The definition of hysteria and Cesnur...
Concerning OSCE and JW, here is a reunion in 1999 concerning religion's freedom in Europe, where Watchtower was present as an NGO and evidently Garay...
Look at the testimonies of the cesnur concerning this reunion:
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Vienna2.htm
"France Severely Criticized at Vienna OSCE Meeting
Hysterical Reaction by the Secretary of the French Anti-Cult Mission
OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, held its meeting on "Freedom of Religion" in Vienna, at the Hofburg, on March 22, 1999, under the presidency of Norwegian ambassador Leif Mevik. In addition to delegations from the OSCE member states (including the Holy See), more than 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and religious groups were represented. Most of the one-day meeting was devoted to the second of the three questions on the agenda, religious pluralism and threats to religious liberty. Three introductory papers were delivered by experts selected by the OSCE: Dr Massimo Introvigne, Managing Director of CESNUR (his paper is available on this Web site); Canon Michael Bourdeaux, Director of The Keston Institute; and Mr. Alain Garay, an attorney from Paris, France. They were followed by more than 70 short statements on behalf of governments, NGOs and religious organizations (including the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Scientology - France had objected to the participation of the latter). Although Belgium, Russia, Uzbekistan, Greece and Belarus were also criticized, most of the international criticism focused on France, its "war" against cults, and the activities of its governmental Mission to Fight Cults (MILS).
An answer on behalf on France was delivered by Mr. Denis Barthélemy, general secretary of the MILS. In an emotional statement - at times verging on the hysterical - Mr. Barthélemy stated that all those who had criticized France had in fact spoken "on behalf of either Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses" (while, he noted, the statement by the Church of Scientology itself was "surprisingly moderate"). Mr. Barthélemy's statement made no sense, France having been criticized by a number of governments in addition to independent NGOs, and failed to amuse the US and other delegations. Mr. Barthélemy further declared that France respects religious liberty, but within the limits of "public order, civil order, social order and economic order". He also said that religious liberty may be limited by "freedom of conscience" (an argument used in 19th century France in order to limit the liberty of Catholic religious orders, now dangerously resurfacing as noted before by French scholars). France will protect against "sects", Mr. Barthélemy indicated, not only children but also "protectable adults". Speaking to Italian and other media, Dr Massimo Introvigne commented that, more than any possible analysis by scholarly experts, Mr. Barthélemy's somewhat extraordinary speech was the best evidence of the intolerance currently prevailing in France, particularly within the MILS, where not only paranoid conspiracy theories seeing in any critic a "Scientologist" or a "cultist" seems to have replaced any reasonable approach to the issue but a 19th century secular humanist ideology hostile to religion in general is presented in an international forum as the official French position on religious liberty."
Now you can read by yourself in english the "hysterical" reaction of the french's representant here:
http://www.antisectes.net/osce-hysteria.htm
"France has been attacked at least four times this morning. Two sources from those critics:
- Three could be interpreted as coming from the organization said church of scientology, while the official intervention of this organism has been in itself rather moderate.
- One came from the Jehovas Witnesses, for trivial tax motivations.
I'd say that it should be necessary to decrypt clearly what the authors of those attacks said, for France to be able to answer under the conditions of an equitable suit, as laid out by article 6-1 of the European Convention of Human Rights and basic freedoms.
The english word CULT, Monsieur le Président, generates regularly some problems of translation which have been much used by some people. It is the source of a continual ambiguousness, in translations, as one could imagine that struggling against cults is struggling against religions. I'd like this to be clarified during this session.
This ambiguousness on cult's meaning is visible in the last paragraph of the document from INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
The meaning of words.
What should be said of illegal practices, if those are limited to sole major crimes represented by murder and manslaughter, as I heard to-morrow morning, by Massimo Introvigne?
LA FRANCE
I must remind here that France is a country where State and Churches are separated.
There is no official religion in France, only more or less important ones. First being Roman Catholicism, second being Islam, then protestant and buddhism.
Are also often forgotten those who, without professing a militant atheism, don't care of religion and don't declare any specific belief. If we were including, for France, all those not practicing a religion, those would be almost the main part of the population.
In France, there is no obligation, by instance before a Justice Court or to take an official function, to swear or make allegiance on Bible, Gospel, Koran or any other sacred book. Regarding the JWs' tax problems evoked by M. Garay, it is necessary to be aware that the tax regimen criticized by JWs is the one of every french 1901 law on non-profit associations. The only ones to be outside of its reach are those associations having an exclusively cultic (religious, in the sense of worship, rites etc) purpose. Actually, Jehovas Witnesses assocations don't have this purpose only. [translator's note: major french religions have often some commercial activities , such as cheese or bier fabrication, or icons etc: every one of these are subjected too to trade ans tax laws, and they don't protest against those normal rules, while JWs would like not to be subjected to those laws and rules]
The French representation wants to affirm that it is shocked by the declaration done against France by INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FEDERATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS - also readable on Internet.
