by PerFect 19 Replies latest jw friends
Hi all,
Since the courtcases in Moscow and France are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.
Should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?
If so:
What kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a “destructiv sect”?
/PerFect
I'll take the contrarian stance, once again, and state that I am against most government actions taken against the WTS. I'm not so sure about tax issues, however. That might be fine, so in France I have less objection than I do to Russia's actions. Let me explain why:
I'm all for educating people about the dangers of the WTS. Education is good. I'm not in favor of governments telling citizens which groups are acceptable and which ones are not. As it happens, I agree with them this time when they look down on the WTS. But where does this lead? Which group, or idealogy, will be condemned next? I'm not confortable with the government legislating morality to this extent. Telling me what the proper way to think is. That can lead to groupthink, and I fear that.
Educate people, warn people, let everyone have a basis for understanding the dangers involved. But let it be an indvidual's decision ultimately. Don't depend on the government to tell you right from wrong, for that way lies danger.
Governments are religions are basically the same thing. Large bureaucracies whose goal is to control behavior and profit from a controlled mass who are commanded to utilize a portion of their money to support the entity with some vague return of services.
They are publicly sanctioned businesses. I dont see them as any different than McDonalds or Sears other than the fact that through their control you are obliged to spend money with them. Tithing, buying magazines to place, taxes and license fees, etc. All the same thing.
hugs
Joel
Hi Seeker,
I agree mostly with you. But what about a law that makes it illigal for any organisation to try to controll or make any sanctions against those members that leave and, when it comes to Jw, decide that they can take a bloodtransfusion.
A law that, so to say, recuire the religion to respect the members freedom of changing religion and faith without sanctions or controll.
Take care and hope you understand me, english isn't my first language.
/PerFect
I do understand you, PerFect, just fine. I know what you mean. It's like the way the U.S. government will step in to protect the children of Christian Scientists who want to pray over their kids to cure them of a serious health problem. Or taking a JW child and getting a court ordered transfusion.
I can't actually find fault with this, to be honest, for there comes a point where a line is crossed. Do you respect the right of someone to choose a religous belief? Yes, but what if that belief causes harm to others? Then you have a dilemma.
I don't have an answer. My original post was merely an expression of my general discomfort at having the government making decisions for us, instead of having us decide for ourselves. But as you point out, there are times when beliefs go too far and something must be done then.
But the more general question, should JWs be banned in a country, is one that I am against. Let people decide for themselves, with full information given so they can make an informed decision. Yes, there will always be people who can't think clearly for themselves and will fall victim to all sorts of frauds in their life. But I don't think having them be babysat by the government is the answer. Some people will make bad choices in life, and that's going to happen no matter how closely you watch them.
Seeker,
There are lots of laws out there on the books and lots of case law.
The whole idea of democracy is that people have enough sense to realize that what some people say is BS. Thus, the theory goes we are adult enough to understand what is said & agree or disagree. There is no need to have laws against a persons right to speak.
The thing you miss is unlike the WTS there are checks and balances in the US and Canadian systems and the same goes with France. So if a law goes to far and singles out a particular group you have the consititution to protect you. A classic case was Regina v. Zundel (Zundel published anti jewish literature and was charged with "hate" distribution (section 186 of the Criminal Code of Canada) - nice guy eh!). The supremes told the government, leave Zundel alone - he has every right to distribute hate with the theory that people can figure it out on their own. The supremes did say though, that if the crown could show that the "hate" was hurting someone, Zundel could have a problem. The crown couldn't prove hurt and the supremes told the government where to go with the charge.
The key is that you, as a person, have the right to do whatever you want to do but, and a big but, if you seriously affect (endanger) someones life then you do not have constitutional protection and if caught be subjected to the criminal court system.
Personally I like what France has done. They are not focusing on the religious doctrine or groups. They are saying to ALL groups, religious or not and they are focusing on laws that protect peoples lives in general (repoeat - in general not specific). Canada should consider a similar law in my opinion. If the law steps too far the constitution is there to protect a groups right.
Also keep in mind seeker and I really think you are missing this - The governments are not telling the people to not become JWs. They are telling all corporations (not people but legal companies like scientology or the WTS and the Catholic Church for that matter) that you can do as you please but if you hurt someone its the state's business. And if we get a complaint we are required to investigate to protect our citizens - This is very old case law, enshrined in most constitutions and you should know that.
hawk (who reminds seeker about the "checks" and "balances" in a democracy and wishes the WTS would do the same)
Yes, they should act, quickly and appropriately!
