Children in Bulgaria - CANNOT BECOME MEMBERS (page 2)

garybuss

Coc, your original post had this quote: "the applicant association submits that there are NO religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who CHOOSES TO ACCEPT a blood transfusion . . . "

Technically this is true. The sanctions imposed are social sanctions, not religious. It's classic "Theocratic Warfare".

rebel8

This is what my argument would be..........

Isn't the act of announcing that someone is just like a thief etc. (therefore not allowed into paradise) a sanction in and of itself?

Also, when someone is DAd, sanctions occur when a person loses their privileges.

Can't answer at meetings*
Titles are lost at time of DA--pioneer, MS, etc., etc.*
Men cannot carry microphones, serve as bookkeeper, etc.
Can't go out in field service*
Men cannot be considered the spiritual head of their families any more (right?)
Men are not supposed to study with their kids*
Can't participate in the ministry school*

*The moment the wts quoted scriptures in support of saying these things are pleasing to God--even obligatory--and "reaching out" is showing faith in God, they made them religious practices.

BluesBrother

Excuse me but is this not an old topic?

http://www.ajwrb.org/bulgaria/index.shtml

or has something happened to raise it again? incidentally, do we have any evidence from Bulgaria that they have a different policy? or has the principle ever been tested in European Courts?

restrangled

Coco,

Where is this statement made by the WBTS?

"As regards the ALLEGED involvement of children, the applicant association [WTS] submits that children CANNOT BECOME MEMBERS of the association but only participate...In respect to the refusal of blood transfusions, the applicant association submits that there are NO religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who CHOOSES TO ACCEPT a blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusions CANNOT AMOUNT TO A THREAT to public health." ECOHR, re: WT seeks legal recognition in Bulgaria, 1997,

I apologize ahead of time if this has already been answered previously.

r.

compound complex

Dear BB & Rest,

Thanx for your questions:

BB: Yes, old topic, but I am seeking updated -- if any -- material. The same old double standard, I'm assuming.

Rest: see BB's link in post previous to yours -- AJWRB etc...........

CoCo

Euphemism

The blood deal is pretty simple. A few years back, they changed the punishment for accepting blood from disfellowshipping to disassociation. That means that they no longer 'sanction' someone for taking blood; instead, they claim that anyone who taks blood has voluntarily withdrawn from the organization. Different words, exact same effect.

As for children being "members", I don't know the exact deal, but here's a guess:

In the United States, Kingdom Halls are frequently owned by local corporations. The "membership" of these corporations is defined as all baptized publishers in the congregation, 18 years of age or older. So children can still "participate" by being baptized, preaching, and even facing a judicial committee; but they're not technically "members."

I don't know if that's how it works in Bulgaria as well, but I would guess it's some word-game like that.

sammielee24

In the United States, Kingdom Halls are frequently owned by local corporations

Sorry but I'm choking with the hypocrisy of it all - those baptized publishers over 18 VOTE for their local once a year - by direction of the WTS. They insist its a legal formality - ain't that a freakin joke when those same publishers won't vote as a legal formality for the president/sec of their own union, membership committee etc because the GB goons tell them not to. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr sammieswife.

TheOldHippie

Child baptism is discussed, and JWs do not practise that in the sense of baptising newborn babies. That is what it boils down to. No fuzz at all.

Scully

CoCo,

As you know, the WTS are masters of semantic deception. The use of the word sanction is quite interesting in this instance.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sanction

Main Entry: 1 sanc·tion
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin sanction-, sanctio, from sancire to make holy -- more at SACRED
1: a formal decree; especially: an ecclesiastical decree
2 aobsolete: a solemn agreement : OATHb: something that makes an oath binding
3:the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law4 a: a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment b: a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards c:explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification: APPROBATION
5: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication

Let's look at the quote from the point of view of the European Commission on Human Rights:

In respect to the refusal of blood transfusions, the applicant association submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept a blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusions cannot amount to a threat to public health.

The ECOHR would read this sentence and conclude that sanctions refer to "the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of law as a means of enforcing the law", and would agree with the statement that there is no threat to public health and welfare of JW children.

However, the WTS lawyer involved in the writing of this application / appeal clearly meant sanctions to refer to "explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification" considering the following outcomes over the past 10 years.

a Jehovah's Witness would not accept a blood transfusion for himself or his children, therefore if one accepts a blood transfusion, one is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses
the fact that accepting a blood transfusion is the equivalent of the voluntary Disassociation™ of one's membership as one of Jehovah's Witnesses
"the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of law as a means of enforcing the law" in the form of shunning, is not carried out against Jehovah's Witnesses, but against persons who are "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", having voluntarily Disassociated™ themselves of their membership with Jehovah's Witnesses by accepting a blood transfusion.

This is a very clever piece of fancy footwork on the part of the WT Legal Department. Make no mistake about it. Cautious as serpents and innocent as doves comes to mind.

compound complex

BTTT - There are many fine comments here; please note those of Scully.

Compound-Complex

Children in Bulgaria - CANNOT BECOME MEMBERS

Share this