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

[We Never Know]

It was the article's writer who said it...I'm just reporting the news.
"Misleading"?
I think readers here have seen your trail of misleading comments, like the '10 year olds getting disfellowshipped' one.

So much misplaced anger you have.

You need to figure out that the messenger is most always more at fault than the message is...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Curious about your understanding of 1 Corinthians 5.
“Remove the wicked man from among yourselves”....
How would you apply it?

The following was recently brought to our attention. It is from the w19.11 21-22; it fits this discussion...

**When faced with tests, Jesus prayed “with strong outcries and tears.” (Heb. 5:7) His fervent prayers flowed from a loyal heart and strengthened his desire to remain obedient. To Jehovah, Jesus’ prayers were like the aroma of sweet-smelling incense. Jesus’ entire life course deeply pleased his Father and vindicated His sovereignty. We can imitate Jesus by doing our best to live a life of integrity and of loyalty to Jehovah’s ways and laws. When faced with tests, we pray fervently for Jehovah’s help because we want to please him. We realize that Jehovah will not accept our prayers if we are involved in conduct that he condemns. However, if we live according to Jehovah’s standards, we can be confident that our heartfelt prayers will be like sweet-smelling incense to Jehovah. And we can be sure that our integrity and loyal obedience please our heavenly Father.**

Source: JW.org


I firmly believe loyalty & obedience is what Jehovah wants. And that He wants the sheep in His Son’s congregation to be protected.

I get that you believe all that sincerely, but it doesn't address my dilemma as someone who doesn't believe that any of it is based in fact:

On the one hand, I think that freedom of conscience is enough reason for me to let people just follow the dictates of their conscience as long as they aren't hurting others.

On the other hand, shunning works against freedom of conscience. By imposing a heavy cost on people who leave your group, you deter people from leaving. This becomes even more insidious when we realize that JWs tend to be insular: you create a situation where the members are socially - and sometimes economically - dependent on the group, then use the threat of being cut off from the group to encourage compliance.

I get that you believe that your behaviour is commanded by God, but I don't agree. And I don't particularly care that you believe this... apart from the value I place on freedom of conscience.

So where does this leave me?

- if I think that freedom of conscience is important, then I'll recognize the denial of freedom of conscience of the victim of shunning as a problem.

- if I disregard freedom of conscience, then I lose the only reason I have to give the JWs latitude on anything. Shunning is still a problem, along with many other JW practices.

Either way, there's no path for me to support shunning.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It was the article's writer who said it...I'm just reporting the news.
"Misleading"?
I think readers here have seen your trail of misleading comments, like the '10 year olds getting disfellowshipped' one.

So much misplaced anger you have.

Why just mention a report, post certain sections of it and bolden or underline specific words?

How was my point about 10 year olds getting disfellowshipped misleading? (You were the one who said that a 10 year old got baptised in the first place.)

Do you really think that I am angry because of anything I have said or is it because the men that you follow tell you that apostates are angry?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why just mention a report, post certain sections of it and bolden or underline specific words?

Why do you think? Why does anybody do that?
To highlight the important points. For instance....

How was my point about 10 year olds getting disfellowshipped misleading? (You were the one who said that a 10 year old got baptised in the first place.)

You implied that a baptized 10-year-old, getting disfellowshipped, would not have any loving JW family for support! That couldn’t be further from the truth, and the sentences I highlighted, reveal your implication to be malicious. Either that, or your comment simply manifests that you didn’t know.
Which was it? Claiming to be an apostate (although claiming to be unbaptized), gives me an opinion.
(And I do believe you were never a baptized Witness.... JW’s who leave, if they ever were grounded in JW understanding of Scripture, just don’t ask many of the questions you’ve asked in your posts. They know the answers.)

Speaking of apostates....

Do you really think that I am angry because of anything I have said or is it because the men that you follow tell you that apostates are angry?

I’ve been involved in innumerable judicial matters. Even so, I can count on both hands, the ones who have left due to apostasy. It’s mostly for sexual immortality, and dishonest business. Fortunately, many accepted the discipline & returned.

But those who stay unrepentant..... lo and behold, these very ones kicked out for fornication? Many times it has reached me that these fornicators tell others they “left”, because of apostasy!!!

Angry? Oh, yes. And prideful, I guess.(Sounds better to say, “I left,” than to say, “I was removed.”) But it’ll be to their disadvantage, if they don’t change their attitude and own up to the real reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Take the morality or immorality of 'shunning' out of this for a moment, and I basically agree with you. People in general terms have the right to act like a butt to other people, as long as they are not actively abusing them, mentally or physically. I don't see how this is different, or how the penalty is expected to improve anything. Seems a complete waste of time.

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.

Yeah, so whilst I basically agree with your position in general terms on this issue, I don't actually agree with this part of your post.
Whilst I have sympathy for the 'you knew what you were getting into' position, that doesn't give a free pass to any behaviour.
Overly simplistic example for you, but regardless of what I say in my wedding vows, my partner doesn't have the legal right to physically punish me for not obeying her. Laws still apply, whatever stupid (or non-stupid) commitments I make.

