The Role of Governments

[nPeace]

@9-10ths_Penguin just giving you a heads-up. You had some important questions.
I can answer them in this thread. We're free to debate here.
I think what I lost in the other thread was written better, but this contains the thoughts, nonetheless.
Just be prepared for anything.

The State Administrator sends Jehovah's Witnesses a notice of the loss of their registration as a religious community - Vårt Land - Newsy Today

Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs, "the right not to profess any religion or belief", or "not to practise a religion".

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths (or those who have no faith).

When governmental authorities look for, or search out a religious belief of a religious group in order to "frame trouble by decree", that is a clear indication of targeting that religion for a political... dare I say religious interest... it's still political reasons.

Many may be unaware, but this is quite a common pattern that has been around for centuries, where authorities criminalize a religious practice, in order to presure persons to stop their worship.

Hitler, Stalin, and others tried. They are all dead, and the very practices they were pressuring God's people to do, or not do, hasn't changed.
For one thing, JWs are still politically neutral. For another, they still preach.

This same pattern seen in these governments carrying out their role, has been seen numerous times in the past also.
The three Hebrew boys (Daniel 3)
Daniel (Daniel 6)
There are many, so skipping to the first century.
Jesus' apostles (Acts 5:27-32)
Last, but by no means least...
Jesus Christ (Mark 14:60-65)

All those rulers are dead, and the very things they were concerned about have not changed for God's people.

Did they think any kind of pressure could stop God's people from carrying out sacred servive as outlined by their God? That would be the joke of the season.
In fact, it is a joke. (Psalm 2:4) The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah will scoff at them.
To set the sovereign one laughing like that, it has to be a joke.
Why, even in prison, they preached.

Is there a lesson here?
Yes. In all these cases, there is one common pattern.

At that time the high officials and the satraps were seeking to find some grounds for accusation against Daniel respecting matters of state, but they could find no grounds for accusation or anything corrupt, for he was trustworthy and no negligence or corruption could be found in him. These men then said: “We will find in this Daniel no grounds for accusation at all, unless we find it against him in the law of his God.”
(Daniel 6:4-5)​

Please allow those words to sink in.

God's people have alway had a good reputation before onlookers... even the said governmental authorities praised them.
Yet, did you notice the common pattern. In 99.8% of the cases, the governmental authorities were egged on by those who had a personal hatred for God's people. Their political agenda was prejudiced driven. ...and so... they sought to "frame trouble by decree", that is, find something to criminalize that is related to devotion to their God.

Even in Jesus' case, all the governors found him innocent, but all of them followed one path... seemingly, as though they were scripted to.
Is someone pulling the strings here?

Yes. Scripture says, the one person, bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers, is controlling the world. 1 John 5:19
It's all writen there in scripture, for everyone to see. I'm convinced that those who can't see, will eventually see. Only, it won't be like a sightseeing tour.

 

[Secret Chief]

"State subsidies"? So this means religious organisations getting funding through the public purse? The general public pay taxes to the state and some of that goes to religious organisations. Norway has a population of 5,400,000. Should the working adults of this population in effect make payments to the 12,000 Norwegians who identify as JW? Why or why not? Personally I believe no religious organisation should receive state subsidies.

 

[Brian2]

@9-10ths_Penguin just giving you a heads-up. You had some important questions.
I can answer them in this thread. We're free to debate here.
I think what I lost in the other thread was written better, but this contains the thoughts, nonetheless.
Just be prepared for anything.

The State Administrator sends Jehovah's Witnesses a notice of the loss of their registration as a religious community - Vårt Land - Newsy Today

Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs, "the right not to profess any religion or belief", or "not to practise a religion".

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths (or those who have no faith).

When governmental authorities look for, or search out a religious belief of a religious group in order to "frame trouble by decree", that is a clear indication of targeting that religion for a political... dare I say religious interest... it's still political reasons.

Many may be unaware, but this is quite a common pattern that has been around for centuries, where authorities criminalize a religious practice, in order to presure persons to stop their worship.

Hitler, Stalin, and others tried. They are all dead, and the very practices they were pressuring God's people to do, or not do, hasn't changed.
For one thing, JWs are still politically neutral. For another, they still preach.

