An extreme example -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:37:43 03/26/05 Sat
Author: Chris
Subject: An extreme example
In reply to: Jan 's message, "The cost of Freedom" on 13:47:15 03/25/05 Fri

Do you think America should behave differently to Russia and allow Satanic Sects, just to show you are the land of freedom (30 Satanic Sects Active in Moscow � Duma Official)?

You are right that the state must be very careful and bound to laws when it intervenes. I don't think we have a different opinion here. The question is only, where do you draw the line. On the one side, the freedom must be guaranteed and respected, but on the other side, the freedom and the democracy and the citizens must be proteced.

I think there are several levels and measures the state can use. In really extreme cases like above, the groups should be simply prohibited. In other cases, the groups should be at least not upvalued, supported or sanctioned by the state.

What happened in Germany is that the state upvalued the JW's so that they now enjoy the same privileges as the Protestant and Catholic church.

The churches bring much benefit to the state. They contribute to society, spiritually, and with charitable work. Much of the charitable work, kindergardens, nursing homes etc. is maintained by the churches. Also, we have a Christian constitutional law. A state can never be "neutral" - you always have to hold and defend some fundamental principles.

The JW's are simply a cult, with an obviously crooked theology and mind control practice. Such a cult should not get support and credibility from the state.

Also, the state is actually offending the former members by doing so. Please read the following sentence from the article: "The court supported the position taken by lawyers for Jehovah's Witnesses that reports from people who had left that society were unreliable."

With that judgement, the state has given the JW's credibility, at the same time declaring its victims as unreliable. That's a perversion of truth. JW's are an extremly deceptive and dishonest organization, something which can be easily proven by looking at their history, and even their official teachings.

Please read about JW's Theocratic War Doctrine. In a nutshell, it says that lying is allowed as long as it serves the JW's. (UBFers hold a similar teaching though most of them would not admit). So who is reliable and who is unreliable? I think in 15 years in the court, it would have been easily possible to give a better answer here.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Why did it happen? -- Chris, 02:53:00 03/26/05 Sat
Unreliable people -- Mike K., 10:25:34 03/28/05 Mon