Watch Tower Ups Pressure on YouTube & Facebook To Hand Over Infringers’ Details

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The cooperation between CESNUR and WTJWorg is based on which premise?

The uncommon good sense of the former to realize that just because you don’t like a faith, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

In applying this to Jehovah’s Witnesses, you have chosen the one example, almost the only one you could have chosen, which disproves the point. To make it fit, you must find a group that commits atrocities.

I may disagree with what Srecko says, but darned if I’m going to die for it. If he wants to utter inanities, its on him.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have listened to some speeches and interviews with Massimo Introvigne and have respect for what he is trying to do and promote, but less and less respect for the shallowness of his knowledge and research.

Knowledge and research in regard to what? In regard to specific doctrine, or in regard to religious freedom? Some here are trying to turn this into a discussion of JW doctrine, even trying to assign that task to the Court, if not declare it negligent for not going there. If I am right, Massimo interests himself in doctrine not to press for its validity, but only to ascertain that it is innocuous enough to be allowed to stand unmolested.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are Voltaire's texts a recommended read for JW members?

Let us take this sneering remark seriously for a moment.

In the greater scheme of things, what really was Voltaire? A brief point of relative light, but also a bridge connecting one train wreck to another.

The train wreck of religious intolerance he battled all his life, and to a significant degree, he won that battle.

But in a very short time, even during his lifetime, atheists usurped his work to provide underpinnings of their own rising movement—another train wreck. Voltaire was an initial hero of the French Revolution, but in short order, as inferior atheistic thinkers took over, he was downgraded as too moderate. Many of his own followers (Voltaire himself was dead by then) fell victim to the guillotine themselves when they resisted the fanatical excesses of those atheists.

Meanwhile, the light that he offered was but relative, in that he refused any revelatory look at God, and thus missed out on solving the problem of evil, since that is only solved through such searching. He may even have represented “one step forward, two steps back.” The step forward is to win against intolerance. The step back is to repudiate the means though which God gives explanation of himself AND to smoothe the way for atheism. Maybe even three steps back, for in declaring the issue of evil insoluble after grappling with it the best part of his life, he plants the notion in the educated people that adore him that it actually is. 

So is he required reading for JW members? No. He is an elective. Read him if you will. It will be beneficial if you do. But by no means is he indispensable to having one’s head on straight. Make him the centerpiece of your education, and it all but guarantees you will not have your head on straight. The JW organization will never recommend that members read Voltaire. Nor will they ever disparage him, at least no more than I have done above. They would have members direct their primary focus on what does deliver with regard to life’s more important things.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The uncommon good sense of the former to realize that just because you don’t like a faith, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

Well said. Although, the topic gets heated from the moment you send 8 million people to preach that all religions will be destroyed because they don’t believe the way they should believe in God, and that’s the JW way. At such a moment, the alleged tolerance of another’s religious belief becomes an empty phrase. On one side JW gave picture of how tolerant they as people are, but in same time preaching how they worship intolerant God who will destroy them/other people because of their religion.

Does a JW member "like" someone else's religion? If he liked it, he might become a member of such a religion. But the JW member only likes his religion, and towards others he does not have such a kind of tolerance nor does he have it in such quantity that he would “like it”. Please nicely, let us explain what this might mean at all if a JW member have feeling and attitude; "I like other religions and I am very tolerant of them, but God will destroy them one day and i am glad that He will do it"?

If it is so as you said what Massimo Introvigne stand for, then that is not JW way/model of "religious tolerance".

OT records speaking about God who have no tolerance for false way of worshiping Him. Neither to worship some other God in different/opposite religion. And JW members also using such Bible verses to enforce and empower own religious attitude about this issue. By that, it is questionable about what sort of "religious tolerance" is about, here and now, inside JW Church.

 

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Knowledge and research in regard to what?

I think he is generally right about the Witnesses and we will continue to benefit for as long as he is successful in his attempts to promote a more balanced view of NRMs. (And you are right, of course, that he rarely considers specific doctrines, except to tone down the more radical-sounding ones, such as "space alien" beliefs by the Scientologists to put them in a more palatable light.)

But he tends to pigeonhole all news items through the same formula or filter without considering possible contradictions. Here is an example below from the topic of "Violence and NRMs" but which he applies analogously to fake or highly biased news stories, negative news stories, propaganda against NRMs, etc. 

With respect to violence for example, he usually itemizes like this:

1. Violence perpetrated by NRMs against outsiders and their own members (and this includes sexual violence, such as by pedophile priests in non-NRMs).

2. Violence falsely ascribed to NRMs.

3. Violence against NRM's, often fueled by hate speech, which can result in both individual cases of violence against them, violence by other groups, and even state-sponsored persecution, "economic violence," etc.

Of course, #1 is always downplayed of course as the fault of individuals, not the NRM, and often compared to a greater frequency in traditional religions. #2 is always up-played, even at times when his own evidence is questionable. And #3 is usually true, but he is too anxious to accept any and all news items that fit #3 unquestioningly.

When he tries to argue that there is more violence in traditional religions, he regularly points to Islamic extremists and terrorism. But he misses a point here which is common to Westerners who love to hate Islam as a religion altogether. Hate speech against Islam as if it were some homogeneous whole is even common in American and Western media outlets.

The problem or contradiction here is expressed on a site that uses one example of Islamic extremists [emphasis mine]: https://www.radicalisationresearch.org/research/shterin-2011-reconsidering/

Secondly, in addition to the above case-study, by scholars who know the region and language well, this paper uses the above example to show how the path to violent radical behaviour cannot be explained through simplistic labelling of groups as ‘extremist’, ‘radical’, ‘Salafi’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Wahhabi’ or other similar terms which were used by the Russian government and media at the time (and indeed still are in many countries). The authors point to the need to understand the local context in which radical beliefs are developed and expressed, and the benefits of comparative studies of these details to better understand the significance of causal elements.

