Moscow Bans JWs

[kojikun]

I don't know if this was posted before, but I heard it today on NPR.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3573721.stm

Moscow bans Jehovah's Witnesses

Russian court has barred Jehovah's Witnesses from operating in the capital, Moscow.

The court ruled that group's practices broke up families, encouraged suicide and threatened its members' health by not allowing blood transfusions.

Lawyers for the group said the ruling was a step back for democracy and was reminiscent of Soviet rule.

They said they would appeal the verdict both in Russia and to the European Court of Human Rights.

"Religious minorities are often a litmus test for where a society is going... this is an ominous signal," the group's lawyer, John Burns, said.

In an interview outside the courtroom, Vasiliy Kalin, a Jehovah's Witness official, expressed his disappointment at the ruling.

"In the Soviet time a Russian had to be an atheist," he said.

"The situation has changed and a Russian must be Orthodox now."

A Russian law from 1997 recognises only four traditional religions - Orthodoxy, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam.

Prolonged battle

The court case against the Jehovah's Witnesses began in September 1998 but was suspended six months later as the court asked experts to examine literature published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Human rights groups said at the time it was an important test case which could have a lasting impact on minority religions across Russia.

In February 2001 a Moscow court refused to ban the local activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

But an appeals court later that year overturned this ruling, allowing prosecutors to relaunch proceedings against the group.

Jehovah's Witnesses claim 11,000 followers in Moscow and more than 133,000 throughout the whole of Russia.

[Vympel]

In a word: good. I really don't give a shit about JWs.

[Xon]

Cant really say I'm overly saddened about that.

[Mr Bean]

Banning religions is normaly a no-no and normal I would oppose banning any religion no matter how wacky but JW is about two steps from fanatical cult status and all it would take is one head JW to get pissed at Insert X person/coporation/goverment and we could have another... mmm Maybe Hamas, I don't see them blowing themselves up but discriminating at the very least prehaps sabatoge or even killing

[Sharp-kun]

Can't say I'm really upset by it. What's the punishment for being in a banned organisation?

[Rogue 9]

This is old news. They did it a couple months ago.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Good.

It's a simple case of enforcing the 'Your Rights End Where My Rights Begin' principle.

Fuck JWs. They're just below $cientology on the Cult Meter...

[fgalkin]

It was posted before. I say now what I say then: good riddance.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Good.

It's a simple case of enforcing the 'Your Rights End Where My Rights Begin' principle.

Fuck JWs. They're just below $cientology on the Cult Meter...

The Clams are barely even a cult: they're a business operation.

The JWs on the other hand, definately qualify as a cult, a death cult to be exact.

Good for Moscow, old news as it may be.

[darthdavid]

All reasons listed are perfectly valid and thusly I see no problem with banning the annoying bastards.

[Xenophobe3691]

Normally, I'd be for this, but I must agree with Voltaire; I might not like what they say in the slightest bit, but I'll defend their right to say it. There's a nice poem about this somewhere, I'll find it...

[Xenophobe3691]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Found it, it's by Reverend Martin Niemoller:

[Nathan F]

While I can't say that I agree with the JWs practices or even like them that much, but banning religion like this is not a good thing considering the past of the leadership of the Sovie...er...Russians.

[Darth Yoshi]

Good for them, I guess. I don't really care one way or the other.

[Darth Wong]

While I can't say that I agree with the JWs practices or even like them that much, but banning religion like this is not a good thing considering the past of the leadership of the Sovie...er...Russians.

They're not banning the beliefs; they're banning the organization. People are still free to believe whatever nonsense they want, but they can't organize into these "fellowship" enclaves where brainwashing techniques are used to keep people in line, new recruits are encouraged to divorce their spouses if they won't get with the program, and formal literature is being printed telling people not to get blood transfusions.

[Skelron]

Hmm disturbing not in that JW's have been banned but in that it enforces and reinforces a much larger law. Assuming the judgement will be equally enforced what of the catholics, Prosestents and any other religious group that does not fall into the very narrow limitations of the law used in this case?

((Note I am not using the slipperly slope fallacy as the Law enforced here clearly bans Catolics and prosestents as strongly as it does the JW))

Strangly enough I don't hate JW's, although I have had a large deal of contact with them, even to the extent of having a Summer holiday long conversation with two of their door knocking groups, they lost interest after I revealed that I believed in Evolution, and was not going to falll for their claptrap. (Having been long prepared for it by my Collage Theology classes.)

In the end they are a strange little religion of people who seem to think the world is about to end, and yet have had to put back the date several times. I hold no malice to them, I think the whole forbidding of Blood transfusions is wrong when it is used against their own children... Yet on the whole I don't know, I guess I'm against such decisions on principle of the larger picture. As already pointed out Voltiares argument is very prominant in my own views as is the other famous Sermon. (It isn't a Poem but a Sermon said in the heart of Nazi Germany! I know nitpicking but the Moral and personal Corrage of such people always deserves being pointed out.)

