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

[Shakeel]

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.

Shunning is done by all types of people whether religious or irreligious. It's only when it's for religious reasons that it's condemned. If it's for "personal preference" unrelated to religion it's called "freedom".

 

[Shakeel]

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.

It doesn't say apostates lie.
They use the word criminal in the religious sense.
Again, in the religious sense. Are you going to call out the Bible as slander too?
Implication is not enough to make a case for slander. Nor is it that simple.

I don't know about the details related to the Bible, but as a whole that sounds smart. The only issue is that the religion is false.

 

[Vee]

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?

It's strange and quite extreme, but since I don't know the details and the article is not very detailed there isn't much I can say. I've been a member of a few congregations and I've never been incited to hatred.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

JW publications these days are really only relevent to JW's. I prefer the old publications, like that of CT Russell, which give fascinating insight and is somewhat reflective.

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?

I personally don't think that being insulted should be a crime. Certainly it is an underhanded tactic but as you say, where does one draw the line? Because the line between criticism and slander could cross.

I don't think that people should fine the JW's as that won't do anything substantial. People should just leave which would damage the Watchtowers pockets. They should rather make the truth known about JW's and that would be enough.

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.

I agree when it comes to those who convert to being JW's. But I think with those who grew up with JW parents then blame would go to the parents as they would be indoctrinating them into the group.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Shunning is done by all types of people whether religious or irreligious. It's only when it's for religious reasons that it's condemned. If it's for "personal preference" unrelated to religion it's called "freedom".

Everybody shuns other people. It is fine when it is done for personal preference. The problem is that when it is a rule by a group then that falls into elements of mind control. Its only purpose is to stop people from thinking for themselves or actually using critical thinking for why people have left. There is no benefit. It is especially effective when people have family in a group because that means that they are held at duress.

 

[Shakeel]

Everybody shuns other people. It is fine when it is done for personal preference. The problem is that when it is a rule by a group then that falls into elements of mind control. Its only purpose is to stop people from thinking for themselves or actually using critical thinking for why people have left. There is no benefit. It is especially effective when people have family in a group because that means that they are held at duress.

I don't see much of a difference between a group of irreligious friends doing that from a group of religious people doing that. Except that the religious have a principle behind it while the irreligious are just acting on impulse.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It doesn't say apostates lie.

False criminals who make false documents look real are committing fraud which means they are lying. They apply this to apostates.

They use the word criminal in the religious sense.

The fact that they associate apostates with criminals is the problem.

Again, in the religious sense. Are you going to call out the Bible as slander too?

Your phrasing is a bit off. Just like JW publications, I wouldn't call all of the Bible slander. The Bible does indeed slander others in certain places though.

Implication is not enough to make a case for slander. Nor is it that simple.

SLANDER

NOUN
law

1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.Compare with libel.
   "he is suing the TV company for slander"

VERB

1. make false and damaging statements about (someone).

That publication actively makes false statements about many apostates as it makes blanket statements about them, such as them not caring about JW's. They also say that apostates are being deceptive without any evidence. Sounds like slander to me.

I don't know about the details related to the Bible, but as a whole that sounds smart. The only issue is that the religion is false.

It sounds like indoctrination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Will the family consent to having a relationship with the unfaithful one as if nothing is wrong?

Yes, because that is what love and family is about. You don't have to agree with it, you certainly aren't consenting to it, and you may only be there helping them through it.
Sometimes it means putting up with abuse. Sometimes it means being there for your family when "bad people" are looking for them. Extending more patients than you normally would.
If someone severs ties with a family member over religious differences--and cut them so deeply and completely--then "family" probably didn't apply to begin with I have to assume.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't see much of a difference between a group of irreligious friends doing that from a group of religious people doing that. Except that the religious have a principle behind it while the irreligious are just acting on impulse.

Oh. It isn't only religions that do this. There are various types of these groups that are corporate, racial, terrorist, psychotherapy, commercial etc, which are all non religious. There are also religions that do not fall into this category. It isn't whether a group is religious or not that matters but the methods they use to manipulate those part of the group that is the problem. For instance, North Korea is officially an atheist state, but severely indoctrinates its population and doesn't just shun but eliminates those who do not agree with the state.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is the Bible's rules and we abide by them.

Oh, goody and yay for me!
A Secret Database of Child Abuse

n March 1997, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the nonprofit organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sent a letter to each of its 10,883 U.S. congregations, and to many more congregations worldwide. The organization was concerned about the legal risk posed by possible child molesters within its ranks. The letter laid out instructions on how to deal with a known predator: Write a detailed report answering 12 questions—Was this a onetime occurrence, or did the accused have a history of child molestation? How is the accused viewed within the community? Does anyone else know about the abuse?—and mail it to Watchtower’s headquarters in a special blue envelope. Keep a copy of the report in your congregation’s confidential file, the instructions continued, and do not share it with anyone.

Thus did the Jehovah’s Witnesses build what might be the world’s largest database of undocumented child molesters: at least two decades’ worth of names and addresses—likely numbering in the tens of thousands—and detailed acts of alleged abuse, most of which have never been shared with law enforcement, all scanned and searchable in a Microsoft SharePoint file. In recent decades, much of the world’s attention to allegations of abuse has focused on the Catholic Church and other religious groups. Less notice has been paid to the abuse among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian sect with more than 8.5 million members. Yet all this time, Watchtower has refused to comply with multiple court orders to release the information contained in its database and has paid millions of dollars over the years to keep it secret, even from the survivors whose stories are contained within.