This same pattern seen in these governments carrying out their role, has been seen numerous times in the past also.
The three Hebrew boys (Daniel 3)
Daniel (Daniel 6)
There are many, so skipping to the first century.
Jesus' apostles (Acts 5:27-32)
Last, but by no means least...
Jesus Christ (Mark 14:60-65)

All those rulers are dead, and the very things they were concerned about have not changed for God's people.

Did they think any kind of pressure could stop God's people from carrying out sacred servive as outlined by their God? That would be the joke of the season.
In fact, it is a joke. (Psalm 2:4) The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah will scoff at them.
To set the sovereign one laughing like that, it has to be a joke.
Why, even in prison, they preached.

Is there a lesson here?
Yes. In all these cases, there is one common pattern.

At that time the high officials and the satraps were seeking to find some grounds for accusation against Daniel respecting matters of state, but they could find no grounds for accusation or anything corrupt, for he was trustworthy and no negligence or corruption could be found in him. These men then said: “We will find in this Daniel no grounds for accusation at all, unless we find it against him in the law of his God.”
(Daniel 6:4-5)​

Please allow those words to sink in.

God's people have alway had a good reputation before onlookers... even the said governmental authorities praised them.
Yet, did you notice the common pattern. In 99.8% of the cases, the governmental authorities were egged on by those who had a personal hatred for God's people. Their political agenda was prejudiced driven. ...and so... they sought to "frame trouble by decree", that is, find something to criminalize that is related to devotion to their God.

Even in Jesus' case, all the governors found him innocent, but all of them followed one path... seemingly, as though they were scripted to.
Is someone pulling the strings here?

Yes. Scripture says, the one person, bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers, is controlling the world. 1 John 5:19
It's all writen there in scripture, for everyone to see. I'm convinced that those who can't see, will eventually see. Only, it won't be like a sightseeing tour.

Do the JWs in Norway shun minors?

 

[Nakosis]

For some former Jehovah's Witnesses, leaving the faith is not just the mark of losing your religion - it can also mean losing your loved ones. In many cases, friends and family are told to cut all ties with ex-believers, leaving them isolated and sometimes suicidal.
"I don't speak to any of my family," Sarah - not her real name - tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.
"Because of being 'disfellowshipped', I can have no contact."
Last year, Sarah - in her 20s - was excluded by the Jehovah's Witnesses in a process known as "disfellowshipping", she says sparked by her refusal to live in an abusive relationship.
The ex-Jehovah's Witnesses shunned by their families
Don't you think the religious practice of shunning is a bit inhumane?

Do you think freedom of religion should allow the isolation of minors from their family?

Should the government step in to discourage the isolationism of children?
Certainty the JW are free to continue this practice. They are just going to lose their government subsidies.

 

[nPeace]

"State subsidies"? So this means religious organisations getting funding through the public purse? The general public pay taxes to the state and some of that goes to religious organisations. Norway has a population of 5,400,000. Should the working adults of this population in effect make payments to the 12,000 Norwegians who identify as JW? Why or why not? Personally I believe no religious organisation should receive state subsidies.

What Is a Subsidy?
A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

I'm not sure if you are retired from work.
Have you ever received benefits, while there, or after leaving?
Imagine that while everyone was getting benefits which the company chose to generously give out... or perhaps even a bonus, you are told, you cannot get any because you are Muslim.

Say What? Right.
Would that not be your reaction?
Isn't this a similar situation?

Say you did something the boss didn't like, like maybe... um... I don't know. I didn't want to say something bad, but can't think of anything not so bad right now.
Say you had an "affair" with the secretary , who is married. ...and for this, you are told, you won't be getting those benefits everyone else gets on leaving.

Say what? Right.
Notice I didn't say the secretary is married to the boss. What if she is?
Say what?

JWs are law abiding citizen. More than some people, they pay due taxes, and don't try to cheat. They strive to conduct themselves honestly in all things.
They have done nothing wrong.

Why are they not entitled to the benefits others get... some of whom cheat, lie, and are corrupt to the bone?
Don't talk about those

 

[nPeace]

Do the JWs in Norway shun minors?

Answer.

