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

[Heyo]

Yes, they should’ve had more love for their family, instead of being selfish & getting disfellowshipped, thereby causing so much pain to their loved ones!

You turn it as if shunning is a force of nature. That's a tactic used by many abusive people: you shouldn't have misbehaved, now I'm forced to beat you. As if beating/shunning isn't a decision.
Can victim bashing be more cruel?

 

[Thanda]

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.

1) "They say apostates lie":

Isn't this just a battle of ideas and beliefs? Atheists think Christians are lying; many Christians think Mormons are lying; Leftists think Right-wingers are liars and vice versa?; how is that slander in a way that is criminally actionable?

2) "they associate apostates with criminals":

So similies (and other figures of speech) are now criminal?

3) "They call apostates mentally diseased"

See 2

4) "They say that apostates don't care about JW's, which would also imply that they don't care about their family.":

The whole point of religious belief is that the particular belief system is what will give you happiness in this life and the next. So for those who believe in that belief system, anyone who attempts to remove them from the path is removing them from their happiness and by definition does not care about them. What possible argument can there be against that?


Just a further note - the whole section you have quoted refers to people who go out of their way to come to the JW congregation to teach their own teaching that differ from the official dogma of the church. But this is what all organisations and clubs do. There is a certain value system and those who teach against it are told to leave.

 

[Thanda]

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

Except Jesus was the one who said: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

And when Peter tried to move him from his purpose he said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

He also said (Matthew 10):

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.​

And when his mother and siblings tried to interrupt his preaching he said (Matthew 12):

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.​

Jesus was far from the all accepting person some (especially non-believers) like to make him out to be.

​

 

[Dawnofhope]

Except Jesus was the one who said: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

And when Peter tried to move him from his purpose he said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

He also said (Matthew 10):

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.​

And when his mother and siblings tried to interrupt his preaching he said (Matthew 12):

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.​

Jesus was far from the all accepting person some (especially non-believers) like to make him out to be.

​

You can twist scripture to justify all manner of evil including enmity, war and shunning those who have a different view, that is true.

 

[Thanda]

You can twist scripture to justify all manner of evil including enmity, war and shunning those who have a different view, that is true.

You can also twist scripture to pretend that shunning those who hold different views is not scriptural.

 

[danieldemol]

2) "they associate apostates with criminals":

So similies (and other figures of speech) are now criminal?

I can't think of any reason why slanderous defamatory figures of speech shouldn't be criminal.

3) "They call apostates mentally diseased"

See 2

How is that a figure of speech?

4) "They say that apostates don't care about JW's, which would also imply that they don't care about their family.":

The whole point of religious belief is that the particular belief system is what will give you happiness in this life and the next. So for those who believe in that belief system, anyone who attempts to remove them from the path is removing them from their happiness and by definition does not care about them. What possible argument can there be against that?

Simple, drugs and many other things which may in actuality be harmful may bring a person happiness, a person who cares for you may seek to awaken you from delusional things which may bring you temporary joy but cause long term suffering. Apostates who seek to deprogram JWs simply see the delusional happiness of the JW as resulting in harm down the track, so they are motivated by care for the JW in question, and it is defamatory to claim they are not motivated by care when they are in my opinion.

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm not familiar with religious law of England (the penalty was in English pounds, I presume).

Religions are suppose to bring people together, not drive them apart. Shunning doesn't seem to accomplish a religious purpose.

If, then, this shunning is outside of the religion, then, indeed a civil lawsuit should be possible.

I can see where shunning might be considered a religion act, and, in America, that "might" be construed as religious contrdiction

 

[danieldemol]

I'm not familiar with religious law of England (the penalty was in English pounds, I presume).

The country in question is Belgium.

 

[Thanda]

I can't think of any reason why slanderous defamatory figures of speech shouldn't be criminal.

Because when using a figure of speech, it is understood that one is comparing aspect of the two objects rather than saying that the one is the other. This is especially true of simile. In fact in the quoted passage the specific similarities the author sees are specifically mentioned to show that it is not a blanked accusation that apostates are criminals.

How is that a figure of speech?

You are right, this is not a figure of speech. I believe he is referring to the scripture he quotes which refers to those who do not accept the doctrine as being obsessed. There are a couple of mental disorders that refer to obsession.

However this is a very specific and (dis)provable claim which if made against a specific person should entitle them to claim damages if it cannot be substantiated.

Simple, drugs and many other things which may in actuality be harmful may bring a person happiness, a person who cares for you may seek to awaken you from delusional things which may bring you temporary joy but cause long term suffering. Apostates who seek to deprogram JWs simply see the delusional happiness of the JW as resulting in harm down the track, so they are motivated by care for the JW in question, and it is defamatory to claim they are not motivated by care when they are.

That brings us right back to point 1 - differences of opinion. Just as the happiness of the believer may be a delusion, so too the care of the Apostate may also be a delusion. They may think they are motivated by care but if in actuality they are harming people by removing them from what makes them happy now and in future, then clearly they are motivated rather by their delusion and the devil.

The point being that this difference of opinion about matters of which there is no hard evidence seem hardly a matter for a court to consider. If so courts would have to start adjudicating matters between left and right wingers as both attribute negative motives for the beliefs of the other.

Unless a church runs a campaign on a specific person making specific accusations about that person which are demonstrably untrue (that is not just matters of faith such as "this person is led by the devil") then I don't see how courts would get involved.

 

[danieldemol]

Just as the happiness of the believer may be a delusion

Nope, in my opinion care is not a delusion. The beliefs that motivate the care may or may not be real, but the care itself is demonstrably there.