Jehovah's Witnesses face Pennsylvania grand jury investigation

The Pennsylvania attorney general's office reportedly is investigating whether the Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly failed to report child sexual abuse allegations to authorities in what is believed to be the first wide-scale examination by a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The attorney general's office told USA TODAY it "cannot confirm or deny the existence of investigations."

But Mark O'Donnell, a former Jehovah's Witness who left the religion when he was 46, said the Pennsylvania attorney general's office interviewed him last summer at his home in Baltimore. Then he was subpoenaed to testify before a statewide investigating grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Oh, goody and yay for me!
A Secret Database of Child Abuse

Jehovah's Witnesses face Pennsylvania grand jury investigation

Don't forget the Australian Royal Commission

 

[stvdv]

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?

It seems that the man accusing the JW has been doing it himself too. If I were a judge, I would give the JW 1 chance, to stop this demeaning behavior immediately, worldwide, all countries where they have JW, and if they don't then they have to pay the fine (or double) anyway

“Jehovah’s Witnesses state that ex-members should be shunned like the plague,” said lawyer Pieter-Bram Lagae, who assists the ex-witness who started the case.

“He used to sit on the Jehovah’s Judicial Committee and help decide on exclusions, until he realised it was going too far,” Lagae said

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems that the man accusing the JW has been doing it himself too. If I were a judge, I would give the JW 1 chance, to stop this demeaning behavior immediately, worldwide, all countries where they have JW, and if they don't then they have to pay the fine (or double) anyway

I like that approach. I'd doubt they'd change, but it would open the doors some into a discussion on the potential harm and dangerous of religion. Case in point is severing normal ties of relationship and empathy. Outside of religion that is an alarming symptom that warrants investigation. But religion, as we see, can induce this yet we only ever really hear of potential benefits of religion. Those who speak of the dangers get auto-lumped-and-dumped into a pile of new atheists and islamaphobes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I see shunning, disfellowshipping and all of its kindred to be a very great evil. It is an active attempt by someone, based on their own personal beliefs and absolutely nothing more, to deprive another person -- and perhaps that person's family -- from the very community that sustains them.

And worse, perhaps even from their own family, which I have no doubt the shunners would love to achieve, if they could.

Shunning is punishment and the shunners know full-well that it is punishment, because they know, as we all do, that humans are a social animal who cannot thrive -- or sometimes even survive -- without their community and their family. And since that is the case, why not just kill them, rather than shun them? Oh, whoops, that's illegal, isn't it. Pity about that.

But never mind -- you've still got shunning. Something as un-Christlike as it is possible to imagine.

I despise people who think like that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Shunning is done by all types of people whether religious or irreligious. It's only when it's for religious reasons that it's condemned. If it's for "personal preference" unrelated to religion it's called "freedom".

No, it is when a community tries to use shunning as a means of coercing members of that community to believe a certain way, and threatening their very well-being if they do not. Attempting to force your will on the very minds of other people in that way is simply EVIL.

And it is very much one of the ways in which religion really does go in for EVIL -- big time.

 

[Colt]

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?

They are really nasty to shunned members but they should be grateful to get out of the sect.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Shunning is done by all types of people whether religious or irreligious. It's only when it's for religious reasons that it's condemned. If it's for "personal preference" unrelated to religion it's called "freedom".

Not whenever it forbids families to stay together. That is crossing the line.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If someone severs ties with a family member over religious differences--and cut them so deeply and completely--then "family" probably didn't apply to begin with I have to assume.

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!

 

[JustGeorge]

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!

I'm not sure its always that easy.

My father was hoping for a Christian family. At some point in my teens, I realized I just did not believe in the Christian faith. I'm not sure it ever really took, but at that point, the fear factoring was starting to drop off and I was discovering what my beliefs really were. It did pain my dad when he learned of my new religious beliefs, but I didn't feel it was fair to lie. It wouldn't be fair to him, and it wouldn't be fair to me.

Sometimes you just can't make yourself believe something, even if it makes things easier. All in all, being truthful was the best option.

Fast forward about 20 years, my dad and I talk religion often. Neither of us wants to convert or convince the other. We share pieces of our scriptures with one another, and enjoy finding pieces of common ground. My dad is happy he got at least one religious child; my sisters all are very firm in their 'don't know, don't care' attitude regarding religion.

Most of the time, people that leave a religion aren't doing it to be difficult or defiant. They're just following their heart.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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!

Nice twist on the issue!

Maybe the organisation shouldn't be so selfish and let people leave if they wish without shunning. If shunning has to be used to coerce people into staying in the religion, then that is pretty much being selfish isn't it? Because you are depriving people of freedom of thought. The pain then would be a non issue. Remember it isn't those disfellowshipped who do the shunning but the JW's themselves, so they are causing their own pain through their actions. At least in regards to disfellowshipping. Depending on what the person disfellowshipped did, an example being adultery, then they brought the pain to the family.

I mean, imagine how many JW's want to leave because they don't actually believe in the religion, but have to stay so that they don't lose their family. Imagine the pain that they are going through because they have to live a lie.