 

[nPeace]

For some former Jehovah's Witnesses, leaving the faith is not just the mark of losing your religion - it can also mean losing your loved ones. In many cases, friends and family are told to cut all ties with ex-believers, leaving them isolated and sometimes suicidal.
"I don't speak to any of my family," Sarah - not her real name - tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.
"Because of being 'disfellowshipped', I can have no contact."
Last year, Sarah - in her 20s - was excluded by the Jehovah's Witnesses in a process known as "disfellowshipping", she says sparked by her refusal to live in an abusive relationship.
The ex-Jehovah's Witnesses shunned by their families
Don't you think the religious practice of shunning is a bit inhumane?

No. To the contrary, it's a loving arrangement, given in God's word.
It shows love for God, his people, and the unrepentant individual.

1. God's arangement is kept.
2. The congregation is protected and kept clean
3. The individual's decision is respected, and they are not forced to be a part of something they don't agree with. They are welcomed to attend meetings at any time... if they want to.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Revelation 2:5

Do you think freedom of religion should allow the isolation of minors from their family?

When you say isolation from their families, do you mean kicking them out the house?
I don't know of that happening.

However, religious freedom does not mean allowing child abuse, or child neglect... or any other criminal acts against children.

Should the government step in to discourage the isolationism of children?

Certainty the JW are free to continue this practice. They are just going to lose their government subsidies.

Have children been isolated that you know of? Can you give me the details that you know to be true.

We have lost more than subsidies. Some have lost their freedom, and lives.

 

[nPeace]

Don't you think the religious practice of shunning is a bit inhumane?
.

Do you think forcing young people... or anyone for that matter, to take up arms and go and kill others... taking away their freedom if they refuse, is humane?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin just giving you a heads-up. You had some important questions.
I can answer them in this thread. We're free to debate here.
I think what I lost in the other thread was written better, but this contains the thoughts, nonetheless.
Just be prepared for anything.

The State Administrator sends Jehovah's Witnesses a notice of the loss of their registration as a religious community - Vårt Land - Newsy Today

Religious Freedom
Freedom of religion or religious liberty is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs, "the right not to profess any religion or belief", or "not to practise a religion".

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths (or those who have no faith).

When governmental authorities look for, or search out a religious belief of a religious group in order to "frame trouble by decree", that is a clear indication of targeting that religion for a political... dare I say religious interest... it's still political reasons.

Many may be unaware, but this is quite a common pattern that has been around for centuries, where authorities criminalize a religious practice, in order to presure persons to stop their worship.

Hitler, Stalin, and others tried. They are all dead, and the very practices they were pressuring God's people to do, or not do, hasn't changed.
For one thing, JWs are still politically neutral. For another, they still preach.

This same pattern seen in these governments carrying out their role, has been seen numerous times in the past also.
The three Hebrew boys (Daniel 3)
Daniel (Daniel 6)
There are many, so skipping to the first century.
Jesus' apostles (Acts 5:27-32)
Last, but by no means least...
Jesus Christ (Mark 14:60-65)

All those rulers are dead, and the very things they were concerned about have not changed for God's people.

Did they think any kind of pressure could stop God's people from carrying out sacred servive as outlined by their God? That would be the joke of the season.
In fact, it is a joke. (Psalm 2:4) The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah will scoff at them.
To set the sovereign one laughing like that, it has to be a joke.
Why, even in prison, they preached.

Is there a lesson here?
Yes. In all these cases, there is one common pattern.

At that time the high officials and the satraps were seeking to find some grounds for accusation against Daniel respecting matters of state, but they could find no grounds for accusation or anything corrupt, for he was trustworthy and no negligence or corruption could be found in him. These men then said: “We will find in this Daniel no grounds for accusation at all, unless we find it against him in the law of his God.”
(Daniel 6:4-5)​

Please allow those words to sink in.

God's people have alway had a good reputation before onlookers... even the said governmental authorities praised them.
Yet, did you notice the common pattern. In 99.8% of the cases, the governmental authorities were egged on by those who had a personal hatred for God's people. Their political agenda was prejudiced driven. ...and so... they sought to "frame trouble by decree", that is, find something to criminalize that is related to devotion to their God.

Even in Jesus' case, all the governors found him innocent, but all of them followed one path... seemingly, as though they were scripted to.
Is someone pulling the strings here?

