JWs Outlawed in Russia

by minimus 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Corney

  @TD

  Here in the U.S. we're willing to recognize almost anything as a religion, but that's not the case in countries like Russia. If the JW's want to be recognized as a religion on human rights grounds, then I think they're going to have to start behaving more like a religion (as in being fundamentally benevolent and charitable) and less like a group that abuses the whole concept of human rights.
  

  This opposition between the US and "countries like Russia" (what are they? Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, China, Singapore, Syria?) is false. I think you know that JWs are fully recognized as a religion in countries like Austria, Hungary, Germany, France, Romania, Spain, UK, even Belarus and Kazakhstan, not only in America. They can freely practice their religion in almost all states (including all democratic and almost all developed) with exception of some Muslim, Socialist and post-Soviet ones. And there are only two countries that incarcerate people merely for being active Witnesses - Eritrea (where it is common to detain people for years without charges) and Russia. Even in Singapore, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc. it is not a crime to be a JW. In Russia, it is.

  Again, in Russia (and "countries like Russia") appeals to freedom of religion are useless since Russian authorities and their pocket "courts" don't respect human rights at all.

  So, that's not about different visions of religious freedom but about respecting it or not.

  And Russian government doesn't dislike religion in general. Russian Orthodox Church is now like Communist Party in the Soviet Union - it is almost impossibly for government officials and people in similar positions and for state-controlled media (incl. all major TV channels) to criticize it. Doors of schools, universities, hospitals, Army barracks, and prisons are open for Orthodox priests (but not ministries of other religions), and many school, college, hospital etc. buildings were transferred to ROC. The Church is directly and indirectly sponsored by state. Finally, many staffers of the Church (believing in hypnosis and tithe in the org and JWs delivering data collected during D2D ministry to CIA) are "experts" in the field of religion for state security and law enforcement agencies. And that's all despite the fact that only very small percentage of the population (nearly 2-4%) are practicing Orthodox believers.
  
• 

  TD

  Vanderhoven7
  

  Do you have the complete reference the 1999 Awake quotation.

  The quote was from the February 22 issue.
  
• 

  TD

  
  

  Corney,

  I appreciate your observations. "Countries like Russia" as I used the term would be countries who have either refused to recognize Jehovah's Witnesses and/or questioned their legitimacy as a Christian religion. I gave the example of Bulgaria. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?
  

  Or perhaps you would like to comment on some or all of the problematic practices I mentioned?
  

  Again, these include, but are not limited to:
  

  Forbidding medical treatments that have become standard protocol; Violating medical autonomy by stepping in and making specific rulings about the permissibility of experimental treatments for individuals; Encouraging members to break confidentiality law and/or professional medical ethics; Denying their members the right to an impartial record of disciplinary proceedings; Practicing a form of shunning straight out of the Middle Ages; Refusing to allow members to leave, discontinue or change their religious beliefs with their dignity intact; Refusing to cooperate with government inquiries on child abuse; Deliberately breaking an agreement mediated by the European Court of Human Rights.

  Perhaps you would like to explain what basis a religion that does these things has in appealing to freedom? Or why that should be viewed as anything other than rank hypocrisy?
  
• 

  Corney

  TD
  

  "Countries like Russia" as I used the term would be countries who have either refused to recognize Jehovah's Witnesses and/or questioned their legitimacy as a Christian religion. I gave the example of Bulgaria. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?

