Posts by MeanMrMustard

176

JW refuses to provide wedding stationery to Gay couple

by KateWild in

i was outraged at this and had to post it.. http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refuses-to-provide-wedding-stationery-to-gay-couple.

i think she is a hypocrite and i bet she sells her invites to fornicators, or does she ask them if they are having sex before marrige, before she takes their money?.

i was never like this when i was a jw, it's even more disturbing that she is going to ask her elders what to do.

MeanMrMustard

@Scully:

The thing with neo-nazis and KKK members is that they *do* discriminate and their events promote racial segregation, hate speech, etc. Refusing to serve them, when their viewpoints are in opposition to the civil liberties of the general public, would probably be legally permissible.

Scully, what do you mean by this? If a group is determined to hold views not widely accepted, are you saying it is OK to practice descrimination against those individuals - that is it would be "legally permissible"? But as long as you agree with the current societal consensus, then by all means, the law should protect you?

I am curious: what is "hate speech"? Should it be protected as free speech?

If a group wants to promote their hatred, they can find someone who shares that viewpoint to do the stationery, catering, etc. I don't see a gay couple who want to spend the rest of their lives together in a committed relationship as a violation of anyone else's civil liberties. They aren't telling the JW stationery lady that she can't go Door-to-Door™ or attend Meetings™ at the Kingdom Hall™ or gather with other JWs at a Circuit Assembly™ or District Convention™. They just want to have a celebration of their relationship with their friends and loved ones - it is none of this JW lady's business to interfere with that.

I don't see how the gay couple is violating anyone's civil liberties either. The UK has the law, and many governments seem to be confusing negative rights with postive rights all over place. Is the state violating the business owner's rights? My question would be: Does the owner actually own the business? Is the business privately owned or not? (again, I know that the UK has the law and so for this case it is a done deal, so-to-speak. The owner will most likely get some legal action taken against her. But I am wondering wether or not it should be. I am wondering whether or not it is a good thing the law is involved in this way).

MMM

15

Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

by Phizzy in

human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

MeanMrMustard

From the Declaration of Human Rights posted by jgnat:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This seems to affrim exactly what Phizzy would like to ban on the grounds of human rights.

Phizzy mentioned this:

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

How does this apply to the WT?

MMM

15

Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

by Phizzy in

human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

MeanMrMustard

@Phizzy:

" The shunning does in fact constitute a violation of H.R if it involves denying you access to normal family life."

Define what a "normal family life" is. Who gets to make the choice about what is "normal"? Are you saying there should be a legal authority that would come into a family situation and force other family members to associate with the shunned member?

MMM

15

Human Rights -ignored often, not far reaching enough, more than often.

by Phizzy in

human rights are clearly laid out in a number of places, and are upheld by legislation in many nations, and yet they are ignored, or when they are invoked, do not go far enough.. this is a sad state of affairs in the 21st century.. human rights are simply trodden in to the ground where we have war, where we have totalitarian regimes, and where we have ignorant clerics who rule.. even in enlightened countries that broadly accept the principles of human rights, they often are not given the priority they should receive.. take freedom of religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion.

the fact that we in the u.k, canada the u.s.a, europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the wt/jw religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.. the same with the right to family life, the jw/wt cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic human right.. it is time their power, and the power of religion in general, was reigned in, and they be made to respect human rights fully..

MeanMrMustard

@Phizzy:

Take Freedom of Religion for example, this right should enshrine the right to freedom from religion. The fact that we in the U.K, Canada the U.S.A, Europe etc etc are unable to really be free of the WT/JW religion if we wish to choose to do so shows this right is unenforceable at present.

You can disassociate yourself from the JW religion. You have that freedom in the USA. How are you not free?

The same with the Right to Family Life, the JW/WT cult is allowed to ride roughshod over this basic Human Right.

You must start with a firm definition of what a "right" should be. What is your defintion if a "right"? For example, what is the "Right to Family Life"? Are you saying that if someone were to want a family, he/she should be provided one?

MMM

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

MeanMrMustard

No disfellowshipping per say is not a hate crime.

What kind of question is that any way and how is it related to the subject?

I was mainly responding to your last post. I wanted to see where you actually came down on this, since you said " Their days of getting away with this sort of xenophobic hate crime..." when referring to the WTS use of a possible disfellowshipment. I just wanted to see what you thought specifically, and I didn't quite know, so I thought I would just ask. If you had said it is a hate crime, then I would probably follow up asking why...

