JW's in Norway lose government funding

[LuisDantas]

It seems close enough.


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.

That would require government effort and expense at verifying that the requirements are met.

I fail to see how or why that would be necessary or even convenient. Maybe I am missing something. I don't know.

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.

Indeed. Religious marriages are essentially freeform, and have no legal weight on their own. That is how it is and how it should be.

Are you under the impression that it would be the religious marriages that would somehow be forbidden? I got a very different impression.

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

It is.

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

I am not privy to the specifics, but the newspiece mentions restrictions to expression and social interaction among JWs. That is coherent with what I learned from other sources.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that the Norwegian government acknowledges that JWs don't allow their own members enough freedom of behavior and speech to be considered a functional church worth of government subsidies and privileges. Including the ability to perform legally valid marriages.

I am quite ok with that decision. It is only fair AFAIK.

So are you opposed to all those who would forbid a secular marriage on other than legal grounds from marrying?

I'm not sure of what we are talking about here. How and who would have the power to forbid a secular (legal) marriage? How does that work exactly?

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.

Why? Why should anyone else pay for the JW's flaws and abuses?

In my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

In my opinion.

I agree.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, I am not following.

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

Sorry.
JWs were given an option.
"Change the religious practice of disfellowshipping, or else".

For JWs, there was no option, because it's not like they made up that policy.
So technically the authorities asked JWs to do like most religions "Make up your own tradition, and don't worry about what the Bible says." In other words, stop serving this God... what's his name... Jehovah."

So "Or else" became. Was that clearer?

 

[danieldemol]

That would require government effort and expense at verifying that the requirements are met.

No more or less than anything else that the government certifies.

I fail to see how or why that would be necessary or even convenient. Maybe I am missing something. I don't know.

I dont think we should be overly concerned with what is convenient to governments. As to why its necessary: if you are going to have someone performing legally binding marriages regardless of who they are or their religion or lack thereof they would need to be certified to ensure that they meet government requirements.

Are you under the impression that it would be the religious marriages that would somehow be forbidden?

No

I am not privy to the specifics, but the newspiece mentions restrictions to expression and social interaction among JWs. That is coherent with what I learned from other sources.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that the Norwegian government acknowledges that JWs don't allow their own members enough freedom of behavior and speech to be considered a functional church worth of government subsidies and privileges. Including the ability to perform legally valid marriages.

I am quite ok with that decision. It is only fair AFAIK.

So nothing relevant to those tax requirements etc that you mentioned?

I'm not sure of what we are talking about here. How and who would have the power to forbid a secular (legal) marriage? How does that work exactly?

By forbidding those registered individuals who are prepared to meet secular government requirements from performing secular marriages due to their membership of a religion.

Why? Why should anyone else pay for the JW's flaws and abuses?

Why should laws target JWs, surely anyone else who breaks legal requirements should pay for *their own* flaws and abuses?

In my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

I question any state action against a religious group for reasons other that violation of the law. This may in fact be the case, but before I simple accept the position that shunning equals abuse, I'd want a lot more details.

To be honest, when reading the OP I was thinking of the JW community shunning a family rather that a family shunning its children. If the latter is the issue I have no objections to the Government's action, but I would also expect the Government to, first and foremost, take legal action against the parents involved, and I do not recall that being addressed in the article.

 

[nPeace]

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

In my opinion.

The thing about that is, how does disfellowshipping work, if it only applies to persons ... what's a minor in your opinion... 15, 14, 13, 12, 10...?
Would that not require omitting this text from scripture... perhaps skipping over it, when reading Chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians?

(1 Corinthians 5:11) . . .But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . .

Are you of the opinion that one should not be baptized until a "man"?
I'm just asking -discussing.

Edit @danieldemol parents are responsible for caring for their minor children. Child neglect is a crime against God, and government. ...and unscriptural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I question any state action against a religious group for reasons other that violation of the law. This may in fact be the case, but before I simple accept the position that shunning equals abuse, I'd want a lot more details.

To be honest, when reading the OP I was thinking of the JW community shunning a family rather that a family shunning its children. If the latter is the issue I have no objections to the Government's action, but I would also expect the Government to, first and foremost, take legal action against the parents involved, and I do not recall that being addressed in the article.

The accounts of ex-JW's can be very informative. And sad. They bring people up totally dependent upon the JW community and then if one is not 100% with their nonsense they can have their life turned upside down by the community pretending that they did not exist. For children and young adults it can be devastating. It is hard on adults as well. The JW's are one of the odder sects out there and many will claim that they qualify as a cult.

I am all for religious diversity, except when it comes to harming their own members or having their members harm others.

 

[danieldemol]

The thing about that is, how does disfellowshipping work, if it only applies to persons ... what's a minor in your opinion... 15, 14, 13, 12, 10...?

It is not about my opinion, it is about the opinion of Norwegian society as a whole on what constitutes the law of the land regarding the legal age of adulthood.

