Jehovah’s Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

[danieldemol]

Belgium:
Jehovah’s Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Source: Jehovah's Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Personally I'm surprised the government decided to get involved with who you legally can and can't shun, although I can see the negative consequences to shunning.

Do you think the fine was reasonable?

 

[darkskies]

The ex-members were the ones who took legal action against them, so yes.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm not sure what good the fine does...

I think its a shame these people are treated like that, but you can't really make people 'play nice' with others. As long as they make no attempts to do physical harm to ex members(or other sorts of trouble that is otherwise illegal), its not really the law's place to be involved. If they had incited others to hate them(such as spreading slander or trying to make them look bad in the public eye), I think action could or should be taken.

If a friend decides they no longer wish to associate me, I can't call the court system to fine them. If a family member wishes to be rid of me, I have no legal recourse to take against them. I realize I'm in another country, though.

 

[Deeje]

Belgium:
Jehovah’s Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Source: Jehovah's Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Personally I'm surprised the government decided to get involved with who you legally can and can't shun, although I can see the negative consequences to shunning.

Do you think the fine was reasonable?

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of trumped up garbage I have ever heard.

There is no incitement to hatred or violence....ever. To shun means to have no fellowship with an individual who has turned to a lifestyle that goes against Bible standards. To us, its like a person who commits to marriage but then decides to have affairs with other partners. Will the family consent to having a relationship with the unfaithful one as if nothing is wrong? Isn't that the same as consenting to the conduct? Sorry, but I would make known my feelings to someone who did that with no apologies. Shunning simply means no communication. It doesn't mean that I hate them or would do violence to them, but I would simply not speak to them. How is that inciting to hatred?

No one who simply leaves our brotherhood is shunned......there are many whom we consider to be "inactive" who are never shunned. They have done nothing wrong, and it seems that they have simply lost their way. We would never punish someone like that. We would try to encourage them to come back.

Those who are shunned have been found guilty of breaking biblical laws and standards with no remorse. These are the ones who want to make an issue out of being shunned by those who no longer wish to be associated with their erring family members. If for example, a family member wants to carry on in an immoral sexual relationship but still wants to have close contact with those who see that conduct as abhorrent, they will not be entitled to that.

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.
Everyone knows the rules before they commit to baptism. No point in whining if you already know what to expect.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not sure what good the fine does...

I think its a shame these people are treated like that, but you can't really make people 'play nice' with others. As long as they make no attempts to do physical harm to ex members(or other sorts of trouble that is otherwise illegal), its not really the law's place to be involved. If they had incited others to hate them(such as spreading slander or trying to make them look bad in the public eye), I think action could or should be taken.

If a friend decides they no longer wish to associate me, I can't call the court system to fine them. If a family member wishes to be rid of me, I have no legal recourse to take against them. I realize I'm in another country, though.

I agree with you. The closest I can see to some legal action was when a disfellowshipped woman was lied to by her parents after her brother had a mental health crisis and went missing. The parents led her to believe he was still missing after he had been found because they were worried she would 'lead him astray' during his 'weakened hour.' She suffered damages, both mentally and financially in her own search efforts to find him.

 

[JustGeorge]

I agree with you. The closest I can see to some legal action was when a disfellowshipped woman was lied to by her parents after her brother had a mental health crisis and went missing. The parents led her to believe he was still missing after he had been found because they were worried she would 'lead him astray' during his 'weakened hour.' She suffered damages, both mentally and financially in her own search efforts to find him.

Yeah, I could see legal action coming in to play there, due to the dishonesty and loss of resources due to said dishonesty.

 

[Heyo]

Belgium:
Jehovah’s Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Source: Jehovah's Witnesses given €12,000 fine for incitement to hatred against ex-members

Do you think the fine was reasonable?

Without knowing the details, I won't answer that question.
I find the practise of shunning deeply immoral and cruel but to make it to actionable legal redress, there has to be a bit more than shunning. The court has seen that bit more but we don't know what that was in detail.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of trumped up garbage I have ever heard.

There is no incitement to hatred or violence....ever. To shun means to have no fellowship with an individual who has turned to a lifestyle that goes against Bible standards. To us, its like a person who commits to marriage but then decides to have affairs with other partners. Will the family consent to having a relationship with the unfaithful one as if nothing is wrong? Isn't that the same as consenting to the conduct? Sorry, but I would make known my feelings to someone who did that with no apologies. Shunning simply means no communication. It doesn't mean that I hate them or would do violence to them, but I would simply not speak to them. How is that inciting to hatred?

