Jehovah's Witnesses continuing persecution in Russia....

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How can it be that small gatherings of people who simply want to study the Bible can be arrested and thrown in jail? In what way are Jehovah's Witnesses "extremists"? They simply disagree with the Russian Orthodox Church, who appear to be in a very cosy relationship with Russia's President.

Opinion | While we watch the World Cup, Russians are being jailed for reading the Bible

The fact they disagree with the church that is very cosy with Ol' Shirtless Vlad IS the reason. You answered your own question right in the OP. Be mindful of this next time someone tells you about how wonderful Trump is, since he and many of his supporters view OSV as such a role model.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You certainly require God's permission to critique other believers in him, lest it be condemned as hypocrisy (Roms 14).



You've already shown that you have a religion by making it clear that sexual immorality is condonable, which is a form of religion (humanism - elevation of the status of man to "god"). That is clearly not "religious fiction" in your eyes. So what you are really doing is ascribing "religious truth" to yourself, and "religious fiction" to others.


I don't support persecution. I would however support outlawing any sect that prohibits blood transfusions.


There are plenty of dead JWs who would be alive now if they were not JWs.

To refuse blood transfusions as a condition of belief in God would be in most people's eyes "extremely harmful and anti human". So I would ascribe you as a hypocrite.


So you would support any cult, however harmful. I suggest that your cynicism towards religion is in fact extremely harmful. The freedom to believe in anything at all was never to my recollection any part of morality, even if the American constitution allows it. Most of the worlds dangerous cults originated in America, and to my mind, other countries are entitled to protect themselves from what comes out of America.

I agree with your general gist, but i don't know that I agree with the idea that JWs are a "dangerous cult", per se, nor that they should be outlawed.

I mean sure, the transfusion thing seems ridiculously silly to me, but medical self determination is a human right I will always support. It's perfectly valid for anyone to decline life saving medical intervention, assuming fully informed adult consent. People do it all the time. Think people declining chemotherapy or dialysis. I don't see why JW's should be held to a different standard to anyone else, even if their reasoning is incomprehensible to many.

 

[Audie]

I agree with your general gist, but i don't know that I agree with the idea that JWs are a "dangerous cult", per se, nor that they should be outlawed.

I mean sure, the transfusion thing seems ridiculously silly to me, but medical self determination is a human right I will always support. It's perfectly valid for anyone to decline life saving medical intervention, assuming fully informed adult consent. People do it all the time. Think people declining chemotherapy or dialysis. I don't see why JW's should be held to a different standard to anyone else, even if their reasoning is incomprehensible to many.

Certainly a potential danger to its members.
It is NOT "perfectly valid" for someone to pressured to reject
treatment, or to deny it to a child.

As for a larger danger? Let us think how it would go
for any country, let us say, Japan, to decide to shun
all higher education, and to into total denial / intellectual
dishonesty any time that any advance in knowledge
conflicted with some set of superstitions.

No danger to the country's future?

No harm if a significant percent take to this kind
of irrational behaviour?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Certainly a potential danger to its members.
It is NOT "perfectly valid" for someone to pressured to reject
treatment, or to deny it to a child.

As for a larger danger? Let us think how it would go
for any country, let us say, Japan, to decide to shun
all higher education, and to into total denial / intellectual
dishonesty any time that any advance in knowledge
conflicted with some set of superstitions.

No danger to the country's future?

No harm if a significant percent take to this kind
of irrational behaviour?

I said adult informed consent. That precludes children and coercion. As for the rest, you could make such "yeah, but what if...?" hypotheticals about just about anyone. They're not a good argument. "Yeah, but what if everyone was gay? The species would die out!" "Yeah, but what if everyone were a stay at home parent? The economy would collapse!" "Yeah, but what if everyone wanted to live in a house? Urban sprawl would cover the planet!" and so on. Not everyone in Japan is going to become a JW, nor do all JWs shun higher education (AFAIK) so those aren't really helpful to the discussion.

 

[Audie]

I said adult informed consent. That precludes children and coercion. As for the rest, you could make such "yeah, but what if...?" hypotheticals about just about anyone. They're not a good argument. "Yeah, but what if everyone was gay? The species would die out!" "Yeah, but what if everyone were a stay at home parent? The economy would collapse!" "Yeah, but what if everyone wanted to live in a house? Urban sprawl would cover the planet!" and so on. Not everyone in Japan is going to become a JW, nor do all JWs shun higher education (AFAIK) so those aren't really helpful to the discussion.

If you ever listen read arguments from SCOTUS
you will see a lot of hypotheticals.

Being adult and informed absolutely does not preclude
coercion. The pressure to conform to a cult is intense.
Lo and many will die before going against their group.

And in practice, there are kids, who die. You cannot
realistically just not consder them.

