JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04

by 4JWY 158 Replies latest jw friends

patio34
Hi Alan,
Go scratch dirt, bug-boy. I'm not going to take time to argue what seems to be self-evident that there is freedom of religion and it's a right thing to do. Go live in Russia if you don't like it.
I beg your pardon, but you didn't answer MY questions first.
1. Should Catholics be banned for allowing their priests to molest children?
2. Should the Amish be banned for shunning?
3. Should the Christian Scientists be banned for their stand on meds?
4. Who decides what constitutes harm, if it already isn't against the law?
5. If other groups are not banned, then on what grounds should JWs be banned?
You didn't respond to those. Please practice what you preach.
Pat
AlanF

Patio said,
: Go scratch dirt, bug-boy.
Hey, them's fighin' woids!
: I'm not going to take time to argue what seems to be self-evident that there is freedom of religion and it's a right thing to do.
There should be freedom of religion alright. But within limits. That's the point of my question to you.
: Go live in Russia if you don't like it.
Naah, I like it much better here.
: I beg your pardon, but you didn't answer MY questions first.
I didn't answer them because I hoped to lead you, via my question, to the proper point of view.
But here goes:
: 1. Should Catholics be banned for allowing their priests to molest children?
If they had refused to reform, and as a matter of policy continued to let priests do that, then yes. But since they've done a lot to clean up their act, no.
: 2. Should the Amish be banned for shunning?
They should be given a chance to quit that nasty practice. If they don't, then yes.
: 3. Should the Christian Scientists be banned for their stand on meds?
Yes, because dumb followers die from putting these beliefs into practice.
: 4. Who decides what constitutes harm, if it already isn't against the law?
That's exactly my point. Harm is defined by the law. It's harmful to murder people. It's harmful to molest children. It's harmful to slander people. It's harmful to deliberately break up families. Don't you agree? And don't you agree that any group that advocates doing these things should be severely censured, if not banned outright?
: 5. If other groups are not banned, then on what grounds should JWs be banned?
Since I think that other harmful groups should be banned or otherwise censured (perhaps via a streamlining of the process for individuals to win lawsuits against abusive groups), your question is irrelevant to me.
: You didn't respond to those. Please practice what you preach.
I just did. Your turn.
AlanF
4JWY

Does anyone know how many countries JW's are banned in currently - and what are the reasons for the bans?
patio34

Hi Alan, here's an answer:
1. Should Catholics be banned for allowing their priests to molest children?
If they had refused to reform, and as a matter of policy continued to let priests do that, then yes. But since they've done a lot to clean up their act, no.
I don't know how much the Catholic religion has done to clean up their act. But they have had to go to court and pay out a lot in settlements. This is what has made them do any cleaning up. I think this is a better way to go about it rather than making laws against groups that may have potential to be used against others. Actually, it could be taken care of with the JWs better by simply mandating and enforcing that every act of abuse must be reported.
2. Should the Amish be banned for shunning?
They should be given a chance to quit that nasty practice. If they don't, then yes.
Sorry, I disagree completely. It's their business if they want to do that; certainly not the government's business.
: 3. Should the Christian Scientists be banned for their stand on meds?
Yes, because dumb followers die from putting these beliefs into practice.
Each person makes their own decision about their medical care. Should other medical options be mandated? In the case of children, as is done often, a court order should be obtained.
: 4. Who decides what constitutes harm, if it already isn't against the law?
That's exactly my point. Harm is defined by the law. It's harmful to murder people. It's harmful to molest children. It's harmful to slander people. It's harmful to deliberately break up families. Don't you agree? And don't you agree that any group that advocates doing these things should be severely censured, if not banned outright?
Of course it's harmful to do what you delineated. But "breaking up families"? How would you prove that? What about people who have affairs breaking up families? And I couldn't say that the JWs advocate doing this as overtly before the breakup--it's the shunning that causes it. No, I do not agree that the government would have any say-so in banning such a group.
: 5. If other groups are not banned, then on what grounds should JWs be banned?
Since I think that other harmful groups should be banned or otherwise censured (perhaps via a streamlining of the process for individuals to win lawsuits against abusive groups), your question is irrelevant to me.
Well, we do not agree. People have a right to do what they want (of course, not including the egregious things you mention) and you do not have the right to tell me if I want to practice my religion in a certain way. You have lumped what is "harmful" and "abusive" into a large group that includes murder, human sacrifice, etc. with shunning and medical care. This is polemic and misleading, imo, as they don't compare.
This seems similar to saying a pregnant woman who does drugs and abuses the unborn is lumped together with a pregnant woman who has a drink or takes an aspirin or eats junk food. There's a wide spectrum and a lot of degrees of "harm."
Pat
P.S. I don't appreciate the slur in your calling my previous response "emotion-based." What would be your basis for saying that?
AlanF