No one who simply leaves our brotherhood is shunned......there are many whom we consider to be "inactive" who are never shunned. They have done nothing wrong, and it seems that they have simply lost their way. We would never punish someone like that. We would try to encourage them to come back.

Those who are shunned have been found guilty of breaking biblical laws and standards with no remorse. These are the ones who want to make an issue out of being shunned by those who no longer wish to be associated with their erring family members. If for example, a family member wants to carry on in an immoral sexual relationship but still wants to have close contact with those who see that conduct as abhorrent, they will not be entitled to that.

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.
Everyone knows the rules before they commit to baptism. No point in whining if you already know what to expect.

Your framing of the situation is convenient. It is funny how you point out the negative traits of those who are shunned such as adultery. But you neglect to mention the fact that even if someone just doesn't agree with the group and leaves they also get shunned. They might even convert to another Christian denomination and stick to Biblical moral standards but you would still shun them.

Your framing of "not shunning" inactive individuals is also misleading. You guys perform "soft shunning" on them because you consider them bad association because they are inactive.

You guys do have a phobia for ex-witnesses, which would be different from hatred. I know that your leaders at least have hatred for those ex witnesses who criticize you as you call them "mentally diseases" and at least Tony Morris would be happy to see us killed.

Hoping for apostates to be killed:
(36) Tony Morris, Jehovah's Witness leader, wishing death upon ex-members ("Apostates") - YouTube

Shunning the inactive:
(36) "Shun the Inactive!" Snippet From 2016 Regional Convention - YouTube

Now yes you can say that you are just following God's word, but then that means that God's word expects you to hate others.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is an issue of slander where the one who is being shunned is demonised and denigrated for their religious beliefs. It is not as simple as one person deciding not to associate with another. Instead a whole community including family members are directed to shun (discriminate) a person by the JW governing body. This institution systematically denigrates their character because they no longer wish to identify as a Jehovah Witness. So there is a very real legal issue though the threshold for action should be high.

I find the whole practice of JW shunning immoral and the complete antithesis of what Jesus taught. That is how I see it.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of trumped up garbage I have ever heard.

There is no incitement to hatred or violence....ever.

You have much confidence in people you don't know and who are on the other side of the globe. (And maybe also much confidence in your knowledge about what constitutes incitement to hatred by Belgian law.)

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.

Well, we got rid of a lot of biblical rules in our modern society. We don't stone people for adultery or working on the Sabbath. And if you do, you will be judged by modern law.
The same happened here. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.

Everyone knows the rules before they commit to baptism. No point in whining if you already know what to expect.

I find that problematic in those cases were the new member is not really free to decide. A minor or someone still dependent on her/his family/social group isn't really free to decide against baptism.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm not sure what good the fine does...

I think its a shame these people are treated like that, but you can't really make people 'play nice' with others. As long as they make no attempts to do physical harm to ex members(or other sorts of trouble that is otherwise illegal), its not really the law's place to be involved. If they had incited others to hate them(such as spreading slander or trying to make them look bad in the public eye), I think action could or should be taken.

If a friend decides they no longer wish to associate me, I can't call the court system to fine them. If a family member wishes to be rid of me, I have no legal recourse to take against them. I realize I'm in another country, though.

Have you ever read JW publications or watched talks on shunning? I posted two.

Here is an example of slander from this publication (Pay attention to the bold type):
Will You Pay Attention to Jehovah’s Clear Warnings? (jw.org)

"5. How do false teachers fool people?
5 How do false teachers fool people? They do this in a very clever way. Apostates “quietly” bring their ideas into the congregation, like criminals who secretly bring things into a country. Apostates use “counterfeit words.” This means that they say things that make their false ideas sound true, like criminals who make false documents look real. They try to get as many people as possible to believe their “deceptive teachings.” Peter also said that they like twisting the Scriptures. They explain Bible verses in the wrong way to make others believe their ideas. (2 Peter 2:1, 3, 13; 3:16) Apostates do not care about us. If we follow them, we will leave the road to everlasting life.

6. What clear warning does the Bible give us about false teachers?
6 How can we protect ourselves against false teachers? The Bible tells us exactly what to do. (Read Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.) The clear instruction in the Bible is: “Avoid them.” That means that we have to stay away from them. The warning from the Bible is like a warning from a doctor who tells you to avoid a person who has a disease that may spread to others. The doctor knows that if you get this disease, you will die. His warning is clear, and you will do what he says. The Bible says that apostates are mentally diseased and that they use their teachings to make others think like them. (1 Timothy 6:3, 4) Jehovah is like that good doctor. He clearly tells us to stay away from false teachers. We must always be determined to follow his warning."