  Firstly, Bulgaria is a bad example because:

  • it's a 20+-year-old example; JWs a recognized in Bulgaria as a religion since 1998;
  • post-Communist Bulgaria didn't prosecute Witnesses for their belief;
  • in 1990s, there was a campaign against "non-traditional" religions at all, including Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists as like as Orthodox and Muslim communities outside state-supported organizations. For example, "[u]p to July 25, 1994, the Council of Ministers accepted three decisions which affected 62 [religious] communities and foundations. Only 23 of them, mostly with Christian-Orthodox orientation were permitted to register and re-register. The remaining 39 communities were denied permission. These had mainly Protestant orientation, two Muslim and one Christian-Orthodox organization" (Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1994, p. 5). So, it is possible to conclude the government's decision was driven by bias against religious minorities;
  • the decision refusing registration for national JW association (as like as many other religious associations) was adopted by executive branch with irregularities incompatible with the rule of law - it contained no reasons and a judicial review was not available;
    
  • in 1990s, Bulgaria was a poor state in its first post-totalitarian years.
    

  Second, I think governments have not power to decide whether a religion is true, truly Christian or a heresy and whether a belief is "legitimate". That's not their business.

  As to mentioned problematic practices. Firstly, I cannot comment on the Bulgarian case since I'm not persuaded by your accusations. Where are complaints from the government or allegations from CoE Committee of Ministers (the body supervising execution of such settlements)? Or maybe you have knowledge about the situation in Bulgaria and enforcement of blood doctrine by national JW association?

  Secondly, ok, you've mentioned these issues - we all know about them and what the org is (apart from my partial disagreement with the chosen wording), but what's next? Do they justify the discussed persecutions? Or would they justify an apartheid, concentrations camps or beheadings for JWs? If not, why do you continuously mention them in this thread?

  As to allegations of hypocrisy, I don't care about them at all. It is not so difficult to accuse almost any victim of human rights violations of ethically problematic views or behavior but such accusations are irrelevant.

  Finally, it is necessary not to oversimplify the question of harmful and controversial practices, not to forget about how such practices and improper influence are widespread in human society (incl. mainstream churches); about the fact that, on one hand, JWs are not zombies or slaves and can chose to obey or disobey their leaders, on other hand, there is strong pressure from the org; about difficulty of distinguishing between proper and undue influence. This is so easy to list blood doctrine, shunning etc. but it's far more harder to come to fair and reasonable practical conclusions.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  TD - "The leaders and policy makers of the JW faith went before the ECHR and agreed to make changes to accommodate the human rights concerns of the Bulgarian government... They then chose not to honor that agreement."

  Yup.

  One again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

  ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
• 

  TD

  Corney

  I cannot comment on the Bulgarian case since I'm not persuaded by your accusations.

  I was careful to confine myself to facts that can be verified via written documents released both by the ECHR and the JW parent organization(s) themselves.

  I'm getting the impression that perhaps I am speaking to a young person (With my apologies, this is based on the fact that you seem to think that twenty years is a long time and don't seem terribly familiar with this case.)

  If so, what would it take to persuade you?

  Second, I think governments have not power to decide whether a religion is true, truly Christian or a heresy and whether a belief is "legitimate". That's not their business.

  I would agree that it is not the responsibilty of government to sort out doctrine, but at the same time, all governments either ban religions outright or arrest and prosecute their membership when their behavior becomes excessively bad. From the infamous Family to reformed Mormon groups it even happens here in the U.S. where we put religious freedom on a pedestal.

  Do they justify the discussed persecutions?

  No. And I apologize if I've given that impression. My point on this thread is not that the JW's deserve to be mistreated; it's that they should have known better.

  Their propensity for coming as close as they possibly can to breaking the law (And again I can flesh this out with examples) has a very long history of angering oppressive governments. And as I've stated on this thread, the Russian government is oppressive and didn't like the JW's to begin with.

  This is so easy to list blood doctrine, shunning etc. but it's far more harder to come to fair and reasonable practical conclusions.

  Easy in the sense that it is glaringly obvious?

  The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accord their members the basic human rights they demand at an organizational level is well known. The book Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution for example, openly acknowledges this fact.

  If it's your intent to justify this disregard under the umbrella of religious freedom, I'm going to respectfully disagree. The changes they would need to make are minor and again (as I've already pointed out) they formally agreed to make one of the more important ones twenty years ago.