TrueTomHarley

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).
The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.
To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.
In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.
The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"
Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

The context here is making a decision to disassociate or not disassociate as an ADULT, therefor making an informed dcision about disassociation and knowing the implications will be shunning. As regards baptism, he was saying that this applies to baptised persons, who know that once baptised, you can get disfellowshipped or disassociate (for whatever reason) on the contrary, those who are not baptised cannot get disfellowshipped or disassociate regardless of age. So as a (baptised) ADULT person (regardless of when you got baptised) and a victim of child sexual abuse, you will know that "the consequences of disassociating yourself will be shunning". THAT was the point being made. It had nothing to do with WHEN one gets baptised.
Notice this was omitted from thesubtitles which would have given the context of what he was talking about: "here is somebody, who as an adult, or approaching adulthoid is making that decission" (what decission? The decission to get baptised? NO we are talking about disassociation here, so the decision about disassociation, and being aware the consequences will be shunning) As he goes on: "that the consequences of disassociation will be shunning". 
Omitting pertinent information which gives context is typical for those who want you to misunderstand.

You're included in the confusion it appears............

The Economist magazine, covering the ban, has coined a new term. I will use it.
 
"The ruling is a testament to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox church, especially of a radical wing who see the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a dangerous sect that deviates from the official version of Christianity."
 
The 'official version.'
 
I haven't said 'Christendom' in years. Instead, I've said 'traditional.' No more. Now the churches represent 'the official version.' 
 
Just who are the officials? In Russia, they are the Russian Orthodox Church. In America, they are the Evangelicals. Post something about the faith in their hearing and you will be flooded with outcries of "cult" due to rejection of their favorite doctrines. Yet, unless I am very much mistaken, the two official versions would not get along. In fact, I suspect they would hate each others' guts, though for the purpose of maligning Jehovah's Witnesses they might form a temporary 'best buddy' relationship.

The Economist magazine, covering the ban, has coined a new term. I will use it.
 
"The ruling is a testament to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox church, especially of a radical wing who see the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a dangerous sect that deviates from the official version of Christianity."
 
The 'official version.'
 
I haven't said 'Christendom' in years. Instead, I've said 'traditional.' No more. Now the churches represent 'the official version.' 
 
Just who are the officials? In Russia, they are the Russian Orthodox Church. In America, they are the Evangelicals. Post something about the faith in their hearing and you will be flooded with outcries of "cult" due to rejection of their favorite doctrines. Yet, unless I am very much mistaken, the two official versions would not get along. In fact, I suspect they would hate each others' guts, though for the purpose of maligning Jehovah's Witnesses they might form a temporary 'best buddy' relationship.

The Economist magazine, covering the ban, has coined a new term. I will use it.
 
"The ruling is a testament to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox church, especially of a radical wing who see the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a dangerous sect that deviates from the official version of Christianity."
 
The 'official version.'
 
I haven't said 'Christendom' in years. Instead, I've said 'traditional.' No more. Now the churches represent 'the official version.' 
 
Just who are the officials? In Russia, they are the Russian Orthodox Church. In America, they are the Evangelicals. Post something about the faith in their hearing and you will be flooded with outcries of "cult" due to rejection of their favorite doctrines. Yet, unless I am very much mistaken, the two official versions would not get along. In fact, I suspect they would hate each others' guts, though for the purpose of maligning Jehovah's Witnesses they might form a temporary 'best buddy' relationship.

The expression is: "Shit happens."
What is it with JTR trashing authority, speaking abusively of the congregation and its headship, (didn't  Korah and his bunch come to regret that?) then suddenly going all pious on us by refusing to say a bad word. He will be much more pleasing to God if he swears like a sailor, yet supports theocratic arrangements.
And what is it with his citing Hacksaw Ridge and Monty Python and Gulag Archepelago and Hunchback of Notre Dame as though all were Divine releases? Not to mention quoting the forefathers to such an extent that even the forefathers must have to restrain themselves from arising in their graves and shouting: "Will you knock it off!"
And what is it that when he finally does get around to citing a scripture, the one he chooses is the one that everyone knows is spurious - the one about 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone?'
And why doesn't he lay off on the "Great Men" pronouncements and admit that his real gripe is with Jesus, who DID NOT put family above all other concerns, even at the expense of ticking off the Russian Orthodox Church?
“Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth,” Jesus says. “I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.”…Matthew 10:34-36
“Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me, and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow me is not worthy of me.” vs 37-38
 
No. in view of Matthew 10, modify JTR's statement to read: The reason Jesus was banned in the Russian Federation was because he DESERVES TO BE BANNED.
Clearly, JTR's beef is not with the congregation at all. It is with Jesus' words above.
Has JTR ever made a suggestion in his life? Is not everything a demand?