This is slander because:

- They say apostates lie
- they associate apostates with criminals
- They call apostates mentally diseased
- They say that apostates don't care about JW's, which would also imply that they don't care about their family.

There are many publications and videos that act as slander and a phobia for apostates and disfellowshipped people.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There is an issue of slander where the one who is being shunned is demonised and denigrated for their religious beliefs. It is not as simple as one person deciding not to associate with another. Instead a whole community including family members are directed to shun (discriminate) a person by the JW governing body. This institution systematically denigrates their character because they no longer wish to identify as a Jehovah Witness. So there is a very real legal issue though the threshold for action should be high.

I find the whole practice of JW shunning immoral and the complete antithesis of what Jesus taught. That is how I see it.

You are 100% accurate on that.

 

[Deeje]

Witch hunt....

 

[Samael_Khan]

Witch hunt....

Can't you deal with the facts (direct quotes from your group) and logical conclusions?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is an issue of slander where the one who is being shunned is demonised and denigrated for their religious beliefs. It is not as simple as one person deciding not to associate with another. Instead a whole community including family members are directed to shun (discriminate) a person by the JW governing body. This institution systematically denigrates their character because they no longer wish to identify as a Jehovah Witness. So there is a very real legal issue though the threshold for action should be high.

I find the whole practice of JW shunning immoral and the complete antithesis of what Jesus taught. That is how I see it.

Read 1 Corinthians 5, first. Then, come to a decision.

And rarely, do brothers and sisters leave because of apostasy....the vast majority is for unrepentant fornication.
You see, they’re DF’d not for their action, but for their attitude toward it.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Read 1 Corinthians 5, first. Then, come to a decision.

And rarely, do brothers and sisters leave because of apostasy....the vast majority is for unrepentant fornication.
You see, they’re DF’d not for their action, but for their attitude toward it.

Where do you get the idea that it is "rarely" do they get DF'd for apostasy and the "vast majority" for unrepentant fornication if the announcement the elders give to the congregation doesn't tell them WHY they get disfellowshipped?

Notice this in 1 Cotinthians 5:
"if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

If a person is disfellowshipped or leaves then they are no longer called a brother. So do not eat with them if they are still in the group not if they have left the group.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Read 1 Corinthians 5, first. Then, come to a decision.

And rarely, do brothers and sisters leave because of apostasy....the vast majority is for unrepentant fornication.
You see, they’re DF’d not for their action, but for their attitude toward it.

Baha'is would not shun or disfellowship someone under such circumstances. If a Baha'i is cohabiting with their unmarried partner, we would encourage them to either marry or separate and live in accordance with Baha'i law (ie no sexual relationship before marriage). If the Baha'i refuses he may lose his administrative rights. He can not vote in elections, serve on an assembly or attend one of community gatherings that is for Baha'is only. He can still attend our community gatherings that are open to all and Baha'is are free to associate with such a person.

Daniel who wrote the OP has decided he no longer wishes to be a Baha'i. That is his choice that I respect. I do not consider him an apostate and Baha'is are encouraged to associate with former-Baha'is in a spirit of love and friendship as they should do towards most other peoples.

While I respect Paul's advice towards one of the early Churches in Corinth nearly two thousand years ago, the world is a very different place now. So too has the language changed. I've never referred to anyone as an 'unrepentant fornicator.' Have you?

 

[JustGeorge]

Have you ever read JW publications or watched talks on shunning? I posted two.

Here is an example of slander from this publication (Pay attention to the bold type):
Will You Pay Attention to Jehovah’s Clear Warnings? (jw.org)

"5. How do false teachers fool people?
5 How do false teachers fool people? They do this in a very clever way. Apostates “quietly” bring their ideas into the congregation, like criminals who secretly bring things into a country. Apostates use “counterfeit words.” This means that they say things that make their false ideas sound true, like criminals who make false documents look real. They try to get as many people as possible to believe their “deceptive teachings.” Peter also said that they like twisting the Scriptures. They explain Bible verses in the wrong way to make others believe their ideas. (2 Peter 2:1, 3, 13; 3:16) Apostates do not care about us. If we follow them, we will leave the road to everlasting life.

