JW's in Norway lose government funding

[nPeace]

Marriage is a legal arrangement, overseen by the government. The only role that religion plays - legally speaking - is notarizing the marriage licence, to then be approved by the government before the marriage certificate is issued.

Removing that authority, as here, means that marriage licences signed by Jehovah's Witness clergy is not legally valid.

I understand the legal stuff.
What I mean is, marriage wasn't instituted by government.

 

[nPeace]

@9-10ths_Penguin sorry that happened to you.
I promised to do it, but this time, I'm not making the same mistake.
I'm using a word processor to write my important posts.
That way, I won't lose precious time and rich posts.

Don't worry though. I remember every step I took, so I just have to type it.

 

[danieldemol]

I applaud the decision of Norway not to fund the child abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses, however I find this concerning;
'It also means that society loses the authority to marry.'

Norway should allow Jehovah's Witnesses to marry even if it means they have to change their law.

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I applaud the decision of Norway not to fund the child abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses, however I find this concerning;
'It also means that society loses the authority to marry.'

Norway should allow Jehovah's Witnesses to marry even if it means they have to change their law.

In my opinion.

They can still marry. The church itself cannot perform state recognized weddings. Which means that two people married in a Jehovah's Witness church would not be married according to Norway.

But I do agree with you on this. Marriage should not be limited to state approved sources.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know little to nothing about the Jehovah's Witnesses, but my admittedly poorly informed initial reaction is

• discomfort with the idea of such government subsidies in general, as well as
• discomfort with the idea of government ruling on how an organized religion should deal with apostasy (although clearly one can conceive of situations in which state intervention might be warranted).

According to most or all former members, JW's are very harsh indeed with apostates.

I don't think that I have ever seen any hint that any government would be pressuring them on the matter, even though they probably deserve the pressure.

Do you know or have seen any indication to the contrary?

 

[LuisDantas]

I applaud the decision of Norway not to fund the child abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses, however I find this concerning;
'It also means that society loses the authority to marry.'

Norway should allow Jehovah's Witnesses to marry even if it means they have to change their law.

In my opinion.

Please note the wording. The JW as a society is losing the ability to officiate weddings.

Their members are not being denied the ability to marry; it just can't be done by by the authority of their own priests now except perhaps if those priests apply for a proper license and earn that license.

 

[danieldemol]

Please note the wording. The JW as a society is losing the ability to officiate weddings.

Their members are not being denied the ability to marry; it just can't be done by by the authority of their own priests now except perhaps if those priests apply for a proper license and earn that license.

That license appears to be tied to their discontinuation of the practice of shunning.

It is an irrelevant crime. It is like saying we won't let you be employed as a bank teller because you have too many unpaid parking tickets.

It is unjust and therefore should be amended as far as I can tell.

In my opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

That license appears to be tied to their discontinuation of the practice of shunning.

It is an irrelevant crime. It is like saying we won't let you be employed as a bank teller because you have too many unpaid parking tickets.

It is unjust and therefore should be amended as far as I can tell.

In my opinion.

I will have to strenuously disagree, then.

IMO the authority to perform marriages should not even be given to recognized churches automatically. That amounts to having the state lend undue authority to priests.

Far from irrelevant, the legal recognition of marriages performed by a shunning church is endorsement of abuse and ought not to be tolerated.

 

[danieldemol]

Far from irrelevant, the legal recognition of marriages performed by a shunning church is endorsement of abuse...

How so? The practice of marriage is a positive or at least value neutral practice. Are you suggesting that permission of the practice of positive or value neutral acts endorses harmful acts? I'm just not following your logic here.

In my opinion.

 

[Windwalker]

The Bible itself says the Saints will be shown those who are suffering in Hell and it will make them feel more blissful about being with their "righteous god."

It does? I'm not familiar with that part of the Bible. Do you have a reference to this?

It is written that everyone they know and love who dies who wasn't a Christian (or the correct flavor of Christian) is eternally damned, cast forever in to darkness, into a burning furnace to face eternal destruction and torment.

I don't believe it teaches that. I believe there are some Christians who interpret it that way, but I think they have some lack of love issues.

That's not what these Christians believe or what those Christians believe, this is what the Bible of all Christians says.

I know a lot of Christians who don't believe that's what the Bible teaches.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What I mean is, marriage wasn't instituted by government.

I'm not going to draw this out into a battle of beliefs; Marriage is a legal, government institution, regardless of the religious notarization of those government documents. That is all that matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so? The practice of marriage is a positive or at least value neutral practice. Are you suggesting that permission of the practice of positive or value neutral acts endorses harmful acts? I'm just not following your logic here.

In my opinion.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will ask you to agree to define marriages as legally acknowledged promises of mutual support and responsibility. It is not very accurate a definition, but hopefully it will be useful enough for now.

Despite common misunderstandings, those marriages are the responsibility of the state, not of any churches. They must be ultimately approved by the state if they are to have legal worth. And legal worth is necessary for things such as effects on taxes, custodianship of progeny, inheritance rights and the like. Apparently marriages in Norway must be informed to the Tax Authority, among other requisites.