I just don't see what law has been breached in this particular case.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I get that you believe all that sincerely, but it doesn't address my dilemma as someone who doesn't believe that any of it is based in fact:

On the one hand, I think that freedom of conscience is enough reason for me to let people just follow the dictates of their conscience as long as they aren't hurting others.

On the other hand, shunning works against freedom of conscience. By imposing a heavy cost on people who leave your group, you deter people from leaving. This becomes even more insidious when we realize that JWs tend to be insular: you create a situation where the members are socially - and sometimes economically - dependent on the group, then use the threat of being cut off from the group to encourage compliance.

I get that you believe that your behaviour is commanded by God, but I don't agree. And I don't particularly care that you believe this... apart from the value I place on freedom of conscience.

So where does this leave me?

- if I think that freedom of conscience is important, then I'll recognize the denial of freedom of conscience of the victim of shunning as a problem.

- if I disregard freedom of conscience, then I lose the only reason I have to give the JWs latitude on anything. Shunning is still a problem, along with many other JW practices.

Either way, there's no path for me to support shunning.

That’s fine; I understand your POV... to a point.

Do you have children? Do you allow them to associate with just anyone? Probably not.... you have standards, and rightly so. So, in that sense, you shun. To protect your children from an unwholesome influence.

And for myself, I see the wisdom in following Jehovah’s counsel against sexual immorality. In fact, as I have stated before, it’s prohibition of sex w/o marriage is one reason I believe the Bible is inspired: following its guidance, regarding this issue & how to treat spouses (lovingly), protects the mental & emotional health of both those who comply, and their children.

I know of no other religious texts that display such wisdom!

“Freedom of conscience”? Yep, for the most part, the world’s doing its own thing — one person doing this, another doing that.
Hows that seem to be working out? The world’s in chaos, there are more mentally-unstable people, percentage-wise, than ever before.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Why do you think? Why does anybody do that?
To highlight the important points. For instance....

Exactly.

You implied that a baptized 10-year-old, getting disfellowshipped, would not have any loving JW family for support! That couldn’t be further from the truth, and the sentences I highlighted, reveal your implication to be malicious. Either that, or your comment simply manifests that you didn’t know.

Note that in post #89 I agreed with you when I said: "Yeah, their parents would give them guidance until they aren't minors anymore."

Which was it? Claiming to be an apostate (although claiming to be unbaptized), gives me an opinion.
(And I do believe you were never a baptized Witness.... JW’s who leave, if they ever were grounded in JW understanding of Scripture, just don’t ask many of the questions you’ve asked in your posts. They know the answers.)

When did I ever say that I was unbaptized? Because I was an ex JW, and I speak out against the group, I would be considered an apostate to JW's. Regarding questions, using questions is something that I actually learnt from JW's so you should understand why I use them. It is to provoke thinking and to get someone to clarify their perspective.

I’ve been involved in innumerable judicial matters. Even so, I can count on both hands, the ones who have left due to apostasy. It’s mostly for sexual immortality, and dishonest business. Fortunately, many accepted the discipline & returned.

But those who stay unrepentant..... lo and behold, these very ones kicked out for fornication? Many times it has reached me that these fornicators tell others they “left”, because of apostasy!!!

Angry? Oh, yes. And prideful, I guess.(Sounds better to say, “I left,” than to say, “I was removed.”) But it’ll be to their disadvantage, if they don’t change their attitude and own up to the real reason.

Ah, so you have a no true scotsman argument? You do realise that is a logical fallacy right? So then you are presupposing things here?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

Again, Adrian, I point out that this is Scriptural ... “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 5.
I asked you before (and you didn’t reply): how would you apply this scriptural counsel? Please, tell me.
(You said “the whole practice”.) How would you keep your “spiritual household” clean from immoral influences?

 

[Samael_Khan]

(although claiming to be unbaptized), gives me an opinion.
(And I do believe you were never a baptized Witness.... JW’s who leave, if they ever were grounded in JW understanding of Scripture, just don’t ask many of the questions you’ve asked in your posts. They

I was just thinking: I can actually prove that I was baptised. I used to belong to Lansdowne Congregation in Cape Town. You can actually contact the elders there to confirm whether I was baptised or not and how I left, whether I was disfellowshipped or left on my own.

But, that being said, i dont mind you thinking that I have never been baptised because because either way you perceive me, it works to my advantage.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Now it's clear.... everyone will know that you are untruthful.....
Here you state:

I was just thinking: I can actually prove that I was baptised.

But in post #89, where I specifically asked if you were baptized, you say:

No. I left.

Proof positive that your words can't be trusted. Like all apostates.
I figured you'd eventually trip yourself up. That's really the only reason I've pursued this conversation with you, so others will see.

How sad for you, my cousin. Goodbye.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But in post #89, where I specifically asked if you were baptized, you say:

Are you being blatantly dishonest here? I will give you a benefit of a doubt here and say that you either misread or we have a communication problem.

YOU NEVER ASKED WHETHER I WAS BAPTISED IN THE SECTION OF THE POST I REPLIED TO.