I am all for social awareness. IMHO, that will be the downfall of the WTS, in the end. That is, people learning the truth and walking away and/or never joining in the first place.

MMM

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

MeanMrMustard

@frankiespeakin: Curious, do you think disfellowshipping is a "hate crime"?

MMM

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

MeanMrMustard

I don't see them having an issue with the disfellowshipping - not in a nation that respects freedom of association. The child molestation, however, is a different story.

Also, if push comes to shove, they will pay the tax - but it will just get passed down to the members. And with that their persecution complex will be fed. Or they may find a nifty little way around the problem, with the end result being the same.

MMM

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

MeanMrMustard

@frankiespeakin:

Like I said at the start of the first comment, they could be in hot water in various nations if there are laws passed against such policies (and the nation doens't care about religious freedom or freedom of association). It has happened before, and it wouldn't suprise me if it happened again.

But if you are just trying to have a discussion as to whether they are in fact harassing people, or violating human rights, independently from whatever nation's laws you might be thinking of, then I would come down on the side of the WT. I don't think they are harassing anyone. Now, if the elders of congrgation XYZ disfellowship an individual, or if an inidividual disassociates, and the elders continue to contact, talk about, follow, etc - then that is harassment, yes.

MMM

32

Is The Governing Body Open To Lawsuits In Some Countries Over Enforced Shunning Of Ex Members?

by frankiespeakin in

have they crossed some sort of legal line when they enforce shunning of ex members?

can they get sued for harassment?

what are the legal boundaries they have crossed by enforce shunning of ex member by threatening disfellowshipping of any member not shunning certain individuals?

MeanMrMustard

What legal boundaries are you thinking of? JWs have been banned outright before, so I'm sure a nation could pass laws that would cause JW policies to cross legal lines. If you wondering whether there shunning should be illegal, I would say no. Personally, I don't think they have crossed a legal line. I do not think they should be sued for harassment.

MMM

39

ELDER BOOK to be HANDED OVER to Min.of Justice (FINLAND)

by RagingBull in

jehovah's witnesses to hand over top-secret manualon friday finland's jehovah's witnesses will give their religious rule book to the minister of justice and the minister of the interior so that it can be inspected to ensure that it's in line with finnish rule of law.

jehovah's witnesses will hand over their secret rule book to the minister of justice, anna-maja henriksson, and the minister of the interior, paivi rasanen.

image: heikki saukkomaa / lehtikuva until now, only senior members of the jehovahs witnesses committee have had access to the congregation's secret book of rules.. the disciplinary activities of the jehovah's witnesses committee have been criticised for violating human rights.. according to anna-maja henriksson, finland's minister of justice, the purpose of the handover is to examine the book and determine whether its rules and regulations run counter to finnish law.. henriksson and interior minister paivi rasanen met on thursday with the leadership of the jehovah's witnesses in helsinki.

MeanMrMustard

@RagingBull:

lambsbottom is right - there is no human rights violation here. Everyone has the right (a true right) to freedom of association. That means that someone can choose not to associate with someone else. You are NOT entitled to anyone's association - that is thier choice, not yours.

@lambsbottom ... they're doing it because it's a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. That trumps RELIGIOUS RIGHTS! DON'T YOU THINK? maybe you don't.

Can you tell me what the human right is? Can you list it?

In the middle east...a woman is about to be EXECUTED for "APOSTASY" (she's not MUSLIM)...that's THEIR religious view. DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT?

You are comparing someone choosing not to associate with certain people to taking someone's life. When you take someone's life, you violate a true negative right - the right to their own life. But you can't force someone to talk to you if they don't want to - even if you could, then it would be you that would be violating a true right.

What if your JOB held secret JUDICIARY meetings that could affect (not only your income) your social and private life...and because your family used their products or services, THEY were no longer able to COMMUNICATE with you?... you'd be fine with that?

What? So I have a job.. and my boss decides they want to fire me? You mean beause they don't like me? Well, ok, but they will soon be out of business and I will soon be down the road at a new job. And how are my former employers going to affect my life after they fire me? This example doens't make sense. The bottom line is that JWs have the right to choose who they do and don't want to associate with. This is a REAL right. Again, I would ask that you list what right you think is being violated. Put it into words.

MMM