ban a religion and criminalize its adherents just for meeting or praying together, then that's not governance, that's dictatorship. If a government feels that a religion is harmful, then educate the masses by providing conclusive proofs and evidences.

  Watchtower uses its granted authority to persecute fellow believers.This is an abuse of the authority granted. It needs to be removed.
  

  Banning religions does not take away any authority. JW's in China, Kuwait, Saudi, Yemen, etc still disfellowship and shun ex-jw's and DA'ed individuals. Banning JW's in Russia won't change their basic doctrines. They won't meet or preach the way they did earlier. But underground, everything else would continue the same, including shunning and blood transfusions. Do you know any period when Jw's gave up their shunning practice or changed their blood doctrine during bans?

  'm willing to wait and see Blues. But I have a hard time believing a ban will have the same effect today.

  Today's dubs...

  Don't want to work, lazy bunch.

  Don't want to suffer.

  Skip houses in FS.

  May be your local congregation. JW's have a core bunch of Rutherford type dubs who can keep the organization going even under such bans. It doesn't take long to ignite the persecution complex in the JW's.
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  4:53

  Questions to the Ministry of Justice are asked by the lawyer Omelchenko. He asks if there is a department in the Ministry of Justice capable of answering when a particular book appeared on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. The Justice Ministry believes that the answer to this question can be obtained through a judicial request.

  4:56

  Omelchenko asks about federal forensic centers under the Russian Ministry of Justice. He points out that these centers came to diametrically opposite conclusions about the presence or absence of signs of extremism. Question of Omelchenko: how could this be possible. The representative of the Ministry does not know. The next question is: why did the Ministry of Justice support only negative conclusions of experts and did not support positive ones? Unknown. Was the Ministry of Justice initiating a review of the decisions in cases when there was such a contradiction? Representative of such facts are unknown.

  4:58

  Omelchenko recalls that earlier today the court asked the Ministry of Justice whether the ministry initiated a review of the list of extremist materials after the amendments were made to the law, for example, that the Bible and quotations from it can not be recognized as extremist materials. There were no such initiatives on the part of the Ministry of Justice.

  5:07

  Questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice are given by the representative of the defendant Maxim Novakov. He is trying to find out if the Ministry of Justice knows the circumstances of those events that are attributed to Jehovah's Witnesses as "extremist activity". For example, do they know why for the searches of Jehovah's Witnesses the special services were de-energizing whole blocks in which the liturgical buildings are located. The Ministry of Justice does not know the facts. There are no other questions on the part of the defendant to the Ministry of Justice.

  5:13

  The court announces a break in the court session until April 7, 2017 10:00. The entrance to the building will be open from 9:00
  
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  4:37

  Toporov tries to find out, whether under the law on extremism can be taken out to "structural division" without the organization itself. The Ministry of Justice is forced to admit that a warning must be issued to the entire organization.

  4:40

  The logical question of Toporov: if a warning was issued to a local religious organization and not issued to the Management Center, then how can this local organization be the "structural unit" of the center? No way.

  4:42

  The Ministry of Justice now believes that issuing a warning to the "structural unit" is not prohibited by law, which means that the prosecutor's office could do it. What is not forbidden is allowed. The judge clarifies with the representative of the Ministry, were any of the notifications of the religious organization (the management center) then directed at least? There is no information that such notifications are sent.

  4:46

  A new question from Toporov to the Ministry of Justice. Does the law on combating extremism provide for the possibility of liquidating a "structural unit" without liquidating the organization itself? The representative of the Ministry of Justice: "According to your interpretation, does not provide". The judge asks the plaintiff to accept the answer of the ministry in this form.
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  4:30

  The representative of the defendant Yuri Toporov is trying to find out what the Ministry of Justice puts into the concept of "the structural subdivision of the world organization of Jehovah's Witnesses". What is a "world organization"? Is this some sort of legal entity? The Ministry of Justice believes that no, it is a question of a certain canonical concept. What is a "structural unit"? Is this a legal concept? No, rather a canonical connection. The next question is: in what sense then does the Ministry of Justice use this term in relation to the LRO, saying that they are "structural subdivisions of the Management Center"? In canonical or legal? The representative of the Ministry of Justice believes that this is the same.
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  4:10

  Zhenkov asks whether the Ministry of Justice knows that materials that are considered extremist constitute 0.1% of the entire literature of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Ministry of Justice does not know this. Is it known to the Ministry of Justice that the Rostov Regional Court, which recognized 34 publications of Jehovah's Witnesses as extremist, at the same time refused to recognize the extremist dozens of others.

  4:19

  Zhenkov clarifies whether it is known to the Ministry of Justice that literature has not been imported to Russia for two years. The Ministry of Justice knows this. Then there is a natural question, why exactly in 2017 the Ministry of Justice raised the issue of liquidation. The Ministry of Justice can not provide facts confirming that during the last 12 months the Management Center distributed "extremist" literature.

  The Ministry of Justice informs that the date of entering materials into this list is not specified in the FEMC.

  The judge asks the representative of the Ministry whether it is possible to file claims of the religious organization, as well as customs, for the fact that materials imported into the country that in the future will be considered extremist? How to know in advance what material will be included in the FEMC. The representative of the Ministry of Justice: no way, just contact the FSEM.
  
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  4:00

  Lawyers are unsuccessfully trying to find out exactly what human rights violations are meant.

  Lawyer are trying to clarify the point "the failure to take effective measures to prevent extremist activity." He asked whether the Ministry of Justice knew about the timely letters sent by the center of Jehovah's Witnesses to all MROs about the inclusion of certain materials in the FSEM? The Ministry of Justice knows. The next question: what, in the opinion of the Ministry, would be an effective measure? The Ministry of Justice does not know the exact answer to this question. The lawyer asks the representative of the Ministry of Justice whether there is such a criterion of extremist activity as inaction. It's obvious to everyone that there is no such criterion.
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  15:50
  The judge asks the representative of the Ministry of Justice: if there is no mention of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does this document have to do with this case.
  
  15:53
  The judge shall postpone the determination of the attachment of this document.
  
  15:54
  Lawyer Zhenkov begins to ask questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice. The first question is: does the Justice Ministry have any information about any violations that were committed under the influence of the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses that was submitted to the FSEM. Answer from the Ministry's representative: "No, we do not have such information."
  
• 
  25

  RUSSIA: (6 April 2017) Day 2 - Jehovah's Witnesses hearing under way

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tighter security today and much greater police presence.

  great weather.. .

  lunchtime view over moscow.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Drearyweather

  The judge asks the representative of the Ministry of Justice a counter question: why does the Ministry of Justice ask both to liquidate the legal entity and to prohibit their activities. The judge is perplexed: how can you ban what does not exist. He clarifies whether the Ministry of Justice also demands that all unregistered groups be banned. The representative of the Ministry of Justice explains that he does not ask them to be banned, because Jehovah's Witnesses did not provide the department with information about unregistered groups.

  15:16

  A new clarifying question of the judge: on what grounds does the Ministry of Justice apply a pre-judicial approach to the Management Center, if the center was not involved in participation in cases. The prejudice is applicable in the case of decisions that have already entered into force (that is, the court relies on them as already on the established fact) only with respect to the same subjects of law. Accordingly, the decisions made by the courts in respect of MPOs can not have a prejudicial effect on a centralized organization.

  
  15:17

  The representative of the Ministry of Justice argues that the Administrative Center knew about these cases, and the lawyers of the center attended them.