You asked me

"Were you disfellowshipped?"

It can be CLEARLY seen that that was the question I was responding to in post 89.

I wasn't disfellowshipped. I didn't attend a judicial hearing.

I left, which means that I disassociated. I typed a resignation email to the elders.

Don't you find it ironic that in attempting to show that I am being untruthful, you are just showing that you are, in fact, the one who might be untruthful?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you being blatantly dishonest here? I will give you a benefit of a doubt here and say that you either misread or we have a communication problem.

YOU NEVER ASKED WHETHER I WAS BAPTISED IN THE SECTION OF THE POST I REPLIED TO.

You asked me

"Were you disfellowshipped?"

It can be CLEARLY seen that that was the question I was responding to in post 89.

I wasn't disfellowshipped. I didn't attend a judicial hearing.

I left, which means that I disassociated. I typed a resignation email to the elders.

Don't you find it ironic that in attempting to show that I am being untruthful, you are just showing that you are, in fact, the one who might be untruthful?

I misread my own statement! I apologize.

It's too late here, Im going to bed.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I misread my own statement! I apologize.

It's too late here, Im going to bed.

No worries. It happens We are only human.

Have a good nights rest!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s fine; I understand your POV... to a point.

Do you have children? Do you allow them to associate with just anyone? Probably not.... you have standards, and rightly so. So, in that sense, you shun. To protect your children from an unwholesome influence.

Two big differences:

- associating with my family is not a religion.
- I'm not in the business of trying to make people I don't want my family associated with dependent on me.

If you deliberately make someone dependent on your organization, then you take on a responsibility to keep them.

And for myself, I see the wisdom in following Jehovah’s counsel against sexual immorality. In fact, as I have stated before, it’s prohibition of sex w/o marriage is one reason I believe the Bible is inspired: following its guidance, regarding this issue & how to treat spouses (lovingly), protects the mental & emotional health of both those who comply, and their children.

I know of no other religious texts that display such wisdom!

What you call wisdom, I call short-sighted prejudice.

“Freedom of conscience”? Yep, for the most part, the world’s doing its own thing — one person doing this, another doing that.
Hows that seem to be working out? The world’s in chaos, there are more mentally-unstable people, percentage-wise, than ever before.

I consider your religion - and others - to be a symptom of the chaos in the world.

However, on the whole, things are getting better. I have sympathy for people like you who have been blinded to this by their religions.

Edit: in any case, you seem to take a dim view of freedom of conscience. You also seem to be suggesting that I do likewise. Like I was getting at earlier, the value I place on freedom of conscience is the only reason I tolerate your religion at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

That fine was the equivalent of giving a nickel away for an organization that size.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

However, on the whole, things are getting better. I have sympathy for people like you who have been blinded to this by their religions.

If you meant to say that religion is a cause of chaos in this world, I agree...

On the website The Churches | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) I found this re: WWI...
“Ideological Mobilization↑
When war finally broke out in 1914, the majority of church officials and prominent clerics in the public sphere devoted themselves to the interests of the state. Underpinning this mindset was the belief shared by all sides that they were fighting a just war of defense against aggression. This war of civilization included religious rationales, with official churches as a key element in heightening ideological hatreds during the conflict. In the interwar period, official religion easily blended into political religion.[7] During the war, this resulted in a hateful theology of sanctimoniousness. Perhaps the most infamous formulation was by the Anglican Bishop of London, Arthur Winnington-Ingram (1858-1946), who proclaimed to his congregation in 1915:

Everyone that loves freedom and honour…are banded in a great crusade - we cannot deny it - to kill Germans: to kill them not for the sake of killing, but to save the world; to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young men as well as the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded as well as those fiends who crucified the Canadian sergeant, who supervised the Armenian massacres, who sank the Lusitania, and who turned the machine guns on the civilians of Aerschott and Louvain - and to kill them lest the civilization of the world should itself be killed.[8]
Even a seemingly transnationally fraternal organization such as the Catholic church saw its bishops and clergy engage in vicious wars of words in the service of state propaganda, trading base insults about national stereotypes. Sponsored by French Cardinals in 1915, the publication of La guerre allemande promoted essays by clerics who drew upon contemporary accounts of the war’s opening phases of destruction. The French churchmen argued that Prussian-German militarism was the continuous outgrowth of the same Teutonic barbarism that had destroyed the Roman Empire. The German response, issued later in 1915, advanced the counter-argument that German Kultur was in fact the true preserver of eternal values in face of the atheism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and Voltaire (1694-1778), which had unleashed the destructive forces of the French Revolution culminating in the present war.[9]”
That is disgusting! What hypocrisy. Claiming to support the “Prince of Peace”, but instead fanning the flames of war.
This is one reason why the Bible foretells the destruction of religion, in Revelation 17 & Revelation 18.

With regard to conditions getting better (I specifically mentioned mental health among the population), I’ll let science speak for me...

NIMH » Statistics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_human_sexual_promiscuity

The advancements in technology, especially in medicine, are simply masking how bad the state of this world really is.

I prefer not to be naïve.