: "17  No weapon formed against you will have any success,+And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment.This is the heritage* of the servants of Jehovah,And their righteousness is from me,” declares Jehovah.+ ISA 54:17
 7  He will not fear bad news.+נ [Nun]His heart is steadfast, trusting in Jehovah.+ס [Samekh] 8  His heart is unshakable;* he is not afraid;+ע [Ayin]In the end he will look in triumph on his adversaries.+ PSALM 112:7,8
18  And you will be brought before governors and kings+ for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations.+ MATT. 10:18

EVEN BEFORE THE 1997 ANTI-CULT GROUP I HAVE INVESTIGATED THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE HIMSELF AND ARCH-BISHOP KIRILL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF RUSSIA JOINED FORCES TO BEGIN THE ELIMINATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DURING THE BREAK-UP OF THE SOVIET UNION !!!
The Archbishop Cannot Cope!
   LAST year, a consistory (solemn council of cardinals) was organized to discuss certain matters that are of great concern to the Catholic Church. One of these, according to the newspaper Il Sabato, is “the aggressiveness of the sects.” However, the newspaper said: “It should be no problem for the cardinals to reach agreement on this point. All are in accord that there is a need for a more in-depth study of the phenomenon of new religious movements and also a need to prevent, as far as possible, their expansion.”
Evidently, though, “the aggressiveness of the sects” is not just a problem in Italy. Il Sabato reports: “While visiting the Vatican recently, Archbishop Kirill of Smolensk [one of Russia’s oldest cities] . . . asked the pope for ecumenical aid in coping with the overwhelming growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses and similar groups in the Soviet Union.”