We can remind here that this declaration has been disapproved by the french section of this federation, which took its own informations from one source only, called "HRWF" - Droits de l'Homme sans Frontières, whose affinities and preferences are well known from specialists.
In France, the Ligue des Droits de l'Homme said to us that it questioned the real motivations and purposes of those allegations.
My opinion is that this affair should be settled between the associations aimed at Human Rights defense.
Besides, I'm believing that it is necessary to expose the problems as they should, if one would like to progress and define a real and effective religion's freedom, that is, a right to practice one's religion while respecting the other's rights.
I've been allowed, as a jurist and laws technician, to expose some ideas already partly evoked, but that should be reminded as a more general topic.
I'd like to remind that there is no State of Right/State of Laws without a fundamental respect of laws, a scrupulous respect.
Freedom of religion and freedom of Belief are on different levels, but of same importance. Though one of them cannot exist without the other, one could conflict with the other.
- The freedom of religion is rather a collective expression and practice's freedom.
- The belief's freedom is an individual freedom. It's the application of Opinion's freedom, one the very first basic freedoms.
But those can conflict when the individual changes his/her viewpoints, or when someone wants to impose him/her a new opinion or belief, which has never been his/her.
- Those conflicts are complex when the Childrens Rights are at stake, particularly regarding the Education's Rights as defined under article 29 of the International Convention of Childrens Rights (UN).
Those conflicts are also complex when it is useful to come to the topic of adults protection and protection of the weakened persons.
- The problem posed by fraudulent acts against contractual freedoms [when something cancels the validity of an agreement], or under heirs and heritages topics.
The freedom of religion can also conflict to other collective freedoms: every one of those possibilities should be looked into here:
- The right of individuals to security and the religion's right.
- violations of law and order and the religion's right.
- violations of social order (unpaid wages for staffs, benevolents) and the religion's rights.
- violations of financial and economic order (15 pages of the 1997 record done by an independant organ inside the french offices, the Central Office on prevention and corruption, on cults and their illegal practices in those areas), and the religions' rights.
- Finally, the religion's freedom can include the freedom to expose oneself as adept of a religion : "Im' a member of...", and religion's rights.
Here we have an individual freedom with a collective relationship:
The one exposing himself states his own claim to the practice of the religion he says being a member of.
Those practices can have been sometimes ruled as dangerous or outlawed. They can have been technically ruled as such. They can be such for the individual, the group (cities, areas, companies), the children, the adults to be protected.
Those are, Monsieur le Président, some viewpoints from a jurist to contribute to this debate, as you have asked.
As an official representant for France, I'm willing to conclude, reminding that France is a country of religious freedoms. France is open to dialogue with religions, in the frame of the respect of State and Churches separation, internal laws, of its fundamental principles [its own declaration of Human and Citizen's Rights], and inside the frame of international agrreements it has signed. "
Why it is important ? With this reunion and the same at CSCE, the american's government has accused France of persecuting JW and other religion. Even Jim Penton in his last book is agree with this view of France. Definetly, Garay is the best Jw's lobbyist that you ever know !!!
Bye
Charles
The best successfull Jw's lobbyist you've ever known
by chasson 56 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
chasson
-
chasson
Perhaps it is really interesting to know if Garay is a JW or not:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1028302591879
Concerning the advisory panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion of the ODIHR of OSCE it is states:
"We also support, including through financial assistance, the work of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which, inter alia, offers technical assistance on legislation. For example, in 2001, their advisory panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion helped develop a package for Armenian schools on religious tolerance, prepared a draft law on the Status of Religious Associations in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and expanded a website to gather and identify examples of legislative best practice on Freedom of Religion."
You have read they "prepared a draft law on the Status of Religious Associations in Bosnia-Hercegovina"...
This issue raise several problem:
These men, JW or not, are not elected democratically, they are nominated, we don't know how and by whom. "Bosnia" is now after the war period a democracy, this is their deputy that make law, and not some technocrat.
Concerning Garay, if he is a JW, prepare a draft law is terribly politic and he must be disfellowshiped.
Bye
Charles -
LDH
I think I'm in love.
I've read every line here, and when I have some time over the weekend, I have some questions for you Charles.
Some of it has been a little difficult to interpret but the meaning is clear. The WT has an inside man, a political lobbyist, at the highest levels.
This information VOIDS their argument that they were using their NGO card to 'borrow library books.'
Lisa
-
Narkissos
Concerning Garay, if he is a JW, prepare a draft law is terribly politic and he must be disfellowshiped.
The question being, where do "politics" start for the WT?