Patio, you castigated me for not answering your questions. I then answered. You've still not answered mine, so I'll repeat it:
Do you think that a group advocating ritual child sacrifice ought to be banned? Explain your reasoning.
I see no need to comment further to you until you answer this.
AlanF
itsallgoodnow

Scooby, It seems like you are losing your patience with some of us out here. I've seen posts on this board that affected me the same way as you are affected here, (people wishing to give physical violence on witnesses doing street work, etc.) and I wondered if I really fit in.
But people react to being disfellowshipped or losing their families in different ways. Some become more aggressive from this type of unfavorable treatment, but most are able to find other ways to deal. We are not "united in worship" out here. Just ordinary folks reaching out. Some of the old-timers out here have said they see a pattern with this, that eventually most people relax with the agression after a while, become less argumentative.
It's really hard to not argue about some things out here, and when you see something that seems like it doesn't represent what you stand for and what you think probably most everyone out here stands for, you want to say something, but I'm beginning to think it's not worth it. I don't get anything out of that but frustration. Just look for the good inspiring topics and hope you can carry something out of it.
hillary_step

Alan & Patio34,
My own viewpoint is that no religion should be banned, as this would cast a gloomy shadow on hard fought for personal freedoms. I do believe though, that all religions should be strictly licensed by Government, as is the necessity with any other body that has a more than casual input into the emotional well being of individuals. They should be very strictly monitored and if they do contravene standards set by the governments to protect the interests of its citizens, and are unwilling or unable to comply with the Law, their license to practice should be revoked.
A religions adherents should be able to sue its religion, just as a person can with any other profession if they have suffered harm in any way from their participation in that religion and its teachings. Presently religions invoke the First Amendment and hide much misery behind it, they should not have this option if it results in harm to others.
After all, this is hardly precedent setting and is the methodology used to monitor the medical profession, the sciences, sports and entertainment. Why should religion, which in may ways is far more dangerous when let on the loose than these other professions, be exempt from such Government monitoring and accepted social standards?
HS
patio34

Thanks for the post HS. Religious rights, as are other rights, are important. I'm in a hurry right now as I have to leave for the day, but it seems to me that getting a license would, in effect, enable banning.
Hi Alan--to answer your question I would say yes such a group should be and is illegal. Now I thing you're going to say JWs use child sacrifice because of blood transfusions (as would Christian Scientists). But no, I don't think the group should be banned, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. Plus, JWs should and often do, as I pointed out, have court orders against them for blood transfusions.
Plus Alan, I'd appreciate it if you'd lighten up on the polemics and insults (I didn't "castigate" you, imo, and you called my post "emotional"). Let's stick to the issues.
I'll be out the rest of the day, so won't be able to check back.
Pat
hillary_step

Patio,
Religious rights, as are other rights, are important. I'm in a hurry right now as I have to leave for the day, but it seems to me that getting a license would, in effect, enable banning.
No it would not.
Religions all like to think that they run on a direct string of God's good graces, when everybody knows that they run on money. If a religion has its license revoked, it should be heavily and continually fined until it complies with regulations set forth to protect the citizens of that country. If this results in their bankruptcy, then so be it.
There are numerous bodies set up to enforce all the other bodies mentioned in my first post to comply. Religions have no right to expect exemption from the laws that apply to these other structured bodies.
Best regards - HS
plmkrzy

yes such a group should be and is illegal.

There is a big difference between things that are actually against the law and practiced in religious rituals
and
things practiced in religions that we don't approve of or we dislike or even hate.
To ask someone if a group advocating ritual child sacrifice should be condoned in any form or fashion (which is what you ARE asking) is just plane stupid!

JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04

Share this