   In the first century, leaders of established religion had similar complaints when Christianity was spread aggressively by its adherents. On one occasion indignant Jews complained to the city rulers: “These men that have overturned the inhabited earth are present here also”! (Acts 17:6) Back then, religious leaders tried hard to stop the spread of Christianity, but they failed. Today also, any effort to stop the spread of true Christian doctrine is doomed to failure. God himself promises: “Any weapon whatever that will be formed against you will have no success, and any tongue at all that will rise up against you in the judgment you will condemn. This is the hereditary possession of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from me.”—Isaiah 54:17. SOURCE : 8/15/1992 WATCHTOWER
IN 1998 THIS ANTI-CULT GROUP TOOK JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO COURT IN RUSSIA  BUT LOST THE CASE.
HERE IS EVIDENCE FROM 1997 ABOUT THIS GROUP:
"Dangerous" sects named
VICTIMS OF SECTS
Argumenty i fakty, 
4 December 1997
Question: I read somewhere that there is some committee for rescuing youth from false religions. From which specific religious organizations and by what means does this committee "save" our youth? Z. Fomicheva, Ekaterinburg
Answer: The Committee for Rescuing Youth from False Religions was created by persons who had suffered one way or another from totalitarian sects. In comprises both relatives of young people who have fallen under the influence of destructive cults and sectarians themselves. Former sectarians, of course. The committee actively participated in the development of the State Duma's new law on freedom of conscience.
Each member of the committee "specializes" in a particular religious organization and provides advice and counsel regarding it. The victims of destructive cults principally need psychological help, but we still do not have this mechanism in place. Incidentally in the USA such organizations have operated for twenty years already, like the American Family Fund and the Network for Information about Cults. Their work includes counseling and psychological rehabilitation of sectarians.
The Committee for Rescuing Youth considers that the most dangerous sects operating on Russian territory include "Unification Church" (the official name is the Association of the Holy Spirit for Unification of World Christiaity), "Church of Scientology," "Jehovah's Witnesses," "Church of Christ," "International Society of Krishna Consciousness," "Aum Shinrikyo," "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormons), "Church of the Final Covenant" (Vissarion), "Mother of God Center," and "The Family" (also known as Children of God). It is also possible to mention "Union of Independent Christian Missionary Societiet," "White Brotherhood," "Witness Li," and "The Spiritual Center of Satora." (tr. by PDS)
http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9712a.html
MOSCOW COURT VINDICATES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AFTER YEARS OF PERSECUTION; 
Effort to outlaw the group is dismissed. Action called a victory for religious freedom.
by Robyn Dixon 
Los Angeles Times, 24 February 2001
Earlier generations of Yaroslav Sivulsky's family were persecuted as Jehovah's Witnesses in the Soviet Union, and then the state still sought to ban the group as a dangerous cult--even in democratic Russia.
Finally, in what was called an important victory for religious freedom in Russia, Sivulsky saw justice done Friday when a Moscow court threw out a case that sought to outlaw the group in the capital.
In 1998, an anti-cult group called the Committee to Save Our Youth pushed for action against the Jehovah's Witnesses. Prosecutors in Moscow's northern district launched the case in early 1999 based on Russia's controversial 1997 law on religion, designed to limit the activities of foreign religious organizations.
For Sivulsky, the case was a flashback to the repressive Stalin regime 50 years ago when his parents, grandparents and thousands of other Jehovah's Witness families were exiled to Siberia. His father got seven years in a labor camp, he said.
"The accusations were basically the same," he said Friday. "The accusation was that their religion ran counter to the ideology of the Communist Party."
Sivulsky, 33, was jailed for 18 months in 1987 for refusing to serve in the Soviet army. Believers do not accept blood transfusions, refuse to salute any national flag or do military service.
"In court in 1987 , I refused the services of a lawyer because the lawyer, the prosecution and the judge all played on the same team against me," he said.
Prosecutors in 1999 took action to ban the Jehovah's Witnesses under an article in the religion law aimed at cults, which can be outlawed for splitting families, inciting religious discord, encouraging suicide or denying medical care to the critically ill.
"Today's decision sends a very important and optimistic message to other religions and confessions trying to practice in Russia," said Sivulsky, who is spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia.
"Russian society is not prepared to go back to totalitarian thinking," he said. "It is impossible to prohibit freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to speak to people, which is basically what the prosecution was demanding."
Human rights groups welcomed Friday's decision but cautioned that harassment of many religious groups by bureaucrats and police remains common in Russia.
Advocates of religious freedom feared that a successful prosecution against the Jehovah's Witnesses would have opened the gates to similar actions against many other religious groups struggling to operate in Russia.
The court called in five experts to examine the literature of the Jehovah's Witnesses before the judge dismissed the prosecutor's case for the ban.
"It's a very important test case. It sets the standards for how much evidence you have to produce to ban a group like this," said Diederik Lohman, director of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch. "The fact that all the literature had to be examined by experts sets a precedent for the way cases like this are to be dealt with."
The Jehovah's Witnesses group was founded in the late 19th century in the U.S. and appeared in Russia several years later. It now claims to have 250,000 followers here.
Galina Krylova, a lawyer for the group, said the Moscow case was based on absurdities.
She cited a "stupid accusation that my clients don't celebrate the Russian Orthodox Christmas--but Muslims or Jews don't celebrate it either."
Russian Orthodox Deacon Andrei Kurayev, professor of theology at St. Tikhon's Institute and Moscow State University, insisted that it was clear that the Jehovah's Witnesses are "a totalitarian sect" that must be resisted strongly by the Orthodox Church's anti-missionary program.
"This sect tries to control people's consciousness," he charged. "They very strictly limit all the information that their followers get. Thus, they are a threat not only for the state but for individuals as well."
But he said he feels that it is up to the Orthodox Church to struggle against such groups.
"We should work hard and struggle for people's souls rather than wait for courts to ban them," he said.
The Russian Orthodox Church, which bitterly opposes missionary activities, was one of the main proponents of the 1997 religion law, which forced many denominations to go through a difficult registration process. The only ones excused were those defined as "traditional" to Russia: Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.
http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0102f.html
EVIDENCE IS HERE THAT THE ANTI-CULT GROUP WERE INVOLVED IN THE VERY LAWS THAT ARE NOW USED TO CURTAIL AND NOW BAN JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. OF COURSE THIS WILL BE A "PRECEDENT" AGAINST ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS AS THE STATE DUMA JUST SAID YESTERDAY !!!