Thirdly, and perhaps of most interest to readers not seeking to learn more about this region of the Northern Caucasus, is how the authors demonstrate this comparative approach in practice. Drawing on a range of academic literature about New Religious Movements (NRMs) they argue that the KBJ should not be seen as indicative of ‘Radical Islam’, but rather as an example of an NRM. The authors argue that the contemporary focus on ‘radicalisation’ tends to delegitimise non-violent radical beliefs, proscribing social and political behaviour which “have long been part and parcel of the youthful desire to make a difference” in liberal democracies. The authors point to NRM studies that show that frequently members of NRMS are not victims of, but actually pro-active participants in, these movements who join out of their own choice. NRM studies also shed light on how NRMs can potentially move to violence through a cycle of reciprocal mistrust and hostile actions with the surrounding society and authorities. For such groups, violence is a relational and processual development, and understanding the context of that development could help prevent their repeat in future cases.

The authors showed that the KBJ continuously interpreted their beliefs in reaction to the experiences within the group and between it and the wider society.

Similarly, he appears to fall into his own prejudices by not considering the potential propaganda and fake news stories often promoted by the NRMs themselves. I believe that several of these have been promoted by Scientology. Personally, I believe that many politically ideological "NRMs" in many countries are exactly the same as religious NRMs, and can result in violence in the same manner, and fake news defense of that violence in the same manner. In the United States the "cult of Trump" also resulted in some violence and defense of the same.

[JW Insider]

As an aside, I found an interesting page on CESNUR:

https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf

... raids against NRMs are often conducted with unnecessary real and symbolic violence even in democratic countries –and Scientology is the most raided NRM on an international scale

...

Russia is another country persecuting some NRMs, including Scientology. In 2018, Western media reported that in St Petersburg, lawyers of incarcerated members of the Church of Scientology were given materials of the criminal investigation that included comments by the FSB investigator. The comments included: “He knows a lot, but keeps quiet –reinterrogate with an electric aid to memory.” There is no evidence that actual torture occurred, but the fact it was contemplated as a possibility is disturbing, also in view of allegations of torture by Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses

[TrueTomHarley]

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

when the WTS attended some CESNUR-sponsored seminars. 

Is this when Bro Brumley was photographed at a conference and opponents made a big fuss about it because Scientologists were there, too? 

“Relax, he keyed their cars in the parking lot,” I replied to one of them.

[JW Insider]

Just a quick follow-up on the above Cesnur/Introvigne source: https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf

I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."

His contradiction is clear in the following arguments:

However, it was recognized that hate speech, i.e. advocating physical violence and inciting others to commit violent acts, is also a real form of violence

He usually uses this argument as a very one-sided point to say that the NRMs are nearly always victims. But note some of the following statements, such as the one that appears right next to it. Note the word "most" which I highlighted:

Above: Japan’s Shoko Asahara(1955-2018) ordered the murder of opponents of his group Aum Shinrikyo before organizing a deadly gas attack with sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, although most members of his movements ignored his criminal activities.

And elsewhere, this lame and strained "defense:"

when devotees of Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990) infected with salmonella the salad bars of local restaurants in Oregon’s Wasco County, where they had established their commune, Rajneeshpuram. Rather than mystical, the purpose was mundane, as it was aimed at preventing local voters from participating in the election, so that the commune’s own candidates would win

At least he admits the occurrences but I still find his following argument embarrassing:

Mostly Against Members

While groups such as Synanon or Aum Shinrikyo carried out murderous attacks against their opponents or society at large, looking at the number of casualties overwhelmingly the violence of certain NRMs targeted their own members

With few exceptions, members of the respective movements rather than outsiders died in the suicides and homicides involving the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978), the Order of the Solar Temple (Switzerland, France, and Quebec, Canada, 1994–1997), Heaven’s Gate (Rancho Santa Fe, California, 1997), and the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda 2000)

... [removed the picture]...

Above: Charred remains of members of the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, a Ugandan NRM that self-destroyed itself in 2000 in a frenzy of homicides and suicides, which made more than 700 victims

 

[Anna]

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Alas, nobody likes me. 

Hey brother, don't be so hard on yourself! I've noticed that people in general have no time....really. I'm a prime example, I have books on my to read list (including yours) and have I read them, nope, not a single one...yet. I wanted to start a topic on here the other day, but other (more important) stuff got in the way. In fact the days run into each other so fast and before you know another week is gone. I swear time is running faster. I think if we ever get put in jail I will beg them to let me access all the books I have wanted to read....

[TrueTomHarley]

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think if we ever get put in jail I will beg them to let me access all the books I have wanted to read....

Do you remember the Twilight Zone in which the henpecked bank employee would retreat into the vault for some peace and quiet during lunchtime? While doing so, the vault was rocked, and upon emerging, he saw that the world had ended—everything was in ruins. Far from being alarmed, he was delighted, for now he could read in peace, free from his nagging boss and wife. 

Then he broke his glasses.

[Anna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At least he admits the occurrences but I still find his following argument embarrassing:

Mostly Against Members

Not sure I understand what you are saying is embarrassing. Is it because of course it's bad that ANYONE should suffer the bad consequences of cultish behavior, regardless whether they are members or outsiders. Is that what you mean?

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Anna said:

Is it because of course it's bad that ANYONE should suffer the bad consequences of cultish behavior, regardless whether they are members or outsiders. Is that what you mean?

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."

If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.