Watch Tower Publishing Literature To Incite Hatred Towards All Religions, All Earthly Government, And People Not Jehovah Witnesses

by frankiespeakin 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Chaserious

    "The way I see it: freedom of the indiviual trumps the freedom of a tax evadeing corporation that calls itself a religion for tax purposes to lower operation cost and increase profitiblity.

    If a religion is insighting hatred for others, it should be held to a high standard of truth,, if it uses lies and deception it should be made liable, freedom of religion should never be used as an excuse to say what ever you want and not be held liable for any slanderous lies and the damages these cause."

    It seems to me that you are lumping together two important issues that deserve separate treatment. One is tax exempt status. That's a totally different issue, and I believe that some change in this area might be good, although that's up for debate. My personal take is that there should at least be some ability to impose property tax on religious property, for all religions. Otherwise, in effect the rest of us are subsidizing the churches, synogogues, etc. They get the same police and fire protection, garbage removal, and so on from local government, but don't pay any of the price.

    The other is banning speech, and I will reiterate that I strongly believe this is an extremely dangerous game you want to play. Equating print with freedom of thought and expression is not a 21st century idea. The framers of the U.S. constitution knew they were both important expressions of thought and protected both speech and the press by the first amendment. I do not think you want the government reading everything that is printed by anyone to decide if it were "true" or not. Could any religion thus be banned, if they can't prove that "God" is real and true, as they might print in their literature? Could parents be prosecuted for telling their children there is a tooth fairy? After all, that isn't true, and arguably could cause damage when the kid finds out it's not. Besides, most of what I think you are upset about in the WTS literature is more of selective reporting and spinning the facts the way they want, leaving out the ones that don't make them look good. Of all people, I don't think politicians have room to go after that kind of practice.

    Now, when you talk about "Slanderous Lies", these are in fact punishable under the present laws, at least in the U.S. In other words, if they print in the Watchtower that John Doe is a drunk who beats his wife, and none of this is true, John Doe can sue the Watchtower for libel and recover money, regardless of the freedom of religion mantle. If you are talking about lies as to doctrine... well that's why it's religious doctrine. It can't be proven, any more than the doctrine of any system of beliefs that tries to explain the supernatural. Put your hatred for the harm the WTS has caused to you aside for a moment, and ask whether you REALLY want government agents deciding if religious doctrine is "true" or not.

  • Chaserious

    And BTW, you don't like the WTS saying all other religions are going to be destroyed because it incites hatred for people of those religions. Well, the Catholic Church teaches that certain classes of people are going to burn in hell. That's arguably worse for inciting hatred since they are deserving of not just death, but eternal torment. So if I understand your rule correctly, the teachings of the Catholic Church would also be banned, at least in printed form. Not a big fan of the RCC, but just sayin..

  • james_woods
    I'm thinking in time many countries will follow Russia's ban on hate inspireing literature.

    Undoubtedly, the JWs would never have gotten started and grown to their present position without extremely liberal application of the United States free speech laws. Even then, they did come afoul of the government in Rutherford's day when he published literature encouraging active members of the military toward sedition.

    Free speech is a wonderful human right, but we do have to put up with some truly ridiculous bullshit - look no further than the Westboro Baptist Church if you want another example aside from the witnesses.

  • Finkelstein

    The WTS. leaders were always more devoted to the organization and toward their own position of which they held within it.

    Certainly not toward truthful bible interpretation and understanding.

    Creating a semblance of hate toward other religions as well ones that left theirs ( apostates ) has been part of them gaining power and

    support toward themselves, as well as a means to hold on to people to whom they lured in.

  • frankiespeakin

    Freedom of Speech, Religious Harassment Law, and

    Religious Accommodation Law on page 68> starting under IV. “DISPARAGING THE RELIGION OR BELIEFS OF OTHERS”

    Also related: Good Samaritan laws:

    Churches and religious non-profits are something of a special case, because the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and also forbids "prohibiting the free exercise thereof [that is, of religion]." The First Amendment originally bound only the U.S. Federal Government, but by incorporation through the 14th Amendment, also binds state and local governments. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act many generally applicable state laws regarding employment, zoning and the like are relaxed for churches.

  • frankiespeakin

    The Watch Tower corporations stand towards it's members who later for religious reason change beliefs is a violation of religious freedom laws. They alienate affection of family members and others, insighting hatred of former member by enforced shunning and spreading lies about thier mental condition calling them "mentally diseased", and worthy of a death sentence, but who according religious freedom laws have a right to do so without harassmnt.

    I think the enforcement of the shunning members that have had a change in religious views, with the threat of disfellowshipping any members who are found non compliant to the enforced shunning, puts them in violation of these religious freedom laws.

  • PaintedToeNail

    We seem to be saying nasty things about them. If you want to sue them for infringement of your rights, go ahead. Maybe the ACLU will help you. None of us, not even us born ins, can say that a gun was held to our heads and we were forced to do what they said. I hate the shunning aspect of the Borg, yet they have the right to do it as much as you have the right to shun them back and post anything you want to. Your cannot force other people to talk to you. They could be shunning you because you are too tall, have crooked teeth, were jeans. People cannot and should not be forced to do things they don't want too. Free will, even for JW's comes into play.

    Should they be taxed? Yes! The Borg happily uses services from the government that they don't pay for, but, so do all religions. They should all be taxed. Their tax exempt status is questionable. Not their right to free speech.

  • frankiespeakin


    It is the enforcement of the shunning ie>the threat to disfellowship its members who don't shun that put them in the realm of violating freedom of religion laws and insighting hatred of a person because of religious beleifs.

  • Chaserious


    They are absolutely not in violation of existing religious freedom laws in the U.S. Whether or not you think the constitution should be changed so that they are, you and I will evidently disagree on, but U.S. courts have time and again upheld the rights of religious organizations such as the JWs, Amish, Mormons, etc to shun people. I can cite the cases if you aren't convinced. We are guaranteed two rights by the constitution in respect to religion - the right to be free from government-established religion, and the right to free exercise of religion. If some people want to exercise their religion by shunning others, that is their right in a free society. It's contemptible, but it doesn't interfere with YOUR right of free exercise. The WTS is not holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to shun. If someone doesn't want to shun, they can use their own free exercise rights and leave the religion too.

    You haven't addressed by earlier comparison. Yes, the WTS says apostates are worthy of a death sentence. But the Catholic Church says those who disown the Church and oppose it will go to hell. Isn't that worse? Do you want to ban them too?


  • PaintedToeNail

    Frankie-I agree the DF shunning policy is heinous. I was a victim of it for four years. It was horrid, immoral and down right wrong, but it is a protected freedom. The Target corporation has in the past, been shunned by people calling for a boycott of the corp. for the treatment of gay people. The people calling for the boycott do have a right to free speech. Those who chose to shun/boycott Target were within their legal right to do so. Those who chose not to shun/boycott were also entitled to. Did it cause harm to Target probably, but everyone has the right make up their own mind as to what they want to do.

Share this