6. What clear warning does the Bible give us about false teachers?
6 How can we protect ourselves against false teachers? The Bible tells us exactly what to do. (Read Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.) The clear instruction in the Bible is: “Avoid them.” That means that we have to stay away from them. The warning from the Bible is like a warning from a doctor who tells you to avoid a person who has a disease that may spread to others. The doctor knows that if you get this disease, you will die. His warning is clear, and you will do what he says. The Bible says that apostates are mentally diseased and that they use their teachings to make others think like them. (1 Timothy 6:3, 4) Jehovah is like that good doctor. He clearly tells us to stay away from false teachers. We must always be determined to follow his warning."

This is slander because:

- They say apostates lie
- they associate apostates with criminals
- They call apostates mentally diseased
- They say that apostates don't care about JW's, which would also imply that they don't care about their family.

There are many publications and videos that act as slander and a phobia for apostates and disfellowshipped people.

No, I'm afraid I don't read JW publications... I tried once, but I found its nature very condescending, so I stopped and chose something else to read.

I really think its a shame they teach this, and I don't approve of shunning at all. I just don't know as if its illegal to teach this. Otherwise, where does one draw the line?

I could see, perhaps, a person that had grown up in the religion(and then left) asking for some kind of justice if this had made them unstable for adulthood. They didn't have a choice. But then again, where do we draw the line? Does everyone who grew up in a faith or nonfaith that they found negative get to ask the government to fine them when they reach age?

If a consenting adult agrees to the ideas presented in this publication, as messed up as I feel it is, they can't really blame someone else when it blows up in their face. I don't approve at all of fear tactics within religion, but it happens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of trumped up garbage I have ever heard.

There is no incitement to hatred or violence....ever. To shun means to have no fellowship with an individual who has turned to a lifestyle that goes against Bible standards. To us, its like a person who commits to marriage but then decides to have affairs with other partners. Will the family consent to having a relationship with the unfaithful one as if nothing is wrong? Isn't that the same as consenting to the conduct? Sorry, but I would make known my feelings to someone who did that with no apologies. Shunning simply means no communication. It doesn't mean that I hate them or would do violence to them, but I would simply not speak to them. How is that inciting to hatred?

No one who simply leaves our brotherhood is shunned......there are many whom we consider to be "inactive" who are never shunned. They have done nothing wrong, and it seems that they have simply lost their way. We would never punish someone like that. We would try to encourage them to come back.

Those who are shunned have been found guilty of breaking biblical laws and standards with no remorse. These are the ones who want to make an issue out of being shunned by those who no longer wish to be associated with their erring family members. If for example, a family member wants to carry on in an immoral sexual relationship but still wants to have close contact with those who see that conduct as abhorrent, they will not be entitled to that.

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.
Everyone knows the rules before they commit to baptism. No point in whining if you already know what to expect.

Your vitriol for those who are shunned suggests to me that the court's finding of "inciting hatred" may have some merit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of trumped up garbage I have ever heard.

There is no incitement to hatred or violence....ever. To shun means to have no fellowship with an individual who has turned to a lifestyle that goes against Bible standards. To us, its like a person who commits to marriage but then decides to have affairs with other partners. Will the family consent to having a relationship with the unfaithful one as if nothing is wrong? Isn't that the same as consenting to the conduct? Sorry, but I would make known my feelings to someone who did that with no apologies. Shunning simply means no communication. It doesn't mean that I hate them or would do violence to them, but I would simply not speak to them. How is that inciting to hatred?

No one who simply leaves our brotherhood is shunned......there are many whom we consider to be "inactive" who are never shunned. They have done nothing wrong, and it seems that they have simply lost their way. We would never punish someone like that. We would try to encourage them to come back.

Those who are shunned have been found guilty of breaking biblical laws and standards with no remorse. These are the ones who want to make an issue out of being shunned by those who no longer wish to be associated with their erring family members. If for example, a family member wants to carry on in an immoral sexual relationship but still wants to have close contact with those who see that conduct as abhorrent, they will not be entitled to that.

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them. If you can't cop the penalty, then don't do the crime....simple.
Everyone knows the rules before they commit to baptism. No point in whining if you already know what to expect.

That depends if shunned members can still interact with their own family ie dinners, camping, visiting etc.

Can a shunned member still be with family and relatives who are jws without sanctions being imposed on those still in the church?

Jehovah's Witnesses, disfellowshipping and shunning, including family members

•

• those who become unbelievers, with no intention of returning to the Watchtower Society, realise they are unlikely to freely associate with Witness family and friends for the remainder of their lives.