Yes. Scripture says, the one person, bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers, is controlling the world. 1 John 5:19
It's all writen there in scripture, for everyone to see. I'm convinced that those who can't see, will eventually see. Only, it won't be like a sightseeing tour.

How entitled does someone have to be to consider it to be "criminalization of their religion" to merely lose their governments subsidy?

And how desperate or ethically challenged does a church have to be to go begging for money from those who they consider "bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers"?

 

[nPeace]

How entitled does someone have to be to consider it to be "criminalization of their religion" to merely lose their governments subsidy?

And how desperate or ethically challenged does a church have to be to go begging for money from those who they consider "bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers"?

The Devil is "bent solely on breaking the integrity of God's faithful worshippers".
Did you read that, or something else?

The Devil uses people. We still love them and go to their homes... search them out to impart a spiritual gift... comfort, or anything else they need.
We pray for governmental authorities, and we seek out these ones ... with love in our heart for them.
They are not the enemy.

When Herod and Pilate became friend after the handed an innocent man over to death, it was known that this would be, but that doesn't excuse the actions of those involved.
So they get to choose their outcome.

JWs are, like everyone else, entitled to subsidies. They are taxpayers... honest ones.
It has nothing to do with desperation.
Everyone loves benefits. Isn't that why people rush to giveaways or other low price cut sales.

Don't tell me you don't care.

 

[Nakosis]

When you say isolation from their families, do you mean kicking them out the house?
I don't know of that happening.

However, religious freedom does not mean allowing child abuse, or child neglect... or any other criminal acts against children.

This was the complaint in the case. Why in Norway the JW lost its registration.

Have children been isolated that you know of? Can you give me the details that you know to be true.

We have lost more than subsidies. Some have lost their freedom, and lives.

From what I read, the parents remain responsible for the child but the community is not supposed to communicate or greet them.
An example I found is this 10 year old girl being praised for refusing to communicate with her sister.

Referring to Organized to do Jehovah’s Will (pages 153-155), the State Administrator points out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses encourages its members to avoid contact with de-registered persons; and that children are socially isolated from the congregation, as a reaction to a child’s behaviour. It says that this treatment is to “be regarded as negative social control on the part of the religious community and that the treatment infringes on the child’s rights”.

Pointing to Chapter 12.17 of the elder textbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, the State Administrator maintains that members who defy the call to avoid de-registered persons can have consequences for the remaining members, “and thus the religious community’s claims that it is only the members themselves who decide who they want to have contact with are not true.” In reality, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a ban on contact with former members.
One moment, please...

So it looks like the ruling was based on what is in JW publications.

 

[Windwalker]

An example I found is this 10 year old girl being praised for refusing to communicate with her sister.

It is both sad and disgusting at the same time. "Jehovah helped me sever myself from my own soul. Thank you Jehovah!" (In so many words). I guarantee you that at some point in her adult life, if not far sooner, she will need a therapist to help her repair her own conscious those adults taught her to server with a hot iron of sick and twisted theology. Jesus taught compassion. Not this garbage.

 

[Secret Chief]

magine that while everyone was getting benefits which the company chose to generously give out... or perhaps even a bonus, you are told, you cannot get any because you are Muslim.

Say What? Right.
Would that not be your reaction?
Isn't this a similar situation?

I do not expect I or any other employee to receive money based on religious belief. I do not expect any employer to make payments (or not) determined by religious beliefs. It doesn't happen and wouldn't. The attempted analogy is ridiculous.

Say you did something the boss didn't like, like maybe... um... I don't know. I didn't want to say something bad, but can't think of anything not so bad right now.
Say you had an "affair" with the secretary , who is married. ...and for this, you are told, you won't be getting those benefits everyone else gets on leaving.

Say what? Right.
Notice I didn't say the secretary is married to the boss. What if she is?
Say what?

Could this attempted analogy be any more tortuous? Work has nothing to do with private lives. Affairs happen amongst employees, including managers and bosses. Benefits don't come into it.

Let's keep it simple. Public funds should not, in my opinion, be made available or given to any individual or group because of religious belief or non-belief. If I found out I was paying money via taxation to you without my consent, simply because you're a JW, we'd be having a very forthright conversation. Would you like to make involuntary payments to the Catholic Church? Or to Scientology? Say what?