(I know I know my views expressed at the start of a different thread would seem to argue I am being hypocritical here. What can I say life and death situations change my views quite strongly... Sod Understanding if it's life and death feck it is what I say, and protect the minors if your adult you can make your own mistakes.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find it to be a good move on the basis that evangelising swarms like JW groups only harm themselves by actively preaching their crap to people who, if interested, would join of their own free will anyway.

[Sarevok]

Nice.

[Rogue 9]

I don't like Jehovah's Witnesses, but what would the reaction be if this was 1939 and someone put up a thread entitled "Germany bans Judaism!" hmm? Not that I think the Russians are going to gas JWs, but still... It doesn't sit right with me, banning a religion.

[Nathan F]

While I can't say that I agree with the JWs practices or even like them that much, but banning religion like this is not a good thing considering the past of the leadership of the Sovie...er...Russians.

They're not banning the beliefs; they're banning the organization. People are still free to believe whatever nonsense they want, but they can't organize into these "fellowship" enclaves where brainwashing techniques are used to keep people in line, new recruits are encouraged to divorce their spouses if they won't get with the program, and formal literature is being printed telling people not to get blood transfusions.

It's called freedom of association. People should be free to gather how they wish with who they wish. If you went about starting an atheists club and encouraged members to hold non-beliefs and to go about debating others on their beliefs, and suddenly the government said that you were a threat and shut you down, you'd be up in arms. Not to be defending the JWs methods, I think they're half nuts, but this opens up a whole pandoras box of possibilities.

[Darth Wong]

It's called freedom of association. People should be free to gather how they wish with who they wish.

Another American projecting his own country's laws onto the rest of the world, I see

Did it ever occur to you that not every country in the world permits association regardless of what that association advocates? Germany has outlawed Neo-Nazi groups, for example.

If you went about starting an atheists club and encouraged members to hold non-beliefs and to go about debating others on their beliefs, and suddenly the government said that you were a threat and shut you down, you'd be up in arms.

Precisely, because they would be unable to show any harm done or laws broken by my actions or statements or my group's activities. This is in marked contrast to a group which directly opposes life-saving medical procedures and harasses people in their homes.

Nice (albeit moronic) false-analogy fallacy; acting as though the banning of one association for specific harmful activities is tantamount to banning any and all associations simply for being associations

Not to be defending the JWs methods, I think they're half nuts, but this opens up a whole pandoras box of possibilities.

No, it opens up an opportunity for you to employ a slippery-slope fallacy.

[Nathan F]

It's called freedom of association. People should be free to gather how they wish with who they wish.

Another American projecting his own country's laws onto the rest of the world, I see

Did it ever occur to you that not every country in the world permits association regardless of what that association advocates? Germany has outlawed Neo-Nazi groups, for example.

Neo-Nazi groups also often advocate the overthrow of the government, haven't seen any JW groups trying sedition and subversion yet. It's a basic right that the government can't tell people that they can't believe in a certain religion or attend religious meetings. Just because stoning and female genital mutilation isn't illegal and is acceptable in some parts of the world, does that mean that it shouldn't be illegal. You're criticising me for doing the same thing you always accuse Picard of doing, "It's their own culture, we see things differently!" There are certain basic rights that everyone is entitled to, and that's simply one of them. Anyways, you've got a False Analogy fallacy *and* Godwin's Law in the same sentence, I'm impressed.

If you went about starting an atheists club and encouraged members to hold non-beliefs and to go about debating others on their beliefs, and suddenly the government said that you were a threat and shut you down, you'd be up in arms.

Precisely, because they would be unable to show any harm done or laws broken by my actions or statements or my group's activities. This is in marked contrast to a group which directly opposes life-saving medical procedures and harasses people in their homes.

Nice (albeit moronic) false-analogy fallacy; acting as though the banning of one association for specific harmful activities is tantamount to banning any and all associations simply for being associations

It's not a false analogy at all. By the atheists club debating others and trying to convince people against religion, then families would be broken up in the process most assuredly, which is one of the reasons that the Russians posed for banning the JWs. You could even go so far as to say that you're denying your members the health improving practice of prayer, which, for reasons which you might say are debatable, has been shown to improve health. I'm saying that when you let one organization be banned for practicing something completely voluntary, then you open the door for banning more "undesireable" groups and organizations. Anyways, no one is forcing these people to go to these meetings or do what the JWs suggest. If the Russians don't like them knocking on doors, then make ordinances that say that door to door soliticitation is illegal. If they continue to violate the law, then stick them with it.