Since you choose to bring up "gay", let us look at that.
Now, increased population is not in my mind, desirable,
but let us say it is.

Ten percent gay might mean ten percent slower population
growth. Maybe? How about ninety percent? No probs then?
Lets try one hundred percent. At what point is it in the public
interest to interfere with promoting a gay life style?
(assuming for the moment it can be a choice, like being a cult member)

I did not say everyone in Japan is going to do this, or that.

I am pointing to what would happen if they did.

Lets some decide to go cultist like I said. You see no
harm in it? At what point, percent wise, does the
no-harm end and the harm start? Somewhere less
than one hundred percent, for sure.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can it be that small gatherings of people who simply want to study the Bible can be arrested and thrown in jail? In what way are Jehovah's Witnesses "extremists"? They simply disagree with the Russian Orthodox Church, who appear to be in a very cosy relationship with Russia's President.

Opinion | While we watch the World Cup, Russians are being jailed for reading the Bible

Great point. Perhaps we should have boycotted Russia's World Cup. I disagree with JWs in doctrine, but their gentility and docility, as well as their obedience to most local law, makes them unfair targets of persecution.

 

[Audie]

How can it be that small gatherings of people who simply want to study the Bible can be arrested and thrown in jail? In what way are Jehovah's Witnesses "extremists"? They simply disagree with the Russian Orthodox Church, who appear to be in a very cosy relationship with Russia's President.

Opinion | While we watch the World Cup, Russians are being jailed for reading the Bible

You actually do not know in what way people would
see JWs as extremists?

Seriously?

And speaking of extremes-
As for "simply study the bible" that is disingenuous
in the extreme.

They are NOT being jailed "just for reading the bible".

That is not disingenuous, it is fake news.

 

[David1967]

There is every reason to construe JWs as a cult, due to the denial of the doctrine of gehenna, belief in the death of the soul at physical death, Jesus being no more and no less than a perfect human &etc and not the son of God that came from the Logos, although JWs do tend to equivocate on that one.

A penchant for misinterpreting dates and times connected to prophesy discloses a gnosis based approach as also the supremacy of the 144,000 over all others, which is Manichaen in conception. Denying personality to the spirit of God is absurd, and its attempts to dethrone the Logos equally so.

Refusal of blood transfusions make JW a positively odious force in political eyes. The Watch Tower Society has acknowledged that some members have died after refusing blood.

So whilst JWs are entitled as anyone else to deny the "Jesus is God" delusion as also the philosophical trinity, there are elements of corruption in doctrine that make the errors of the JWs unacceptable to many.

Moreover there are no grounds for supposing that every country should tolerate every cult. There is no human right to a deviant belief. "Discussing the bible" can mask a catalogue of heresy. May be the Russian experience is a good time for the Watchtower society to accept that not everyone finds their doctrines palatable. I myself believe that they are extremely harmful.

Those are your personal thoughts toward the JW's in which you have every right to believe. However, that is no excuse for anyone to persecute a faith that is in disagreement with their own. I am a big advocate of complete separation of church and state. When governments partner with a religion it seldom goes well for groups that are not in agreement with them. We see many examples of this both past and present. I would not want to live under a theocracy. We don't have to agree with a religion, but we should be tolerant of their right to worship as they please. BTW, I am not a JW. But I will defend their right to practice their faith.

 

[David1967]

Then they're a far cry different from the JW's here in the US, which is what I asked about.

I live in the US and know many JW's. I don't know any who ;

reject all forms of national government?

Unless I missed something.

 

[Audie]

Those are your personal thoughts toward the JW's in which you have every right to believe. However, that is no excuse for anyone to persecute a faith that is in disagreement with their own. I am a big advocate of complete separation of church and state. When governments partner with a religion it seldom goes well for groups that are not in agreement with them. We see many examples of this both past and present. I would not want to live under a theocracy. We don't have to agree with a religion, but we should be tolerant of their right to worship as they please. BTW, I am not a JW. But I will defend their right to practice their faith.

Churches should have no role in governing.
IMO.

That does not mean by extension, that
the state has no role in regulating the behaviour
of the citizens.

Practicing faith can and often does amount to
a whole lot more than "Just reasin' the Bible"
as was so disingenuously claimed. There is a lot
going on in some "faiths" that is deeply antisocial.

persecute a faith that is in disagreement with their own.

I'd agree, in principle, not cool. I wouldnt do it, myself.
But do you think that is the issue in Russia or China?

I dont think it is merely about a "difference", like, chocolate
vs vanilla.

China, like the US, is "one from many". The nation
has been plagued by intertribal wars for centuries.
The destruction that has resulted is enormous, beyond
any calculation.

The last thing China needs is new "tribes" springing
up, especially ones whose agenda runs so counter
to both tradition and modern goals.

