ok, i would like to submit to the forum the following question: in abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.. it’s not the right to conscientious objection to do something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate.
it’s something different.. given that, as exjws, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
I personally agree that a “right not to be exposed to ideas I don’t like or disagree with” as such doesn’t exist and shouldn’t exist.
However that seems to be the claim of the children’s parents. Imagine if that right would exist - JW’s probably would only knock on doors by invitation only.
ok, i would like to submit to the forum the following question: in abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.. it’s not the right to conscientious objection to do something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate.
it’s something different.. given that, as exjws, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
Question: What if the opposition group claims the property owner's billboard is "Hate Speech"?
Answer: Hate Speech is subjective to personal or group think. Censorship is censorship.
I don't think it's all that subjective. If the board says: "Legalize abortion, protect women", it may offend pro-life supporters, but it's no hate speech at all. If it says "Pro-life supporters oppress women", well it may qualify as hate speech if it's a statement that's unsupported by facts, but it's still a stretch. If it says "The only good Pro-Life supporter is a dead one", then it really is hate speech. In America, legal tradition is usually lenient towards hate speech because it sees it from the practical consequences perspective, and hence protects "free speech" to enormous lengths. If it didn't result in violence, it wasn't hate speech, end of case. (That may well start to change after the attack on the Capitol). But it Europe, especially after fascism and WWII, we tend to see hate speech much more from the potential damage it can cause to society, and thus are much less lenient, even if at times over-protective of people's sensibilities.
But anyways this thread is about the question whether the right to not be exposed to ideas I don't like or agree with does exist or should exist?
ok, i would like to submit to the forum the following question: in abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.. it’s not the right to conscientious objection to do something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate.
it’s something different.. given that, as exjws, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
Let me add something to give a background to my question. There's a case on the news here in Portugal about two school boys, model, grade A students, age 12 and 15. A couple of years ago the Ministry of Education introduced a new mandatory discipline in the curriculum called "Citizenship and Development". Among other things, it discusses ethics, political process, sexuality, gender equality, non-discrimination of minorities, civil rights, etc. Now, for many super-conservative parents, this is sheer horror: What? Promoting gay rights? Identity politics? discussing abortion?? and the list of complaints goes on. Normally these are the same people that whine about "Moral & Religion" (catholic version) discipline being merely optional at school. But I digress. The father of those two children forbade his sons from attending these classes, citing conscientious objection. He says that his children should not be exposed to such ideas and that sort of education should be given at home by the parents. His two kids missed too many classes and hence as per the Board of Education they failed the school year despite being A-grade students in everything else. That is the background to my question. But the answer to that question has interesting ramifications to Jehovah's Witnesses.
first thing comes to mind is that this organization through its leaders are not witnessing the true and honest version of the gospel teachings of jesus christ .. they are subjectively teaching/preaching a tainted version made up by the top controlling men of the organization, which i'm sure is connected to the proliferation and distribution of literature which these men publish themselves.
.
when jesus said that no one knows of the time not even he, he didn't say a select few will know .. the other thing that bothers me is this organization promotes human ignorance on many levels, admonishing education or knowledge that mankind needs for its very survival... there are many other religious organizations that do this as well but the jws is just one of these organizations.
I don’t hate the religion ... I think some of its tenets are dangerous and detrimental to people, that’s all. That doesn’t mean it should be wholly destroyed.
Its many bad ideas should be fought against, and it should be limited only to the extent that it cannot practice stuff that tramps human dignity and/or puts people in danger.
As for the rest, stupid is as stupid does ....
ok, i would like to submit to the forum the following question: in abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.. it’s not the right to conscientious objection to do something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate.
it’s something different.. given that, as exjws, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
Rights come from God or Nature.
The right to a retirement pension comes from God or from Nature? 🙄
please, no “whataboutism” ....
I actually mean a LEGAL right
ok, i would like to submit to the forum the following question: in abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.. it’s not the right to conscientious objection to do something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate.
it’s something different.. given that, as exjws, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
Ok, I would like to submit to the forum the following question: In abstract, do you think that there is a right to not being exposed to ideas that you don’t like or disagree with?
Please think it through and its implications on both ends of the spectrum.
It’s not the right to conscientious objection to DO something you vehemently disagree with; it’s not about the liberty to chose which ideas you want to embrace or advocate. It’s something different.
Given that, as exJWs, we understand the importance of being exposed to different opinions in order to form our own opinion, should someone claim the right not to be exposed to opinions or ideas that they don’t like?
Please weight in
to the majority of people who investigate the activities of the wts from its beginning history there were obvious false proclamations and doctrines propagated by the wts.. a matter of fact the wts produced a long list of literature that posted proclamations on the front cover and went into detail of things that were suppose to happen, from jesus returning changing the world in which we live and so on.. wonderful things one might say but not factual or either theologically correct .
.
Great points about “triumphalism” and the reinforcement of tribalism vis a vis the coldness of the world outside. 👍
Triumphalism is in a way to start a house from the roof down. Start with: this set of faith statements is the truth. Here, let me awe you with some cherry picked comments from “experts” that seem to validate our position. Now aren’t you so special for acquiring the truth? So, ignore all other ideas. Actually, go on and spend your time demolishing all other divergent statements (because while you’re at it, you don’t pause to question your own). Jehovah’s Witnesses were very good at deconstructing other people’s beliefs, but not great at defending their own.
many that have come to this forum have left the jws religion and moved on with their lives but from a outsider's viewpoint what do think makes the jws religion wrong or incorrect as a active christian faith ?.
somethings come to mind such as its long continuous end times/armageddon soon doctrine which has really been a core doctrine for decades going right back to its beginning .. maybe they should have adopted the stance as other christian based faiths and adhered to jesus's own words when he said " no one knows of the time not even he ".
.
The fundamental error is their very existence.
can anyone remember the reasoning the watchtower gave for jesus speaking these words?
if you have a reference that would be even better!.
Some docetic gnostic sects actually used this text to support the teaching that Jesus was a man in whose body the spirit of the Christ inhabited while on Earth. When the man was dying in the cross, the spiritual Christ left the human bodily shell to die and returned to the heavenly realm. Hence, the question: “ My God why have you abandoned me?”
It was actually against docetic teachings of this sort that the writer of the epistles of John ranted against those who denied that Christ came in the flesh ... to him, these were the “antichrists”.
hello.. i remember some time ago someone brought up a letter to congregations or some other similar instruction, instructing the elders to "contact the authorities immediately" if something like a robbery or trouble came upon a kingdom hall.. does anyone remember that?
and what was the source of that instruction please?
.
I'm sure in my neighborhood if we saw a Kingdumb Hall catch on fire and it was not near any other structures, we would wait awhile before calling the fire Department. We are providing a service to the community.
Surely, the best course of action would be to call Bethel's Legal Department first, in order to consider the possible legal ramifications of calling the Fire Department...