 

[nPeace]

You know, i really appreciate the way you are asking question, while doing research, rather than responding in ignorance, with emotional outbursts
I think these make for good discussions that lead somewhere - to understanding... even if there is disagreement.

All persons on earth will disagree, but understanding is important, as it leads to reason.

This was the complaint in the case. Why in Norway the JW lost its registration.

Child abuse and child neglect?

If I don't talk to my brother, would you consider that child abuse, and child neglect, when the parents are responsible for caring for us?
I don't know of that being the responsibility of siblings.
It would be interested to see information stating that to be the case.

From what I read, the parents remain responsible for the child but the community is not supposed to communicate or greet them.

An example I found is this 10 year old girl being praised for refusing to communicate with her sister.

Referring to Organized to do Jehovah’s Will (pages 153-155), the State Administrator points out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses encourages its members to avoid contact with de-registered persons; and that children are socially isolated from the congregation, as a reaction to a child’s behaviour. It says that this treatment is to “be regarded as negative social control on the part of the religious community and that the treatment infringes on the child’s rights”.

Pointing to Chapter 12.17 of the elder textbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, the State Administrator maintains that members who defy the call to avoid de-registered persons can have consequences for the remaining members, “and thus the religious community’s claims that it is only the members themselves who decide who they want to have contact with are not true.” In reality, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a ban on contact with former members.
One moment, please...

So it looks like the ruling was based on what is in JW publications.

Thank you for your research.
If it were the publications, they missed quite a few... and I am sure the brothers would have handed them quite a few.... like this one, for example.

Right. It's the parents responsibility to raise minor children until they are on their own. Not the siblings.

Usually, when the person is at an age of responsibility, they don't stick around, and if they want to, they realize they have a choice - either abide by the rules, or find your own lodging and make your own rules.
This is how it works in other households besides JWs - whether religious or not.

The decision is based on the parent of course. While some parents don't mind their children doing drugs, whoring, and other vices, there are parents who do.
So, for example, a child may want to live an immoral lifestyle, which the parent disagrees with. The child however, thinks they are "their own man", or "their own woman". In other words, "I can do whatever I please".
The parent is in the position to either show who is man and woman, in the house, or let the "little man / woman" rule, and not only that, but affect the other little one - sending them a message, "You can do just as I do. See. Mommy and Daddy can't do nothing."

In the congregation of JWs. the following is done, and for the reasons highlighted.
od chap. 14 pp. 148-149 - HANDLING CASES OF SERIOUS WRONGDOING
21 Some serious offenses, such as sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, and similar gross sins, require more than forgiveness from an offended individual. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21) Because the spiritual and moral cleanness of the congregation are threatened, such serious sins must be reported to the elders and handled by them. (1 Cor. 5:6; Jas. 5:14, 15) Some individuals may approach the elders either to confess their own sin or to report what they know regarding the wrongdoing of others. (Lev. 5:1; Jas. 5:16) Regardless of the manner in which the elders first hear reports of serious wrongdoing on the part of a baptized Witness, an initial investigation will be made by two elders. If it is established that there is substance to the report and that evidence is available showing that a serious sin has been committed, the body of elders will assign a judicial committee of at least three elders to handle the matter.

22 The elders exercise watchful care over the flock, seeking to protect it from any elements that would be spiritually damaging. They also endeavor to use God’s Word skillfully to reprove any who have erred and to restore them to spiritual health. (Jude 21-23) This is in harmony with instructions given to Timothy by the apostle Paul, who wrote: “I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, . . . Reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching.” (2 Tim. 4:1, 2) Doing so may take much time, but this is part of the hard work of the elders. The congregation appreciates their efforts and considers them “worthy of double honor.”—1 Tim. 5:17.

23 In every situation where guilt is established, the primary endeavor of the overseers is to restore the wrongdoer to spiritual health. If he is genuinely repentant and they are able to help him, their administering of reproof, either in private or before any possible witnesses who testified during the judicial hearing, will serve to discipline him and instill wholesome fear in the onlookers. (2 Sam. 12:13; 1 Tim. 5:20) In all cases of judicial reproof, restrictions are imposed. Thus the wrongdoer may be helped to make “straight paths” for his feet thereafter. (Heb. 12:13) In due course, the restrictions are removed as the individual’s spiritual recovery becomes manifest.

