by Vanderhoven7 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yomama - “...If they win everyone will no about the details of the barbaric rule to shun...”
They’d easily find this the most desirable outcome...
..,in no small part because at this point, they no longer give a hairy blue fuck what The World thinks of them.
Yes but can they afford the bad publicity that they will get from all eu countries. Like I said rock and a rock.
The real issue is watchtower persecuting former Jehovahs witnesses by encouraging the entire community to shun them?
I don’t recall much being made about 1984.
However, my perception might have been coloured by the fiasco of 1975 (of which much was made - and anyone who tries to say otherwise is an artist of the bull variety - either that or they haven’t a bloody clue what they are talking about!)
As to “favouring” 1944/1844 over 1914, they present a case that there might be a better case for 1844 - while acknowledging that all dates are total nonsense.
The Ghent court of appeal today acquitted the JW legal entity of shunning-related hate speech charges.
Then no conviction for discrimination: Jehovah's Witnesses on appeal now entirely acquitted
The non-profit organization behind the Jehovah's Witnesses has been entirely acquitted by the appellate court. Last year, the non-profit association was convicted of inciting discrimination against ex-members who had chosen to leave the faith community. The court imposed a fine of 96,000 euros on the non-profit association, but that sentence has now expired. The Court of Appeal acquitted the non-profit association and stated that there is a problem with the evidence.
The Court of Appeal in Ghent has entirely acquitted the non-profit organization behind the Jehovah's Witnesses in the discrimination case against the non-profit organization. Last year, the non-profit association was sentenced in first instance to pay a fine of 96,000 for inciting discrimination and hatred or violence against members who had chosen to leave the faith community. More than 10 civil parties - ex-members - registered themselves as civil parties.
In a Pano report from 2019 about the religious community, many witnesses were also discussed who said that they were discriminated against by the non-profit organization. According to witnesses, there would also have been sexual abuse within the community, but the court stated that there was too little evidence to substantiate the testimonies and it ultimately did not go to trial.
The judge in the first instance said last year after the conviction that the non-profit association does indeed violate the discrimination law, by ordering from above that ex-members should be excluded. "The association propagates the exclusion policy to its local faith communities and thereby jeopardizes many pillars of our fundamental rights," said the judge when reading the verdict. "At no time did the religious community think about the very negative consequences for the victims. Religious rules are not above the law in our society".
The court now ruled in a voluminous judgment that there is a problem with the evidence. On the basis of the current investigation, there is insufficient evidence to proceed to a conviction, the court said. Patrick Haeck, one of the civil parties, is disappointed. "We will enquire whether we can continue with it, if necessary we will go to the European Court," said Haeck.
It sounds like getting the conviction to stick will take having the right case, with firm evidence and all the details of the case just right.
JWs are certainly not the only organization to practice shunning, and each country has different laws and tolerance for such things. I'm not looking for a change in WT policy just yet.
What is most egregious in my opinion is that the WT pressures people to get baptized, some are young children. These ones grow up or have other life changes and decide they no longer believe. They are then disfellowshipped and shunned. It's just a matter of moving on with their lives, yet they are shunned for it. It's a ridiculous policy.
More information:
“In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it is apparently disproportionate to impose a criminally enforceable prohibition on a religious community to issue guidelines with regard to ordinary social interaction as such, including friendships, between members of a religious community and third parties - people of a different faith or ex -believers - with whom there is no close family connection, when these guidelines only strongly discourage such contacts or label them as 'sinful', without, however, inciting manifestly unlawful conduct, such as active approach, transgressive proselytism, harassment, threats or bullying in general” , motivates the judgment.
The criminal information does not show that “the avoidance policy aims to actively approach, harass, threaten or bully ex-members of Jehovah's Witnesses”, according to the court. “The court again refers to the finding that the criminal proceedings in this regard are based almost exclusively on the statements of persons who were excluded voluntarily or not from the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that no attempt was made in the context of the criminal investigation to objectifying unilateral statements.”