One is left with the suspicion that "politics" really mean democracy: voting and being candidate to an election are forbidden, but almost any position within, or collaboration with, a governmental administration is practically okay.
Perhaps that's the reason why most JWs don't see a problem with OT figures like Joseph, Mordecai or Daniel: out of the democratic setting it's not shocking.
-
LDH
almost any position within, or collaboration with, a governmental administration is practically okay.
Over here in the states, you can be a 'public employee of a government'--this holds a different meaning.
Lobbying positions are most frequently attained through 'networking' within certain political parties who ensure that your interests are theirs.These are not jobs that are advertised in the newspaper classified sections.
This is the Old Boys Club of old boys clubs.
Add to that the fact that JWs themselves can't stock cigarettes if they are employed by a store......
-
DannyHaszard
As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things." -Danny
-
chasson
Thanks LDH for your kind words. If you have some question i hope to have time, and to have the answers.
Narkissos:"One is left with the suspicion that "politics" really mean democracy: voting and being candidate to an election are forbidden, but almost any position within, or collaboration with, a governmental administration is practically okay"
Yes, this is a question that i want to discuss somewhere, (why not here, but it is more easy in french for me).
The JW think that they follow exactly the path of the first christians, and for them "first christians" (it is really a generic term for hidden a complex reality) had no part in politics.
If you search history's books on the subject, you can see that at this time there was no real politic in the modern sense, in fact since Jules Cesar, there was no more democracy (even if the democracy of the republic was far away than our modern democratic's view), so the Roman Empire was autocratic even if the republic structure still exist.
So why the first christians didn't want to have some official responsabilities. In fact, only because as an official of the roman Empire you must participate to sacrifice to pagan's gods. Perhaps i have not search really deeply in the matter, but if what i read is confirmed, the JW have misreprensented the reality.
True, you can have a position in governmental administration because the refusal of the first christians to be official of the roman empire was based on the problem of sacrifice of pagan's gods, but concerning democracy, you can't use the first christian's example, there were no democracy at their times.
So if they want, without reasoning, use the first christian's example they could not be an official of any government because this is what the first christian refused. Concerning vote and democracy, they could not use the first christian's example. -
Narkissos
So why the first christians didn't want to have some official responsabilities. In fact, only because as an official of the roman Empire you must participate to sacrifice to pagan's gods.
Actually the Church Father testimonies rather suggest that the pre-Constantinian Christians were divided on the issue of military service; Tertullian is against it, but he confirms that there were Christians serving in the Roman armies. "Pagan" worship was an issue, but also some pacifist notions (e.g. Maximilian or St. Martin of Tours). I'm not sure we have any information on the early Christian stance(s) about holding positions in the Roman civil administration. As far as the NT is concerned, there is no hint in the obviously pro-Roman texts (e.g. Paul and Acts) that Roman converts (e.g. Cornelius) should leave their military or civil positions.
Whatever the case, I agree with your remarks on modern democracy: it involves a completely new paradigm and consequently a new moral responsibility: how can you say that governments are set/ruled either by God (Romans 13) or by Satan (Revelation) when you are offered to vote them in or out?
-
chasson
Narkissos:. I'm not sure we have any information on the early Christian stance(s) about holding positions in the Roman civil administration.
I think that a Roman "civil" administration is perhaps an anachronism. I have read a book concerning life in roman cities in the days of apostles to answer to a JW on fr.soc.sectes, several months ago. He affirmed concerning Paul and his autorisation (or perhaps his acceptation of the thinking of some corinthians) of eating things sacrified to idols at the table of Temple, that it was in the part of the Temple which could be classified as "civil" ... I have found a book that explain simply that eating a food sacrified to idol, is everywhere interpret as a partake with the gods at this time, because the roman's society of the time has no thinking of secular activities or place.
The title of the book: "Quand faire c'est croire" "When acting is believe (?)". I don't remember the author.
Bye
Charles -
Narkissos
I think that a Roman "civil" administration is perhaps an anachronism. I have read a book concerning life in roman cities in the days of apostles to answer to a JW on fr.soc.sectes, several months ago. He affirmed concerning Paul and his autorisation (or perhaps his acceptation of the thinking of some corinthians) of eating things sacrified to idols at the table of Temple, that it was in the part of the Temple which could be classified as "civil" ... I have found a book that explain simply that eating a food sacrified to idol, is everywhere interpret as a partake with the gods at this time, because the roman's society of the time has no thinking of secular activities or place.
You are probably right, although I didn't mean "civil" vs. "religious" but vs."military". But in many cases it was not separate. A province governor, for instance, would have executive, judicial and military powers.
The title of the book: "Quand faire c'est croire" "When acting is believe (?)". I don't remember the author.
John Scheid.