When an individual is unrepentant, they are saying a number of things.

1. I no longer want to follow the Bible's standards in this area.
2. I want to live my life in this way - the way I like... basically.

Please read IF THE DECISION IS TO DISFELLOWSHIP - od chap. 14 p. 150

So, the individual has actually removed themselves from the congregation - expressing their desire to not do certain things, and to do certain things.... knowing the consequences.
Do they really know what they are doing, and what to expect? Yes.

 

[nPeace]

All of Jehovah's Witnesses - young and old,

1. have had a Bible study, before becoming a JW.
2. have made a personal decision to become dedicated and baptized.
3. have answered in the affirmative, on the day of baptism, two questions - 1) Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ? 2) Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?
4. have gone through questions for qualification to be baptized - with some being told to give it some time, because they were not ready (See Appendix). So, they make the decision.

For a look at the questions persons desiring to be baptized are asked, see od pp. 185-192 Part 1: Christian Beliefs, od pp. 193-205 Part 2: Christian Living, od pp. 206-212 Concluding Discussion With Baptism Candidates QUESTIONS FOR THOSE DESIRING TO GET BAPTIZED

Note one of those questions.
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.

So, I have an important question for you...
Reviewing all of the questions along with the information in the Appendix, can anyone honestly claim that one of JWs was forced, or did not know what they were doing, and what to expect in the event that they had a change of mind, or just wanted to live their lives differently?

Persons can continue to listen to ex-JWs spread their lies, and tickle their ears.
Ex-JWs who apostasize - that is, spread misinformation about JWs' organization, are people who wanted to live their lives, the way they want - not according to Bible standards, and they are on a mission.
Apparently, they are successful with the inexperienced, ridiculers, and the foolish ones. Proverbs 1:22-25

Elders of JWs are like hawks looking over their young. They do a fine job of protecting all in the congregations, throughout the world.
They don't let anyone through, without a pass.
In other words, no ome can become a JW, unless they demonstrate that it is their desire, and if it is their desire to do otherwise, they are free to leave. They cannot stay and do otherwise.
many non-JWs appreciate this about JWs. You either are in the world, or you are not, and if you have one foot out, and one foot in, eventually, you will have to move one foot.

That's what happens to disfellowshipped ones - Sometimes the grass looks greener over on the other side, and they stray, and start eating, Then when they realize that the grass is bitter, they start complaining... "Oh. Those JWs treated me abusively. Oh. those JWs ... "

Minors also want a tasted of the apparent green grass, and sadly, they leave the loving protection they have in Jehovah's care, and start nibbling.
We are saddened at the loss of these dear young one, and hope they return, but it's their decision. It's what they want.
From what I shared with you, they knew... know what's expected. Amnesia is excusable.

The authorities also know that the child is not neglected or abused.
So their reason for doing this is something else.
Sorry the post had to be so long.

 

[nPeace]

I do not expect I or any other employee to receive money based on religious belief. I do not expect any employer to make payments (or not) determined by religious beliefs. It doesn't happen and wouldn't. The attempted analogy is ridiculous.



Could this attempted analogy be any more tortuous? Work has nothing to do with private lives. Affairs happen amongst employees, including managers and bosses. Benefits don't come into it.

Let's keep it simple. Public funds should not, in my opinion, be made available or given to any individual or group because of religious belief or non-belief. If I found out I was paying money via taxation to you without my consent, simply because you're a JW, we'd be having a very forthright conversation. Would you like to make involuntary payments to the Catholic Church? Or to Scientology? Say what?

Tell that to your government. I didn't arrange it.

 

[sayak83]

All of Jehovah's Witnesses - young and old,

1. have had a Bible study, before becoming a JW.
2. have made a personal decision to become dedicated and baptized.
3. have answered in the affirmative, on the day of baptism, two questions - 1) Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ? 2) Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?
4. have gone through questions for qualification to be baptized - with some being told to give it some time, because they were not ready (See Appendix). So, they make the decision.

For a look at the questions persons desiring to be baptized are asked, see od pp. 185-192 Part 1: Christian Beliefs, od pp. 193-205 Part 2: Christian Living, od pp. 206-212 Concluding Discussion With Baptism Candidates QUESTIONS FOR THOSE DESIRING TO GET BAPTIZED

Note one of those questions.
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.

