|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 22, 2021 19:26:03 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 20:34:19 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference. They also have the right to be stupid, I guess, but in all seriousness, what form of government is used in Belgium? We Americans have a Constitution that separates religion and government, maybe they have another form of government? Just wondering, suppose I should actually read the article...
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 22, 2021 20:41:41 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference. They also have the right to be stupid, I guess, but in all seriousness, what form of government is used in Belgium? We Americans have a Constitution that separates religion and government, maybe they have another form of government? Just wondering, suppose I should actually read the article... The article won't shed light on your questions. But regardless of their idea on church & state, if other such lawsuits are successful in Europe,it could become a pressure on the JW hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 20:52:59 GMT
They also have the right to be stupid, I guess, but in all seriousness, what form of government is used in Belgium? We Americans have a Constitution that separates religion and government, maybe they have another form of government? Just wondering, suppose I should actually read the article... The article won't shed light on your questions. But regardless of their idea on church & state, if other such lawsuits are successful in Europe, it could become a pressure on the JW hierarchy. Oh, dandy, they will all pull up stakes in Europe and head over here for religious freedom, just like the Pilgrims, who did like the freedom to burn witches, though I think that stopped after the Constitution was written and this country was formed. And we don't sue the Amish for shunning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 22, 2021 21:04:33 GMT
The article won't shed light on your questions. But regardless of their idea on church & state, if other such lawsuits are successful in Europe, it could become a pressure on the JW hierarchy. Oh, dandy, they will all pull up stakes in Europe and head over here for religious freedom, just like the Pilgrims Now THERE'S a funny thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 21:10:06 GMT
Oh, dandy, they will all pull up stakes in Europe and head over here for religious freedom, just like the Pilgrims Now THERE'S a funny thought! If it happens, I am definitely moving to Belgium, lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 22:21:32 GMT
That’s a good idea. If these churches want to toss out a member, then the bishops should return all the money the ex-member has donated to their upkeep. Given that, the Southern Baptists owe me a ton of money that I tithed when I was still a believer. If I had invested it instead of giving it away, I'd be filthy rich now. I could start my own non-profit organization to help humans and animals in need, or promote ecology.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 22:42:25 GMT
Given that, the Southern Baptists owe me a ton of money that I tithed when I was still a believer. If I had invested it instead of giving it away, I'd be filthy rich now. I could start my own non-profit organization to help humans and animals in need, or promote ecology. Jesus commissioned his disciples to love one another, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned, etc, etc, not fuck over the faithful. But that has been their pattern for the last two thousand years. Have you seen the documentary Marketing the Messiah? It’s on Amazon. They pretty much show the how the Pauline version of Christianity became the main version and it being a creation of Paul of Tarsus who used savvy 1st century marketing to attract followers to his church and away from the original Jerusalem church founded by Jesus’ family. No, I haven't seen it, but it looks interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 22, 2021 22:54:33 GMT
That’s a good idea. If these churches want to toss out a member, then the bishops should return all the money the ex-member has donated to their upkeep. I doubt the church gives out receipts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 22, 2021 23:09:45 GMT
No, I haven't seen it, but it looks interesting! Actually, anyone can watch it right now. It’s free on YouTube. Filmmakers’ discussion. Cool! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Mar 22, 2021 23:18:19 GMT
People have the right to be mean but there is something not quite right about a church telling people to be mean. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk or listen to them and see how they like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 22, 2021 23:36:27 GMT
People have the right to be mean but there is something not quite right about a church telling people to be mean. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk or listen to them and see how they like it. And that's a perfectly good response to them. It doesn't involve the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 22, 2021 23:56:39 GMT
I can't support the decision either, unless they shun someone under the age of 18 and then that would be a criminal offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 23, 2021 0:11:29 GMT
I can't support the decision either, unless they shun someone under the age of 18 and then that would be a criminal offense. Parents still have to provide materially for minors who are on the outs. The shunning in that case would be when it comes to a sort of religious interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 23, 2021 0:16:20 GMT
I can't support the decision either, unless they shun someone under the age of 18 and then that would be a criminal offense. Parents still have to provide materially for minors who are on the outs. The shunning in that case would be a sort of religious interaction. What I mean is that there are laws that protect children from the psychological damage a parent or any adult is allowed to do to them. It still should apply even if they are still within the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 23, 2021 0:22:52 GMT
Parents still have to provide materially for minors who are on the outs. The shunning in that case would be a sort of religious interaction. What I mean is that there are laws that protect children from the psychological damage a parent or any adult is allowed to do to them. It still should apply even if they are still within the community. Well, I sure don't know what kind of psychological abuse by a parent qualifies as criminal, but I'm sure it doesn't include the psychological abuse involved in these cases. It's not blatant enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 23, 2021 0:27:12 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference.This is not the case however if you read the article. There were four clear charges that would be appropriate in many countries with any form of anti-discrimination law, The Ghent public prosecutor’s office summoned the Jehovah’s Witnesses for four charges: incitement to discrimination on the basis of religious belief against a person, and against a group, as well as incitement to hatred or violence against a person, and against a group.[/quote] The leglislation of a country is not necessarily government interference if the justice system is separate from the legislative processes.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 23, 2021 0:30:43 GMT
What I mean is that there are laws that protect children from the psychological damage a parent or any adult is allowed to do to them. It still should apply even if they are still within the community. Well, I sure don't know what kind of psychological abuse by a parent qualifies as criminal, but I'm sure it doesn't include the psychological abuse involved in these cases. It's not blatant enough. If it can be shown that a parent does nothing but degrade them all the time, that is enough for them to be removed from the home. I concede that you are correct that it probably isn't blatant enough in the case of shunning.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 23, 2021 0:36:16 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference.This is not the case however if you read the article. There were four clear charges that would be appropriate in many countries with any form of anti-discrimination law, The Ghent public prosecutor’s office summoned the Jehovah’s Witnesses for four charges: incitement to discrimination on the basis of religious belief against a person, and against a group, as well as incitement to hatred or violence against a person, and against a group. I actually read the article now and I see that it is worse than I was thinking, but the article still isn't very specific. I was thinking they just encouraged the people to ignore the ones who are shunned and that isn't and shouldn't be a criminal offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 23, 2021 0:50:55 GMT
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium must pay a €12,000 fine for the systematic and “disturbing” exclusion of ex-members who have left the organisation, the Ghent correctional court ruled on Tuesday...The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning policy cuts to the very core of relationships, and the victims suffer both physical and psychological consequences,” one of the lawyers of the civil parties said during the trial last month. www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/160238/jehovahs-witnesses-given-e12000-fine-for-incitement-to-hatred-against-ex-members-ghent-correctional-court-unia-shunning-policy/As far as I know this is a first. If such a ruling catches on elsewhere, would the JW policy makers "rethink" their rules for possible modification? (Actually, I doubt that.) As much as the court decision might make us feel good, I can't, in principle, support it. This is a decision about interpersonal relationships, and people have the right to be mean without government interference.This is not the case however if you read the article. There were four clear charges that would be appropriate in many countries with any form of anti-discrimination law, The Ghent public prosecutor’s office summoned the Jehovah’s Witnesses for four charges: incitement to discrimination on the basis of religious belief against a person, and against a group, as well as incitement to hatred or violence against a person, and against a group. Well obviously the charges are appropriate in Belgium (at least), and so I would guess likewise in some other European countries. But criminalizing giving the cold shoulder to someone who leaves your tightly knit religious community may be a lousy thing to do, but it's not legally actionable in the U.S., nor, in my view, should it be. And in the U.S. the justice system is a branch of government, so that would, then, be government interference.
|
|
