ARC and the Watchtower's no voting rule

by Listener 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Listener

    In Australia it is compulsory to vote but none of the JWs do vote or even turn up at the polling booth and lodge an invalid vote since they don't want to stumble anyone (the people they meet door knocking).

    The government fines people for not voting unless they have a valid excuse. The JWs state that they are conscientious objects due to their religious beliefs.

    I wonder if it has been brought to the prime ministers attention and if this is a freedom that he is able to remove due to their refusal to join the redress scheme?

  • Listener

    I've just looked into it and it appears that under the constitution it is legal to not vote on the basis of religious conscientious objection.

    Unfortunately, the constitution can only be changed by a majority vote.

  • waton
    The government fines people for not voting

    L: in a former communist country, you did not get food ration coupons for a month, if you did not vote for commi candidate a, b, or c, not even a party choice.

    Does wonders for the silhouette you want to project.

    My grandmother who lived there, went without meat for a month. opposers, neutrals like ZJs were marked.

  • Listener

    I'm surprised Trump didn't introduce something like that. He's been giving away food boxes.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    I wouldn't want a government forcing a vote from anyone, that just seems like a recipe for legitimizing a dictatorship.

    I would wholeheartedly agree with the government taking religious status from the organization, but individual rights must be preserved.

  • WTWizard

    I do think mandatory voting is wrong, but it shouldn't be the washtowel imposing bans on voting. The only good excuse to not vote is that it would not be worth your time and effort. If Biden is going to get in regardless, why waste your vote, especially in states where distant big cities are going to vote against you anyways? Or, if neither candidate is any good. Bush vs Gore? Bush vs Kerry? Obama vs McCain? Obama vs Romney? In these elections, both candidates would have done about the same--which is more wars, more taxes, putting a small foreign country ahead of our own, taking away all our freedom for a little fake security, and doing nothing good.

    But, when you have a religion that expressly forbids voting, or one that imposes putting a communist into office, they have to go. Do they really want a dictator like Stalin? Or for everyone to be one big blob, like the greys? When you have one side trying to fight against this and the other side pushing for this mess, it is obvious--and people should not be forced to vote against liberty and freedom or to not vote at all when it matters. I, for one, favor voting for the candidate that you legitimately think is going to do a better job in bringing your country in the direction you want it to go, not the one that some leader in a distant city (religious or not) or some communist employer or conglomerate that controls all apartments and housing loans tells one to.

Share this