So, I have an important question for you...
Reviewing all of the questions along with the information in the Appendix, can anyone honestly claim that one of JWs was forced, or did not know what they were doing, and what to expect in the event that they had a change of mind, or just wanted to live their lives differently?

Persons can continue to listen to ex-JWs spread their lies, and tickle their ears.
Ex-JWs who apostasize - that is, spread misinformation about JWs' organization, are people who wanted to live their lives, the way they want - not according to Bible standards, and they are on a mission.
Apparently, they are successful with the inexperienced, ridiculers, and the foolish ones. Proverbs 1:22-25

Elders of JWs are like hawks looking over their young. They do a fine job of protecting all in the congregations, throughout the world.
They don't let anyone through, without a pass.
In other words, no ome can become a JW, unless they demonstrate that it is their desire, and if it is their desire to do otherwise, they are free to leave. They cannot stay and do otherwise.
many non-JWs appreciate this about JWs. You either are in the world, or you are not, and if you have one foot out, and one foot in, eventually, you will have to move one foot.

That's what happens to disfellowshipped ones - Sometimes the grass looks greener over on the other side, and they stray, and start eating, Then when they realize that the grass is bitter, they start complaining... "Oh. Those JWs treated me abusively. Oh. those JWs ... "

Minors also want a tasted of the apparent green grass, and sadly, they leave the loving protection they have in Jehovah's care, and start nibbling.
We are saddened at the loss of these dear young one, and hope they return, but it's their decision. It's what they want.
From what I shared with you, they knew... know what's expected. Amnesia is excusable.

The authorities also know that the child is not neglected or abused.
So their reason for doing this is something else.
Sorry the post had to be so long.

You are simply putting forth generic policies. The point here is that Norway's govt has found that JW society in Norway is performing social ostracization of young members merely for leaving the religion which is against govt rules. So they are no longer going to give govt money to them.
Norway will no longer fund the Jehovah's Witnesses

 

[nPeace]

You are simply putting forth generic policies. The point here is that Norway's govt has found that JW society in Norway is performing social ostracization of young members merely for leaving the religion which is against govt rules. So they are no longer going to give govt money to them.
Norway will no longer fund the Jehovah's Witnesses

...and?

 

[Secret Chief]

Tell that to your government. I didn't arrange it.

What has the British government arranged? My explanation of my position on the issue?

 

[Nakosis]

You know, i really appreciate the way you are asking question, while doing research, rather than responding in ignorance, with emotional outbursts
I think these make for good discussions that lead somewhere - to understanding... even if there is disagreement.

All persons on earth will disagree, but understanding is important, as it leads to reason.


Child abuse and child neglect?

If I don't talk to my brother, would you consider that child abuse, and child neglect, when the parents are responsible for caring for us?
I don't know of that being the responsibility of siblings.
It would be interested to see information stating that to be the case.

This shunning, I've read can happen with children as young as 15.
As a parent, I would try to resolve any issues between you and your sibling that is causing non-communication. Would not do anything to encourage it.
I think the focus here, for the case in Norway is the shunning of minors under 18 by the community.
I do feel concern for minors who are ostracized by their community for "immoral" behavior. What you, I and the Elders of your community feels is immoral behavior may differ.

No minor needs to be made to feel rejected by their community IMO. Except maybe in extremely rare cases which would fall under the jurisdiction of civil laws anyway.
Hard for me not to feel a minor is not being abused by this kind of behavior.

Thank you for your research.
If it were the publications, they missed quite a few... and I am sure the brothers would have handed them quite a few.... like this one, for example.

Right. It's the parents responsibility to raise minor children until they are on their own. Not the siblings.

Usually, when the person is at an age of responsibility, they don't stick around, and if they want to, they realize they have a choice - either abide by the rules, or find your own lodging and make your own rules.
This is how it works in other households besides JWs - whether religious or not.

I was kicked out as a minor. Wasn't even for religious reasons. I was the step-child in the family and I suppose they tolerated me as long as they could.
So the age of responsibility can be as young as 15? So this shunning or even kicking out of the family could potentially happen to minors. Yes, they are not ruling on actual occurrences of this, they are ruling on the potential of what can happen to minors with this religious doctrine in place.
I'd suspect changing the doctrine to limit shunning to adults of legal age, 18+ would quell Norway's concerns.