“For a fact, the king to whom I am speaking so freely well knows about these things; I am convinced that not one of these things escapes his notice, for none of this has been done in a corner,” says the apostle Paul at Acts 26:26. So it is with the Russian ban on true religion. It has not been done in a corner. The Governing Body did not permit it to be done that way. Nobody who knows anything cannot have failed to hear of this.
The entire affair, which our Russian brothers always thought was a long shot, is publicized so that as few as possible can say they were unaware. Let them declare themselves on one side or the other of Christianity. Let the American Dream Church and the Independence Day Church, always intricately involved with the world, continue to pretend that they represent Jesus. All know who are truly following his command to ‘put down the sword.’ All know who are truly proclaiming ‘this good news of the Kingdom’ and living by its requirements even today.
Someone worries that other nations, far from being outraged, may take this as a template for banning Witnesses in their country, too. If it should happen, let it happen with maximum publicity, as this is receiving. How literally is Psalm 2:2 to be fulfilled? Let all publicly take their stand. Let it become clear before all who are God’s loyal ones and who are those who would fight against him. At some point the experiment of human self-rule must end. Has it not proven itself an obscene failure?
Our Russian brothers always thought it was a long shot. Rarely does the judicial branch in that country stand up to the executive branch, regardless of the evidence. It is the witness given that is most important. All have come to know that there is a nation in which every citizen cares personally about every other citizen. Our Russian brothers will forever know that their courageous stand, which they are prepared to continue, triggers massive traffic to jw.org – how could it be otherwise? as heretofore uninterested persons check to see if it is truly extremist. Of course, they will see that it is not. How will they respond to that?

VERY  HEART - TOUCHING......   Our  Russian  Brothers  and  Sisters  on  their  last  Convention,  singing  &  praying  all  together  in  PEACE  &  LOVE  for  Jehovah ❤
( in the Traktar Stadium in Minsk, Belarus, )   LETS  HOPE,  JEHOVAH  CAN  HELP  VERY  FAST  >>>>>>>>>>

Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant*about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope.....1 Thessalonians 4:13
"Let them stay ignorant!" says the Russian government. "Besides, maybe the house church will explain it someday."

Whereas English has been around a long time, is a language heavily used in writing, and promptly seeks to incorporate new ideas and distinguish nuances, that is not true of many other languages. In Vietnamese for instance, anything mechanical was preceded by the word "may" (pronounced my) meaning 'machine.'  There would be (if memory serves)  'may bay' (machine that flies) for airplane, and 'may hut buoi' (machine that sucks dirt) for vacuum cleaner.
I'm not surprised if languages don't all show a clear contrast between plan and purpose.
(I better not hear JTR saying: Tom hut buoi)

Whereas English has been around a long time, is a language heavily used in writing, and promptly seeks to incorporate new ideas and distinguish nuances, that is not true of many other languages. In Vietnamese for instance, anything mechanical was preceded by the word "may" (pronounced my) meaning 'machine.'  There would be (if memory serves)  'may bay' (machine that flies) for airplane, and 'may hut buoi' (machine that sucks dirt) for vacuum cleaner.
I'm not surprised if languages don't all show a clear contrast between plan and purpose.
(I better not hear JTR saying: Tom hut buoi)

Whereas English has been around a long time, is a language heavily used in writing, and promptly seeks to incorporate new ideas and distinguish nuances, that is not true of many other languages. In Vietnamese for instance, anything mechanical was preceded by the word "may" (pronounced my) meaning 'machine.'  There would be (if memory serves)  'may bay' (machine that flies) for airplane, and 'may hut buoi' (machine that sucks dirt) for vacuum cleaner.
I'm not surprised if languages don't all show a clear contrast between plan and purpose.
(I better not hear JTR saying: Tom hut buoi)

Increasingly, the Russians, and many others, adopt the modern-day definition of a cult: "people we don't like."
Many times in the repressive days in both Germany and the United States our brothers blitzed areas with preaching campaigns both thorough and quick. Suppose that our Russian brothers were suddenly to intensify their service to God? Either separately or on cue. There are 175,000 of them, after all, and for the time being, they have the sympathy of the world behind them. (how often does that happen?)
It is not for us to say what they will do. It is their neck on the line, not ours. But they have been dealing with police harassment for some time, they did not expect to win this trial, and they know such harassment will intensify. 'Might as well supply a reason for it to intensify,' perhaps they will reason.
Many of our people in Russia, perhaps all of them, will be reflecting on Peter's words to the religious leaders of his day: 
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves. But as for us, we cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard.”  (Acts 4:19)
It's not that they would not. It is that they could not.

There was never a time when they were not allowed. Who's going to 'not allow' them?

