WT is a human rights violator according to the definition of state.gov and USA law - time for us to start putting pressure in lawmakers!

by EndofMysteries 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EndofMysteries

  Religious freedom taken from http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper

  Quotingdirectly from the article...."it is the responsibility of governments to safeguard universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to life and the freedom of conscience, belief, practice, worship, and to explain and change one’s faith.........People cannot enjoy religious freedom unless they have both the right to express their beliefs freely and change their religion without facing persecution, violence, or discrimination.... (Ask yourself if the WT article I'm quoting next is allowing the freedom to change religion without discrimination and persecution.)

  So with that being said.....Is the WT protecting religious freedom? In the upcoming Feb 2016 study WT what is being taught if a person's mother leaves the religion?

  Feb 2016 "Learn From Loyal Servants" talks about a mother who abandoned/left the WT religion......." Thus, one who is loyal to God could easily feel strong ties of loyalty to a close friend or relative even if that person is practicing what is bad. Especially when someone close to us abandons the truth must we remember that Jehovah always merits our primary loyalty.—ReadMatthew 22:37.

  7. How did one sister stay loyal to God in a difficult situation?

  7 A conflict of loyalties may arise when a close relative is disfellowshipped. For example, a sister named Anne [1] received a telephone call from her disfellowshipped mother. The mother wanted to visit Anne because she felt pained by her isolation from the family. Anne was deeply distressed by the plea and promised to reply by letter. Before writing, she reviewed Bible principles. (1 Cor. 5:11;2 John 9-11) Anne wrote and kindly reminded her mother that she had cut herself off from the family by her wrongdoing and unrepentant attitude. “The only way you can relieve your pain is by returning to Jehovah,” Anne wrote.—Jas. 4:8."

  So a person can't talk or associate with their own mother??? Yet look at the LIE on the Jw.org FAQ about family!! http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/ "Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned......What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue."""

  I think the only way this religion is able to keep getting away with publishing and teaching to shun parents, children, don't even email grand children, etc, is because everybody assumes they are allowed to and nothing will happen. I guarantee if all ex jw's started putting a lot of pressure in law makers and the right departments even if they can't change the shunning policy it could force WT to stop publishing those instructions of human rights violations.
• 

  Simon

  "change their religion without facing persecution, violence, or discrimination"

  ... means you shouldn't be killed, physically attacked or discriminated against (wedding cake anyone?) for changing your religion.

  It does not mean that all your previous follow believers still have to invite you to BBQ's and family events if that is their belief.

  You see how the religious freedom applies to both sides?

  Claiming this is violating human rights is simply wrong IMO and unlikely to be treated seriously. What is the point of campaigning for something that can never happen? It's just a waste of time and energy and the short potential attention that could be had for real winnable issues such as cover-up of abuse.

  See: The right to shun - wrong?

  That doesn't mean shunning isn't cruel and should simply be accepted, but a human-rights violation? How on earth would that work.

  See: Doing the Right Thing, Making a Choice (shunning)
• 

  EndofMysteries

  It does not mean that all your previous follow believers still have to invite you to BBQ's and family events if that istheir belief.

  As per this example...."Especially when someone close to us abandons the truth(Watchtower) must we remember that Jehovah always merits our primary loyalty....Anne [1]received a telephone call from her disfellowshipped mother. The mother wanted to visit Anne because she felt pained by her isolation from the family.Before writing, she reviewed Bible principles(What the WT said). "The only way you can relieve your pain is by returning to Jehovah(The Watchtower),” Anne wrote.

  There is a big difference between a person on their own deciding to shun somebody and the WT teaching to shun your parents, to not even email ,etc. A person is free to shun anybody they choose and free to be racist, hate gays and religions, et. An organization is NOT free to teach others and instruct others to coerce and deny religious freedom. You seem to think or equate that everything people do in the organization is their own free will choice and not because of specific instructions from the published magazines they study that reinteract the shunning several times a year.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Anyway today I contacted the state.gov and department of justice on discrimination/human rights violations, etc. I'll post their responses when they get back to me.
• 

  Simon

  There is a big difference between a person on their own deciding to shun somebody and the WT teaching to shun your parents,

  I go into that more in the second topic I linked to above. Whatever difference you think there is, only the person shunning their parents is making the decision to do so. There are lots of influences all around us - it's up to each one of us which ones we chose to listen to.

  You can't legislate away stupid.

  I'll post their responses when they get back to me.

  Their response will be along the lines of "thank you for your inquiry, however ..."

  But who knows, it may at least raise some awareness.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  This is far too complex an issue for it to be feasible to attack directly. At best I think you may get some sort of sanction against tax-exempt (loss of status, maybe) organizations that systematically advocate shunning people merely for changing religions. Or maybe something with regard to the use of shunning as punishment for failure to shun someone else. But there are ways around that. I don't think the government would ever take action to stop or sanction an organization for advocating that you shun people who don't live up to your moral standards, and that's a loophole that's big enough to probably make any government sanctions pointless and ineffective. Anyone with the power to enact some sort of sanction against the WTS would likely see this and decide not to devote any further energy to it.
• 

  Warren Wilson

  My brother's best friend committed suicide because he was disfellowshipped. The story is too long to relate because I am at work but when I have the time I will post it.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  I go into that more in the second topic I linked to above. Whatever difference you think there is, only the person shunning their parents is making the decision to do so. There are lots of influences all around us - it's up to each one of us which ones we chose to listen to.
  You can't legislate away stupid.

  Based on that reasoning then it would be perfectly okay for the WT to publish articles saying, "Thus, one who is loyal to God could easily feel strong ties of loyalty to a close friend or relative even if that person is practicing what is bad. We must remember that Jehovah always merits our primary loyalty. (Shows some OT scriptures) As you can see Jehovah wants us to put them to death. (shows scriptures on obey God rather than man). So even though man's law forbids us to put somebody to death, God's law is above that. If we know of somebody practicing homosexuality or committing fornication, let's follow the bold example of the early israelites and storm in their tent(house) and put them to death! Let us also not forget those who abandon the truth are even more deserving of death. John Smith, even though in jail for life, had this to say..."My mother pleaded with me not to kill her, but I knew by killing her I was actually saving her because the great tribulation hadn't come yet and either way I had to keep my dedication and loyalty to the organization above all else!" What a fine example!

  So Simon, is that allowed too? The WT would not get in trouble because in the end it's the person who would choose to do anything right? If not, what is the difference between instructing people to murder vs coerce and intimidate to deny their religious freedom?
• 

  DATA-DOG

  If the public outcry is loud enough, the Government listens. When enough people come forward with their personal stories, maybe something will happen.

  We can't just let everything slide under the guise of religious freedom. Human rights extend beyond just "not being killed."

  DD
• 

  Simon

  So Simon, is that allowed too?

  You want me to argue over whether something that doesn't happen should be allowed or not?

  "should they be allowed to sacrifice babies" ... would be an equally pointless question.

  (and yes, I know the WT quote from 50 years ago lamenting the fact that secular authorities don't allow killing of apostates).

  The WT would not get in trouble because in the end it's the person who would choose to do anything right? If not, what is the difference between instructing people to murder vs coerce and intimidate to deny their religious freedom?

  I believe the human rights aspect of the proclamation (not legislation) is really targeted at religions who DO kill people who break their rules or leave or simply don't worship in the first place.

  Who gives a damn about the Jehovah's Witnesses when Islam does what it does?