I dont see why some in the USA is so proud of this weakness,
tho not all Americans are. Trump rode in on a powerful
wave of tribalism.

("the let 'em all in" Democrats are another tribe)

 

[David1967]

Churches should have no role in governing.
IMO.

My opinion as well.

That does not mean by extension, that
the state has no role in regulating the behaviour
of the citizens.

Of course. That's what laws are.

Practicing faith can and often does amount to
a whole lot more than "Just reasin' the Bible"
as was so disingenuously claimed. There is a lot
going on in some "faiths" that is deeply antisocial.

In certain cases, I will agree. If a particular religion is in fact causing harm to individual and families, then there must be a point that govt. steps in. Cases like the Jim Jones and David Koresh or Heavens Gate, incidents may have been prevented. Trick is, accomplishing this without trampling legitimate religious rights.

persecute a faith that is in disagreement with their own.

I'd agree, in principle, not cool. I wouldnt do it, myself.
But do you think that is the issue in Russia or China?

I will concede that I have very limited knowledge on this subject.

I dont think it is merely about a "difference", like, chocolate
vs vanilla.

It rarely is.

I dont see why some in the USA is so proud of this weakness,
tho not all Americans are. Trump rode in on a powerful
wave of tribalism.

("the let 'em all in" Democrats are another tribe)

Audie, I applaud your fairness in including both parties in this. The world is a much smaller place now. Like it or not ,we are a multi - cultural, multi- religious, and multi - tribal society. There is IMHO, no going back. Question is, how do we go forward peacefully and productively? I am an optimist . I think we can.

 

[Audie]

My opinion as well.



Of course. That's what laws are.



In certain cases, I will agree. If a particular religion is in fact causing harm to individual and families, then there must be a point that govt. steps in. Cases like the Jim Jones and David Koresh or Heavens Gate, incidents may have been prevented. Trick is, accomplishing this without trampling legitimate religious rights.



I will concede that I have very limited knowledge on this subject.



It rarely is.



Audie, I applaud your fairness in including both parties in this. The world is a much smaller place now. Like it or not ,we are a multi - cultural, multi- religious, and multi - tribal society. There is IMHO, no going back. Question is, how do we go forward peacefully and productively? I am an optimist . I think we can.

We will see where the USA goes, I guess.

You can tho, I trust, see that China has no
interest if anything to fragment a nation
that has seen so much strife.

Imagine for one, that the US civil war ended in
1949, not in the 1860s, and that far far more
people had been killed. AND, that much of
it was directly because of foreign intervention.

Christianity does not belong in China.

 

[David1967]

We will see where the USA goes, I guess.

That's all we can do really.

Imagine for one, that the US civil war ended in
1949, not in the 1860s, and that far far more
people had been killed. AND, that much of
it was directly because of foreign intervention.

I see your point.

Christianity does not belong in China.

I understand that Christianity is not from China, and that China should not have it forced upon them. I'm not for forcing anyone in crusade or jihad fashion to accept a religion. In your opinion, should a person in China be free to choose for themselves to become a part of a religion?

 

[Audie]

That's all we can do really.



I see your point.



I understand that Christianity is not from China, and that China should not have it forced upon them. I'm not for forcing anyone in crusade or jihad fashion to accept a religion. In your opinion, should a person in China be free to choose for themselves to become a part of a religion?

Fine with me. In principle. Depends on the
religion.

 

[David1967]

Fine with me. In principle. Depends on the
religion.

So how would you fix this if you were in charge? What criteria would a religion have to meet for a citizen of China to be able to practice it? And what consequence would a person face if they chose a religion not on the list of approved religions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

My ancestors (who were not Jehovah's witnesses) were forced to flee Russia in 1898, where the Orthodox Church was systematically torturing and murdering them. They moved to Canada, as refugees.

Some things never change, I guess.

 

[Audie]

So how would you fix this if you were in charge? What criteria would a religion have to meet for a citizen of China to be able to practice it? And what consequence would a person face if they chose a religion not on the list of approved religions?

That is a tough one. I'd need to do a lot of thinking
and consulting. I am glad this is not my responsibility.

As an American (now) I kind of like freedom. And
not telling others what to do.

 

[Audie]

My ancestors (who were not Jehovah's witnesses) were forced to flee Russia in 1898, where the Orthodox Church was systematically torturing and murdering them. They moved to Canada, as refugees.

Some things never change, I guess.

My tribe v yours? Nope, that wont change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My tribe v yours? Nope, that wont change.

Unfortunately it never seems to.

 

[Mox]

I disagree with JWs in doctrine, but their gentility and docility, as well as their obedience to most local law, makes them unfair targets of persecution.

There are seldom fair or equitable target groups of persecution, in the ordinary meaning of the word.

I can't think of any.