It is very true that many churches choose to officiate marriage rites of their own, often by way of priests who have authorization to perform both forms of marriage at the same time in a single ceremony. It is not entirely clear to me whether that was ever the case for JW priests in Norway, but I assume that the newspiece is talking about marriages with legal weight, for the very simple reason that governments have no means and no authority to make decisions about purely religious marriages.

At the very least, I have to assume that any previously existing agreements of official recognition of the religious authority of JW priests to officiate marriages that rely on the acknowledgement of the JW as a church will lose validity. In effect, the JWs are losing a license due to not fulfilling the necessary requisites.

There is also another, slightly less obvious reason to revoke any legal license of JW priests to perform marriages. A license would give at least the appearance of the authority to decide whether any given couple fulfills the requisites to marry. Without some form of accounting to government, it would be tricky or worse to avoid abuse of that authority. What if a priest tells the couple that he will not marry them? They can reach for other marriage officer, perhaps from outside the church, of course. But that amounts to creating quite unnecessary estrangement and controversy.

Whether JW's in Norway want to perform their own marriages regardless of official recognition is entirely their decision, of course. They just won't have legal value.

Religious and lifestance-based organisations
Getting married | Norge.no

 

[nPeace]

According to most or all former members, JW's are very harsh indeed with apostates.

I don't think that I have ever seen any hint that any government would be pressuring them on the matter, even though they probably deserve the pressure.

Do you know or have seen any indication to the contrary?

Norway is the first.
They insist JWs change that... Or else.
For JWs, there is only one option - Or else.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not going to draw this out into a battle of beliefs; Marriage is a legal, government institution, regardless of the religious notarization of those government documents. That is all that matters.

Thank you. I refused to add anything because I wasn't about to get into any debate on it.
This is a discussion forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Far from irrelevant, the legal recognition of marriages performed by a shunning church is endorsement of abuse and ought not to be tolerated.

Are you comfortable with the State classifying shunning as abuse?

 

[danieldemol]

For the purposes of this discussion, I will ask you to agree to define marriages as legally acknowledged promises of mutual support and responsibility. It is not very accurate a definition, but hopefully it will be useful enough for now.

It seems close enough.

Despite common misunderstandings, those marriages are the responsibility of the state, not of any churches. They must be ultimately approved by the state if they are to have legal worth. And legal worth is necessary for things such as effects on taxes, custodianship of progeny, inheritance rights and the like. Apparently marriages in Norway must be informed to the Tax Authority, among other requisites.

It is very true that many churches choose to officiate marriage rites of their own, often by way of priests who have authorization to perform both forms of marriage at the same time in a single ceremony.

Correct, so presumably as long as they meet the relevant secular requirements for the tax office etc there is no reason that a JW couldn't be certified to meet those secular tax office requirements and perform a legally binding marriage.

It is not entirely clear to me whether that was ever the case for JW priests in Norway, but I assume that the newspiece is talking about marriages with legal weight, for the very simple reason that governments have no means and no authority to make decisions about purely religious marriages.

At the very least, I have to assume that any previously existing agreements of official recognition of the religious authority of JW priests to officiate marriages that rely on the acknowledgement of the JW as a church will lose validity.

You correctly point out that the government has no legitimate authority to make decisions about purely religious marriages, then go on to talk about whether the religious authority of JW ministers should be accepted. No secular government in its correct frame of mind should accept any religious authority.

It should all be about whether they meet the legal requirements for marriage or not.

In effect, the JWs are losing a license due to not fulfilling the necessary requisites.

What are the specific legal marriage requisites they are not meeting?

There is also another, slightly less obvious reason to revoke any legal license of JW priests to perform marriages. A license would give at least the appearance of the authority to decide whether any given couple fulfills the requisites to marry. Without some form of accounting to government, it would be tricky or worse to avoid abuse of that authority. What if a priest tells the couple that he will not marry them? They can reach for other marriage officer, perhaps from outside the church, of course. But that amounts to creating quite unnecessary estrangement and controversy.

So are you opposed to all those who would forbid a secular marriage on other than legal grounds from marrying? If so it just seems better to have a law that all marriage celebrants will lose their registration if they decline a marriage on other than legal grounds with the provision or rejection of the religious requirements for a religious marriage being irrelevant.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Are you comfortable with the State classifying shunning as abuse?

I'd be comfortable with the government classifying the shunning of minors by their parents as abuse.

In my opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Norway is the first.
They insist JWs change that... Or else.
For JWs, there is only one option - Or else.

Sorry, I am not following.

I sincerely have no idea of what you mean to say here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you comfortable with the State classifying shunning as abuse?

Beats me. I haven't really given any mind to it.

My gut instinct is that I don't think that makes any difference, mostly because I don't think that is necessary nor relevant.

Most of the reason why shunning is abuse is because JW society makes it so. It expects members to have very little interaction with people from the outside.

Refusing official recognition to JWs as a religious group ought to fix the issue to a considerable extent - or at least facilitate defense against it.

I want to ask, however: why do you find that a relevant question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I am not following.

I sincerely have no idea of what you mean to say here.

He is saying that even if a government threatens the evilest thing that JW's do or face a punishment, they will keep up that bad behavior and take the punishjment.

Of course parents that shun their children could be seen as child abusers as @danieldemol pointed out. And child abuse can enable the government to take away all of the children of a family.