Do you think change being required by the government is reasonable?

The decision is based on the parent of course. While some parents don't mind their children doing drugs, whoring, and other vices, there are parents who do.
So, for example, a child may want to live an immoral lifestyle, which the parent disagrees with. The child however, thinks they are "their own man", or "their own woman". In other words, "I can do whatever I please".
The parent is in the position to either show who is man and woman, in the house, or let the "little man / woman" rule, and not only that, but affect the other little one - sending them a message, "You can do just as I do. See. Mommy and Daddy can't do nothing."

In the congregation of JWs. the following is done, and for the reasons highlighted.
od chap. 14 pp. 148-149 - HANDLING CASES OF SERIOUS WRONGDOING
21 Some serious offenses, such as sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, and similar gross sins, require more than forgiveness from an offended individual. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21) Because the spiritual and moral cleanness of the congregation are threatened, such serious sins must be reported to the elders and handled by them. (1 Cor. 5:6; Jas. 5:14, 15) Some individuals may approach the elders either to confess their own sin or to report what they know regarding the wrongdoing of others. (Lev. 5:1; Jas. 5:16) Regardless of the manner in which the elders first hear reports of serious wrongdoing on the part of a baptized Witness, an initial investigation will be made by two elders. If it is established that there is substance to the report and that evidence is available showing that a serious sin has been committed, the body of elders will assign a judicial committee of at least three elders to handle the matter.

22 The elders exercise watchful care over the flock, seeking to protect it from any elements that would be spiritually damaging. They also endeavor to use God’s Word skillfully to reprove any who have erred and to restore them to spiritual health. (Jude 21-23) This is in harmony with instructions given to Timothy by the apostle Paul, who wrote: “I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, . . . Reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching.” (2 Tim. 4:1, 2) Doing so may take much time, but this is part of the hard work of the elders. The congregation appreciates their efforts and considers them “worthy of double honor.”—1 Tim. 5:17.

23 In every situation where guilt is established, the primary endeavor of the overseers is to restore the wrongdoer to spiritual health. If he is genuinely repentant and they are able to help him, their administering of reproof, either in private or before any possible witnesses who testified during the judicial hearing, will serve to discipline him and instill wholesome fear in the onlookers. (2 Sam. 12:13; 1 Tim. 5:20) In all cases of judicial reproof, restrictions are imposed. Thus the wrongdoer may be helped to make “straight paths” for his feet thereafter. (Heb. 12:13) In due course, the restrictions are removed as the individual’s spiritual recovery becomes manifest.

When an individual is unrepentant, they are saying a number of things.

1. I no longer want to follow the Bible's standards in this area.
2. I want to live my life in this way - the way I like... basically.

Please read IF THE DECISION IS TO DISFELLOWSHIP - od chap. 14 p. 150

So, the individual has actually removed themselves from the congregation - expressing their desire to not do certain things, and to do certain things.... knowing the consequences.
Do they really know what they are doing, and what to expect? Yes.

Elders have the leeway. What one Elder may consider worthy of shunning may differ from another. There exists a chance for abuse of this power.

We give authority over our children to others to allow the community to make feel unaccepted. Nope.

Maybe they have good intentions, maybe they don't. I don't have that much trust. Don't care if it is religious or governmental authority. I don't think anyone is going to have the same concern for their well being as I do.

I'll accept it is a trend that governments distrust religious authority. I don't think your Elders should have that kind of authority over minors. Of course, I'm biased against any kind of authority over my kids. Allowing the potential for the shunning of minors by any religious authority I suspect is going to be a hard sell in any secular society.

Though I imagine this plays right into your OP.

Yes, governments makes laws which limit the behavior which religious communities can inflict on others, including minors.
The concern is the well being of the child, though you probably wouldn't agree. It's not done to be evil or against God.

I think the JW community would simply need to show their doctrine could not adversely affect the well being of minors.
If they did that and still were not allowed to register as a religious community, then I'd agree the government of Norway had it out for JW.
Maybe they do. Don't have a great deal of trust in government authority either but we all have to make compromises with civil authority.

You seem also to not approve the shunning of minors by the religious community. If this is the complaint by Norway, you seem to be in agreement with them.