Not to be defending the JWs methods, I think they're half nuts, but this opens up a whole pandoras box of possibilities.

No, it opens up an opportunity for you to employ a slippery-slope fallacy.

[/quote] How the hell is that a slippery-slope fallacy? It's a valid argument and you know it. Quit trying to put stuff out of a debate by sticking it with invalid fallacy accusations. By looking at Russias past in which all forms of religious expression were banned, seeing that they are now banning a religion again is only looking at the freaking past coming back to bite you in the ass! You know as well as I do that everyone should learn from history, otherwise, you'll make the same mistakes again.

[Darth Wong]

Another American projecting his own country's laws onto the rest of the world, I see

Did it ever occur to you that not every country in the world permits association regardless of what that association advocates? Germany has outlawed Neo-Nazi groups, for example.

Neo-Nazi groups also often advocate the overthrow of the government, haven't seen any JW groups trying sedition and subversion yet.

Irrelevant; you are evading the point that you are assuming freedom of association is mandatory regardless of what the association happens to advocate, and that I showed this claim to be false.

Anyways, you've got a False Analogy fallacy *and* Godwin's Law in the same sentence, I'm impressed.

Bullshit; you made an assertion of absolute freedom of association; I showed that it was false. But feel free to throw logic fallacy names around as if you know what they mean

Precisely, because they would be unable to show any harm done or laws broken by my actions or statements or my group's activities. This is in marked contrast to a group which directly opposes life-saving medical procedures and harasses people in their homes.

Nice (albeit moronic) false-analogy fallacy; acting as though the banning of one association for specific harmful activities is tantamount to banning any and all associations simply for being associations

It's not a false analogy at all. By the atheists club debating others and trying to convince people against religion, then families would be broken up in the process most assuredly,

BULLSHIT, you worthless piece of religious bigot goose-stepping garbage. Sinc when does the advocacy of atheism "most assuredly" cause divorces, motherfucker? Atheism does not actually advocate that people break up their families if their spouses will not "convert", while JWs do, asshole.

which is one of the reasons that the Russians posed for banning the JWs. You could even go so far as to say that you're denying your members the health improving practice of prayer, which, for reasons which you might say are debatable, has been shown to improve health.

Once again, BULLSHIT. There are no verifiable health benefits of prayer other than placebo, and no statistical correlation between religion and health or longevity. You are merely showing your true colours as an ignorant religious bigot by pretending that atheism causes divorces or harms health, you fucking dipshit.

I'm saying that when you let one organization be banned for practicing something completely voluntary, then you open the door for banning more "undesireable" groups and organizations.

No, you are equating subjective harm to objective harm, and direct advocacy of marriage dissolution to your completely bullshit assertion that atheism "most assuredly" causes divorce.

Anyways, no one is forcing these people to go to these meetings or do what the JWs suggest. If the Russians don't like them knocking on doors, then make ordinances that say that door to door soliticitation is illegal. If they continue to violate the law, then stick them with it.

The same could be said of any cult which uses brainwashing techniques, yet many societies do prohibit them.

How the hell is that a slippery-slope fallacy? It's a valid argument and you know it.

Bullshit. You claimed that if they can outlaw one association for advocating harmful things or using cult methods, they can outlaw any association for any beliefs, and then in turn outlaw religion itself, which IS a slippery slope fallacy.

Quit trying to put stuff out of a debate by sticking it with invalid fallacy accusations.

Pot calling the kettle black, asshole.

By looking at Russias past in which all forms of religious expression were banned, seeing that they are now banning a religion again is only looking at the freaking past coming back to bite you in the ass!

They're not banning any religion; they're banning a particular ORGANIZATION, asshole. No one is saying you can't believe that Jesus is coming back to kick peoples' asses in 2014, no matter how stupid that may be.

You know as well as I do that everyone should learn from history, otherwise, you'll make the same mistakes again.

I would say that you know as well as I do that false analogy fallacies are not valid arguments, but apparently you don't, nor do you know much of anything about atheism since you seem to think it "most assuredly" causes marriage breakups and harms peoples' health, fuckhead.

[Howedar]

Another American projecting his own country's laws onto the rest of the world, I see

Did it ever occur to you that not every country in the world permits association regardless of what that association advocates? Germany has outlawed Neo-Nazi groups, for example.

He said they "should be" able to, Mike. Not that they are.

[Slartibartfast]

Another American projecting his own country's laws onto the rest of the world, I see

Did it ever occur to you that not every country in the world permits association regardless of what that association advocates? Germany has outlawed Neo-Nazi groups, for example.

He said they "should be" able to, Mike. Not that they are.

That's still saying "our law is what the world should do".