Huffington Post: When Is A Religion 'Extremist'? [Food for thought!]

by AndersonsInfo 66 Replies latest jw friends

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    I don't agree because i think shunning is as much bottom up as it is top down. In many cases there would be violence if the organisation did not regulate how shunning is to be expressed. I have seen families violently arguing with one another - a women had her throat slit by her husband 50 metres from where I live - her children stood outside hearing them argue never expecting that their mother would be murdered.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    2 months later a woman was battered to death by her boyfriend after they got into a fight across the road from where a close relative lives.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    Fuck you! (not literally you but anyone telling me what group I can or cannot join)

    Nobody is telling you that. Go ahead and do whatever you want.

    No problem in joining whatever group you want to and believing whatever you want to allow to knock around inside your head.

    Do it. Join. Believe. Act.

    And then deal with the consequences.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    orphancrow you make no sense by saying the violence is internal - what is that even supposed to mean?

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister
    he seems intent on sprinkling the word "extremist" through the article and never quite explains how those who believe they are the only true believers are extremists.

    She makes it very clear that extremism stems from the *belief* that God has given *your* human religious leader a revelation that you and have the only true religion - that those who do not identify as belonging to your belief system and live by your " revealed" standards are inferior, "less than' human beings deserving of death and destruction. As she says, "any religion that denies the *value* and humanity of others is extremist".

    Witnesses absolutely deny the value of others and their "othering" behaviour in any other context but religion would be considered highly offensive and downright illegal in many instances.

    Their belief's lead to behaviours and although at present it is only dangerous to themselves, think blood doctrine and suicide due to shunning and sexuality, that definitely places them squarely in the extremist category imho.

  • pbrow
    pbrow

    AMEN! You pick up one end of the stick and you pick up both ends.

    My government in America is not telling me that. The government in Russia is telling its people their thoughts are now illegal. That is EXTREMELY dangerous. It floors me how so many people think that is a good thing.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    The government in Russia is telling its people their thoughts are now illegal.

    No. Their behavior is illegal.

    Acting on their thoughts is illegal in Russia. Spreading their thoughts is illegal.

    * "You pick up one end of the stick and you pick up both ends." What do you mean by this? I have no idea what you mean

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456
    That's the major difference between Christians and Muslims. Whatever the Christian belief about non-believers and what's going to happen to them, they usually believe that God is the one who's going to do any smiting. Yes, it's sick that they think they get to watch, but it's passive. They can wait for their imaginary friend for another 2,000 years and not do any harm.

    meanwhile their gov will do it for them under the guise of we are more enlightened and whats more much stronger - whats the difference between religious enlightenment and secular enlightenment

  • pbrow
    pbrow

    Not allowing children life saving medical treatement... I agree, lock up the idiot parents.

    Catching people not reporting child molestation..... Discipline the parents and lock up the elders.

    Enforce behaviors not ideas.

    How in allah's green earth can you agree that a person's ideas for shunning another person are in the scope of the federal government?

    Outright banning a religion is idiotic. Ideas need to be tested and questioned in the public square, not by legislative mandate. History has shown that the heavy handed force of government is not the way to beat down ideas. Good ideas will eventually beat down bad ideas. Ideas may not take root as quickly as we would sometimes like but human progress is slow.

    Picking up one end of the stick means picking up both ends......

    I have a choice of what religion I want to be in. I chose to leave (one end of stick) and therefore lost 98% of my family and friends(other end of that same stick) If I chose to stay in the religion I would keep my friends but would lose all my self respect and dignity. Very simple choice for me.

    By the way... I still have the stick... am running with the stick... and no one will ever take it away from me!

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    orphancrow you make no sense by saying the violence is internal - what is that even supposed to mean?

    It means that the org coerces the members to inflict violence upon themselves.

    Socially passive violence in the sense that the violence is directed towards themselves - deliberately directed internally (internally in the sense that the violence is carried out within the insular society of JWs and internally in that it is the individual JWs who suffer the violence of both persecution and dying for the blood doctrine). The individual instigates the violence that others do to them - in the name of the organization.

    The perfect martyr.