Let's take an example of something we most probably agree is a delusion such as an eternal hell.

If a person cares about their JW relative and so wishes to save them from hell-fire the eternal hell is a delusion, but the care is still real.

 

[Thanda]

Nope, in my opinion care is not a delusion. The beliefs that motivate the care may or may not be real, but the care itself is demonstrably there.

Let's take an example of something we most probably agree is a delusion such as an eternal hell.

If a person cares about their JW relative and so wishes to save them from hell-fire the eternal hell is a delusion, but the care is still real.

I have often heard it being said that if you care about someone you do what makes them happy - not what you think should make them happy. So a case can be made that those who are trying to disturb the happiness of others (be it a delusion or not) are not acting out of care but out of some sort of selfishness - e.g. the misery loves company type of selfishness.

 

[danieldemol]

I have often heard it being said that if you care about someone you do what makes them happy - not what you think should make them happy. So a case can be made that those who are trying to disturb the happiness of others (be it a delusion or not) are not acting out of care but out of some sort of selfishness - e.g. the misery loves company type of selfishness.

So would you give your child cocaine as long as it makes them happy?

 

[Thanda]

So would you give your child cocaine as long as it makes them happy?

I mistated the quote - If you love someone you let them do what makes them happy. You have no obligation to do anything for them.

NOTE: I'm assuming we are talking about an adult child.

 

[danieldemol]

I mistated the quote - If you love someone you let them do what makes them happy. You have no obligation to do anything for them.

NOTE: I'm assuming we are talking about an adult child.

So how is shunning someone for doing what makes them happy letting them do what they want?

 

[Thanda]

So how is shunning someone for doing what makes them happy letting them do what they want?

No one has any right to the association of another. If you walk a different path from mine in terms of fundamental beliefs there is nothing wrong with me choosing not to associate with you. In fact it may be in the best interest of yours and mine's mental welfare to rather keep our distance, especially if you will try to evangelise me to your point of view.

 

[McBell]

No one has any right to the association of another.

I have no idea where you are from, but in the USA parents are required to associate with their children unless the courts deem otherwise.

If you walk a different path from mine in terms of fundamental beliefs there is nothing wrong with me choosing not to associate with you.

I completely agree.

In fact it may be in the best interest of yours and mine's mental welfare to rather keep our distance, especially if you will try to evangelise me to your point of view.

Now I am confused.
Do not the LDS go door to door like trick or treaters to evangelize?

 

[Thanda]

I have no idea where you are from, but in the USA parents are required to associate with their children unless the courts deem otherwise.

As specified in another post, I assume we are talking about adults, including adult children. I don't know of a country that requires any adults (including parents) to associate with other adults. If it is the case then that country clearly does not respect the right to freedom of association.

Now I am confused.
Do not the LDS go door to door like trick or treaters to evangelize?

Yes - how is this confusing. Those who are so approached have every right to send those missionaries away.

 

[thomas t]

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?

actually, it's the combination of telling them first they should not have social contacts outside the JW-circle* and shunning them in case of unconventional or deviant behavior.
In that case they lose 100% of their close social contacts.
Man must have close social contacts, otherwise they get ill.
Quoting...

As humans, social interaction is essential to every aspect of our health. Research shows that having a strong network of support or strong community bonds fosters both emotional and physical health and is an important component of adult life. Over the years, there have been a number of studies showcasing the relationship between social support and the quality of physical and psychological health.

The Research
While most studies examining the benefits of social support have focused on the elderly (Steptoe, Dockray, & Wardle, 2009), having a strong social network is crucial for psychological and physical health, regardless of age. For example, a study on incoming college freshmen found that social support was effective in reducing depression in both those who have healthy self-esteem and those with a poor self-image (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986). The authors of this study found that belonging to a social network helped ease the stress for people entering university life.

Social involvement is also important as we age. In a study of Europeans over the age of 50, Sirven and Debrand (2008) found that individuals who participated in social or community activities were more likely to report good or very good health. The study was based on data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and included 11 European countries and 22,000 households (31,000 individuals).

bolded mine, see Why Being Social is Good for You

In this context, shunning means making the victims ill.

This is under the premise that you cannot build up new social contacts within a day.

*
actually they say: no close contacts to non-believers and to misbehaving Christians:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20150815/watch-associations-last-days/
"5 To avoid spoiling our useful habits, we must not have as close associates those who practice bad things. This applies not only to associating with unbelieving wrongdoers but also to associating with those who claim to worship Jehovah but who deliberately violate his laws. If such professing Christians engage in serious wrongdoing and do not repent, we do not continue to associate with them.

—Rom. 16:17, 18."
However, if I understand right, by "such professing Christians" they mean flat-out all professing Christians who do not belong to JWs. They do not accept other churches as valid, so I infer that they don't think a professing Christian who is not JW can be a good social contact.

 

[Shakeel]

You turn it as if shunning is a force of nature. That's a tactic used by many abusive people: you shouldn't have misbehaved, now I'm forced to beat you. As if beating/shunning isn't a decision.
Can victim bashing be more cruel?

It's used by millions of people you would not deem as abusive. It's just that normal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Yes Adrian I wish to also go on record as saying that although I’m sorry Daniel has decided not to be a Bahá’í anymore, he’s a good person and I value his friendship. He’s always very welcome to drop in for a meal anytime he’s out this way.

My wife still has his picture on one of our walls when he was young at school and she remembers him and his family in her prayers.