They should develop a clear understanding of what constitutes
appropriate tax-exempt activity and enforce it. These
religious groups are feeding off other people's tax dollars
and are indirectly subsidized. If they can't perform
legitimate charitable services, as defined by the
governments involved, they should be taxed. In addition,
they should be held accountable for deception and fraud.
I see these two standards as only fair.
metatron
hawkaw,
Good reminders. As I said, I don't have a problem with what France is doing, but I would rather that groups not be banned outright.
As for checks and balances, it's a good reminder, but I no longer believe in them. Oh, not that it's not a good idea, for it truly is. But that these checks are rapidly being thrown to the wayside as citizens bleat to their governments, "Protect us from ourselves!" Governments, being governments, are only too willing to comply, and with it goes down the constitutional protections we depend upon.
In other words, I'd rather put up one big check against the government now, rather than trust they will do the right thing after they try to control one group or another.
Seeker,
Did somone hit you with a rock in the head???? Are you having a bad hair day????
"But that these checks are rapidly being thrown to the wayside as citizens bleat to their governments,"
This is BullSh_t and you know it.
Go read your supreme court decisions. Go read your court decisions over the years and the legislation passed.
Think with your head. You are living in a country where Africans are NO LONGER CONSIDERED SECOND CLASS CITIZENS AND HAVE FORMED A STRONG MIDDLE CLASS!!!!!! That has only happened since in the 1960s.
Just look at what the chemical industry did with "TCE" and how they hide the disasterous affects of TCE from their workers never mind the people who used hair spray. Because there were no controls people died. Finally by the 1970s the government "wised" up and OSHA put on the controls to protect the workers!!!!
How about the rights of the disabled. It is better than ever and now these people can become a useful and powerful (economic) force.
Look at what has happened to womens freedom over this time when you say the government is controlling us. Notice they can vote now and they don't have to quit their jobs when they become pregnant!!!!
Yes there is way more work to be done but man oh man you are sooooo wrong.
These checks are not being rapidly thrown by the wayside. The courts are jammed with lawsuits against the government and others who infringe on a persons rights. There are also many a lobby group to take ones side forward and keep government and the courts for that matter on their toes.
Look at cops. The FBI is a classic example. In the old days they would beat the crap out of you etc etc. Now, they get nailed if they don't disclose evidence.
Don't feed me that line of crap - you know better. Quit watching the CBS evening news with "Captain Dan the News Man "Rather or one of his useless side kicks and do what you and others on this board have taught me - critically read and think something through.
Finally no group can be banned out right in your country or Canada (unless you are doing something really illegal like organized crime).
Who ever told you that is on drugs. The government can split up a corporation but that has to do with anti trust laws. Judges are extremely skiddish when it comes to the freedom of religion and conscience issues. Everyone has the right to speak. They just are not allowed to hurt people.
hawk
p.s. - You taught me what a "strawman" was. Shame on you for saying that above quote without any proof. Don't ever do it again!!
Quit watching the CBS evening news with "Captain Dan the News Man "Rather or one of his useless side kicks and do what you and others on this board have taught me - critically read and think something through.
I don't watch TV news. I get my news from a number of sources, from different points of view, and then I think about it critically and make up my own mind.
And I stand by what I said, though the examples I have in mind are on a more subtle level than the examples (all valid) that you gave. Yes, checks and balances have worked for many years in this country. And yes I believe that this balance is being eroded, and I have evidence that makes me think this. And no, I'm not willing to get into a discussion of this here, for a number of reasons. I'm sorry. We'll agree to disagree on this point.
No, I'm not getting paranoid like You Know. When I think of examples, I am also thinking of court cases, but recent ones. I'm not depending on some gloomy Web site prophet to guide my thinking the way You Know is. But what I've learned over the past few years of critical thinking is that most people aren't even aware of some of the more subtle trends at work. Sooner or later they will wake up and see what has happened, and I hope that they will have the strength to rise up and restore those checks and balances (in fact, I suspect it will happen, so you see I'm not a prophet of doom or anything).
But critical thinking has led me to this observation, and I will choose to stand by it for now. And I repeat, I do not wish the government to make value judgments on my behalf.
