by freemindfade 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
http://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/world/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison-2/
The witnesses make reference to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in reference to their not being able to practice their religion in certain places.
How despicable when (in my mind) their policy of Disfellowshipping, Apostasy, etc, causes them coerce members to keep this religion. In my mind they are violators of this very Article.
Disgusting.
It is pure hypocrisy.
In some lands the exercise of this basic freedom by Jehovah’s Witnesses brings [...] cruel mistreatment.
Hey, they're talking about us!
"In some lands" means "anywhere there are JWs that later decide they don't want to be JWs."
Exactly!!! WT lawyers use and quote 1st amendment rights, civil rights,THEIR rights ..... And turn around and deny everyone else their rights!
How many times do you remember them bragging, boasting to you of all the court cases they have won for "freedom of religion"?
Yes...hypocritical indeed.
There is no "freedom of religion" if one chooses to use analytical thinking and question JW teachings or doctrine!
Was a little bored here at work so I decided to do some quick research and pull together just how hypocritical these bastards are:
From the link in the OP:
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” is a fundamental human right, states Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In some lands the exercise of this basic freedom by Jehovah’s Witnesses brings imprisonment and even cruel mistreatment. Most of those imprisoned are young men who conscientiously object to military service. Others are imprisoned merely for practicing their faith.
Maybe these ones that were imprisoned shouldn't have been insisting that they be given every lawful right.
Hmmmmm....
Young people ask, Vol 1, p36,37:
Let your reasonableness become known to all men,” recommends the Bible. (Philippians 4:5) The original word translated “reasonableness” meant “yielding” and conveyed the attitude of one who did not insist on all his lawful rights. How can you apply that counsel?
w04 9/1 p. 11,12:
When the conscience of a fellow Christian could be offended by what we do, brotherly love will move us to be considerate and restrict our choices. An example of this might be the use of alcoholic beverages. A Christian is permitted to drink wine in moderation. But if doing so might stumble his companion, he will not insist on his rights.
I wonder if failing to place proper emphasis on Jesus might stumble a "fellow" christian ("fellow" in quotes because for a JW to consider christians to be fellow christians, JWs would first have to actually be christians). If so, shouldn't they not insist on their rights to avoid such a stumbling?
g03 5/8 p. 27:
On the other hand, loyal Christians would not insist on their personal rights to the detriment of the consciences of others or at the expense of congregation unity. Nor should they claim freedom of action to do something clearly forbidden by God’s Word.
Their insistence on their right to preach their cult in areas where christianity at large is accepted certainly breaks up the unity of the existing christian congregations there. Furthermore, "they claim freedom of [religion]" when shunning family members (failure to show love is clearly forbidden in god's word) and enforcing an unscriptural blood ban (murder is also a big one in the bible, negligent or otherwise) among many other things. Why do they insist on their rights in these instances, especially when the individual conscience of JWs might move them to show love for a disfellowshipped child or to allow their child to have a blood transfusion to save their life?
Ok, obviously saying they shouldn't preach because it might offend someone is taking this a bit too far, but this does go to illustrate that not only do they tacitly ignore the rights of individual JWs by seeking retribution when they leave but they actively encourage their membership to relinquish their rights in order to better support the cult. I found these 3 examples in about 1 minute of searching and I'm certain there are dozens if not hundreds more because this bullshit about not insisting on your rights was one of the things that always bothered me, and it stuck out often at watchtower studies. This constant indoctrination dispensing with the rights of the individual is, I suspect, one of the major factors for the failure of JW families to report child abuse when they're told not to by elders. This single subtle teaching of theirs is partially responsible for a tremendous amount of human suffering. Their behavior is absolutely abhorrent on so many levels.
I've mentioned this before, but a funny little thing that stuck in my head for years before I'd faded was something I came across in the Wikipedia entry on JWs... in particular, that while the entry specifically mentioned the JWs' court battles championing free speech, it also stated that that very freedom of speech was not practiced internally...
x
...and I found myself somewhat shocked because I could not - in full honesty - disagree with it.
I never forgot that.
How despicable when (in my mind) their policy of Disfellowshipping, Apostasy, etc, causes them coerce members to keep this religion. In my mind they are violators of this very Article.
Disgusting.freemindfade
Freemindfade: “Your reputation precedes you”. Show me one good logical example where any JW’s have been imprisoned for being an apostate or has been thrown in jail and physically tortured for being disfellowshiped since 1931? You can even go further to 1879 if you want to include the bible student movement.
Perhaps your confusion lies with mistaking JW Christianity
with Catholic Christianity. But I’m anguish to SEE your REPORTS or NEWS PAPER
CLIPINGS on this new revelation of yours.