Would that not require omitting this text from scripture... perhaps skipping over it, when reading Chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians?

(1 Corinthians 5:11) . . .But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. . .

You could either a) interpret this as referring to grown adults, or more commendably b)acknowledge that it was written by a fallible human who was wrong.

Are you of the opinion that one should not be baptized until a "man"?
I'm just asking -discussing.

I'm of the opinion that baptism at any age is a waste of time.

... parents are responsible for caring for their minor children. Child neglect is a crime against God, and government. ...and unscriptural.

It is for the government to determine if that is mere marketing speak or not after a thorough investigation of the details of JW teaching and practice.

In my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

I question any state action against a religious group for reasons other that violation of the law. This may in fact be the case, but before I simple accept the position that shunning equals abuse, I'd want a lot more details.

To be honest, when reading the OP I was thinking of the JW community shunning a family rather that a family shunning its children. If the latter is the issue I have no objections to the Government's action, but I would also expect the Government to, first and foremost, take legal action against the parents involved, and I do not recall that being addressed in the article.

I agree with you here.
I don't believe it's a case of parents neglecting their children.
I believe its people with malicious intent, spreading lies and misinformation....and or, it's the governmental authorities being pressured to "frame trouble by decree".

If parents were neglecting their minor children, it would be a matter the elders would look into, and yes, the parents should be the ones targeted for criminal activity.

I believe though that all of this is actually by design.
The one pulling the strings behind the scene, has his work to do. He's not sleeping. Revelation 12:12

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with you here.

OK Nevertheless, I see zero value in further interaction and, for that reason, I am putting you on the ignore list with one last message: have a meaningful Christmas ...

 

[nPeace]

OK Nevertheless, I see zero value in further interaction and, for that reason, I am putting you on the ignore list with one last message: have a meaningful Christmas ...

I am not sure if that means you hate JWs so much, but take care.
JWs don't celebrate Christmas.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure if that means you hate JWs so much, but take care.
JWs don't celebrate Christmas.

I speculate that he refers to the holiday
as a secular seasonal thing that even
we heathens celebrate. It's like New
Year's Eve...but with too much family,
too many presents, & gorging on food.

 

[Secret Chief]

I speculate that he refers to the holiday
as a secular seasonal thing that even
we heathens celebrate. It's like New
Year's Eve...but with too much family,
too many presents, & gorging on food.

You mean it's supposed to be something else?

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean it's supposed to be something else?

I've heard that some folk see it
as a religious holiday. Go figure.

 

[sayak83]

The Norwegian government has removed funding from Jehovah's Witnesses due to the organizations exclusionary practices, of which have been deemed a violation of citizens rights and even child abuse. This decision loses the Jehovah's Witnesses' registration as a religious community.

"We sent a notice to Jehovah’s Witnesses about the possible loss of registration on 25 October this year. In the notice, we asked for feedback on whether they wanted to rectify the conditions that led to the refusal of state subsidies. The community has not wanted to correct the conditions that led to the denial of state grants in 2021, and they express that they still disagree with the decision to deny grants."

While Norway has a State Church, they don't have a State Religion; religious organizations are funded by taxpayer dollars. As such they must meet certain requirements and expectations to continue to receive said funding.

"Loss of registration means that the community no longer has the right to submit claims for state subsidies. It also means that society loses the authority to marry. They are still free to practice their religion and their activities independently of public registration, as the Religious Communities Act is essentially a subsidy act."

Excellent. I hope more religious organizations that practice such exclusionary practices lose all state subsidy and support.

 

[Secret Chief]

I've heard that some folk see it
as a religious holiday. Go figure.

Crazy.

 

[nPeace]

I speculate that he refers to the holiday
as a secular seasonal thing that even
we heathens celebrate. It's like New
Year's Eve...but with too much family,
too many presents, & gorging on food.

Yup. Which raised a question in my mind, which I have to research. When did Jews start to celebrate Christmas? Because, if it was a "Christian" holiday, what would that say about the Jews who reject the "Christian" version of Christ, which most Jews do not accept... much less the "corrupted" Greek scriptures?

Guess that's homework for me.

 

[nPeace]

I've heard that some folk see it
as a religious holiday. Go figure.

Delusion is real.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. Which raised a question in my mind, which I have to research. When did Jews start to celebrate Christmas? Because, if it was a "Christian" holiday, what would that say about the Jews who reject the "Christian" version of Christ, which most Jews do not accept... much less the "corrupted" Greek scriptures?

Guess that's homework for me.

I recall hearing that hanukkah was invented as a
response to Christmas as a religious holiday.
I don't know.
Meh. Christmas is just common among non-Jewish
atheists. Easter too. Any excuse for a holiday, eh.

 

[Secret Chief]

A JW once promised my partner that in heaven she would be able to stroke tigers. I see this as an excellent selling point. ********* of course, but excellent nonetheless.