Tom, it is interesting you should say that, in our Public Talk yesterday, the speaker brought out that there are several organisations in Australia, and in deed, many more, throughout the world, that are in opposition to organised religion as a whole............several scriptures were used from Revelation.
My thoughts were that maybe...........just maybe.........these organisations, in hand with communistic countries, (who thought religion was the "opium" of the people, with Russia and China on the UN Security Council and other countries who sit on it for a two year term), could eventually influence the UN to act against "Babylon the Great."..........but, however it plays out, we know that it is Jehovah's will that WILL take place 

Increasingly, the Russians, and many others, adopt the modern-day definition of a cult: "people we don't like."
Many times in the repressive days in both Germany and the United States our brothers blitzed areas with preaching campaigns both thorough and quick. Suppose that our Russian brothers were suddenly to intensify their service to God? Either separately or on cue. There are 175,000 of them, after all, and for the time being, they have the sympathy of the world behind them. (how often does that happen?)
It is not for us to say what they will do. It is their neck on the line, not ours. But they have been dealing with police harassment for some time, they did not expect to win this trial, and they know such harassment will intensify. 'Might as well supply a reason for it to intensify,' perhaps they will reason.
Many of our people in Russia, perhaps all of them, will be reflecting on Peter's words to the religious leaders of his day: 
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves. But as for us, we cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard.”  (Acts 4:19)
It's not that they would not. It is that they could not.

One government only will bring an end to war, to injustice, to hunger and suffering. ‘Do not speak of that government here!’ says Russia
‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,’ says Jesus. ‘Not if we can help it!’ says Russia….

To follow Christ is now illegal in Russia. The government has given their verdict. Surely it has been played out as at Acts 26:26: ‘this thing has not been done in a corner.’ It has been played out so that all know and can take a stand.
It is Jesus at John 15:20: ‘Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you.”
It is the Acts 28:22 words applied to first century Christians: ‘truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.’
Who else, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses, could these words conceivably apply to today?

To follow Christ is now illegal in Russia. The government has given their verdict. Surely it has been played out as at Acts 26:26: ‘this thing has not been done in a corner.’ It has been played out so that all know and can take a stand.
It is Jesus at John 15:20: ‘Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you.”
It is the Acts 28:22 words applied to first century Christians: ‘truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.’
Who else, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses, could these words conceivably apply to today?

From Jeremiah 26:7-16:
"And the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of Jehovah.
"So when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that Jehovah had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him and said: “You will surely die…
"The priests and the prophets said to the princes and to all the people: “This man deserves the death penalty, because he has prophesied against this city just as you have heard with your own ears.”…
"Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets: “This man does not deserve the death penalty, for he spoke to us in the name of Jehovah our God.”   
……….
It is always this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets that oppose religious freedom.
Perhaps it will be that way with Putin, if he can withdraw his head from the lock of the Church.
 

'I'll bet you think the Org composed the music for Jehovah Will Treat His Loyal One in a Special Way, didn't you?' my nemesis taunted, hoping the new knowledge would sour me on God's organization.
Of course, it did not, because my wife and I had just had dinner at the Pearlsnswines's
Pearls cooking is to die for. Several have died after eating there. But her desserts are positively out of this world. We were savoring her one of a kind lemon meringue pie. Everyone at the table, for it was not only us invited, praised her baking skills. We marveled at her painstaking preparation of the ingredients and the mixing of it in just the right proportions, baking at just the right temperature for just the right time - all testifying to her innate sense of how to please the palate. She blushed, as she always does. She mentioned how she had purchased the lemons just that morning at Shutterstock Farm Market.
My fork froze in mid-air.
"You lying, despicable wench!" I glared at her. "You just sat there with your smug smile and let all of us think you had grown those lemons on your lemon tree out back!" With that I upended the table, spilling the apostate pie to the floor. "I'll be in the car, dear!" I said to my wife, long suffering woman that she is.

From Jeremiah 26:7-16:
"And the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of Jehovah.
"So when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that Jehovah had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him and said: “You will surely die…
"The priests and the prophets said to the princes and to all the people: “This man deserves the death penalty, because he has prophesied against this city just as you have heard with your own ears.”…
"Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets: “This man does not deserve the death penalty, for he spoke to us in the name of Jehovah our God.”   
……….
It is always this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets that oppose religious freedom.
Perhaps it will be that way with Putin, if he can withdraw his head from the lock of the Church.