The state subsidy is denied to WTJWorg in Norway

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

This is concerning when the governments subject their laws to the bylaws of religion. That combination is never a good idea, since Jesus kept that combination separate. This is a good case for the U.N. to investigate as a violation of civil duties by a religion to keep a healthy Christian community. 

Should the Org appeal the decision? Yes, in principle. Perhaps the Norway government would think differently if it was sanctioned by democratic nations for not allowing religious institutions to set their own standards of Christian conduct.

https://bitterwinter.org/norway-decision-against-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

M. Introvigne is not one of those who I would consider as objective critics and who would impress me with his opinion. When he says, I quote: "They are simply excluded from the family's religious activities, but otherwise the normal family relationships, including the marital relationship between husband and wife, continue", he repeats the mantra from the WT publication, which obscures the real state of life of such spiritually separated families.

I have already stated in another topic that three children suffered severe emotional suffering because the mother under the influence of the elders prevented the children from keeping up with the excluded father, who no longer lived with them in the same household. The elders called the children to account when they found out about "illegal" contacts, in several occasions. The youngest child had suicidal thoughts, self-harm and was in fact completely mentally incapable of life. If the father has left his family this is enough for a negative effect on the children, and if the elders and religion forbid them to associate with the father, then the church leaders take responsibility for everything after that.

Another example is one “awakened JW” whom his wife managed to “blackmail” to break her “rebellious spirit”. Now that man is PIMO (physically inside mentally outside). If a wife has to respect her husband within the marital union, why does one JW sister blackmail her husband into not becoming an “apostate”? Is she doing it (blackmail) under the influence of her conscience or is she under the influence of the “cult” of religion?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

There should be standards set according to the bible, and barriers should be set in place for those that do not conform to those bible standards. Complicity is not a recommendation a true believer should ever make.

That’s why GB decided in one of his past decisions to have JWs in Mexico give up their “biblical principles and standards” in order to retain material ownership. Matter of Conscience or Hypocrisy? 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Titus 3:8b-11... (MSG). . .Warn a quarrelsome person once or twice, but then be done with him.

This also sounds like a typical plan for administrators running a discussion forum.

Nothing personal, but that verse also reminded me of someone, so I looked up the phrase "none Christian" [in quotes] in the Search tool on this site. Whenever I've done that in the past, it used to return a long list of posts from about 20+ different accounts. They were always from names like: Dmitar, NoisySrecko, BillyTheKid, AllenSmith, etc., that I could easily recognize as the same person using 20+ different accounts.

Today, I tried it again, and something about the Search tool has changed. Today, it only returned four posts from only two accounts: WalterPrescott and Dmitar. Strange, right?

[Srecko Sostar]

21 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

Query about "Pocket Man" Erik Anderson of Norway, Pope Francis Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 51 Norwegian politicians that were arrested for pedophilia of which some were lawyers and high profile individuals along with the conversion of Norway to eastern orthodox religion influenced by Russia to get a sense, of conscience or hypocrisy by that government.

Norway believes in rehabilitation more than punishment. I have no doubt they welcome pedophiles in their orthodox religion, but have those individuals shown remorse and are they repentant. In the Org, simply saying it's a conscious decision is not enough to satisfy the requirements set in the bible.

Anyone claiming such a false assertion is a hypocrite.

Since this is about a JW practice called "shunning", maybe you have something to say about it?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

quote from document:

Our assessment of the complaint

The denomination writes in section 42 of the complaint that members who withdraw from the denomination are respected for their decision, and it is up to each individual who is affiliated with the congregation to use their personal religious conscience to decide whether they want to limit or completely avoid contact with that person.

As the State Administrator has pointed out in the decision of 27.01.2022, the religious community, in «Organized to do Jehovah's will” page 153, writes on the other hand that “… if a Christian person chooses to withdraw, a brief notice is given to the congregation which reads: ‘[The person's name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.’ Such a person is treated in the same way as someone who is excluded.” We know that exclusion means that you should not have contact with or associate with the person in question. The religious community here encourages members to avoid contact with the excluded.

In this context, we will also refer to chapter 12 in the book "Shepherd the Flock of God", which deals with typical cases that may lead to the body of elders appointing a judicial committee. Point 17 deals with "shameless behaviour" and points out that unnecessary contact with the excluded or those who have withdrawn can be grounds for appointing a judicial committee. If the Body of Elders concludes that a judicial committee will not be appointed, it may nevertheless have consequences for whether the member is qualified to receive privileges in the congregation. The religious community shows here that defying the call to avoid the excluded can have consequences for members.

The allegations that only the members themselves decide who they want to have contact with do not agree with the religious community's own rules. The religious community in reality has a ban on contact with excluded members.

Page 2/3

The consequences of opting out of the religious community may therefore be to lose contact with family and social networks. For the State Administrator, this scheme appears as a form of sanction imposed on society by those who opt out.

We understand that the individual person can decide for themselves how much contact they want to have with people who no longer share the same values as themselves. However, the contact is not something the religious community can sanction without hindering the right to free withdrawal according to ECHR art. 9. Article 9 of the ECHR precisely protects the right to change one's religion or belief.

The Religious Communities Act shall, among other things, ensure that the right to free registration is safeguarded for the members of registered religious communities. We therefore maintain our assessment that the practice entails a breach of the Religious Communities Act § 2.

Furthermore, the religious community states that there is no violation of the Religious Communities Act § 6. In sections 86-87 of the complaint, the religious community points out that the children who are baptized are mature enough to understand the consequences of being a Jehovah's Witness, including that they are aware that Baptism means that you must follow certain rules and that you can be expelled if you break the rules and do not regret it.

In addition, we would like to note that section 6 of the Religious Communities Act is intended to protect all children, even those who are considered by the religious community to be mature teenagers.

In sections 88-89, society states that there can be no violation of § 6 if the State Administrator cannot refer to a specific incident where a child has been excluded and has been harmed by this. Furthermore, the religious community points out that today only one person under the age of 18 is excluded.

Regardless of how many children are excluded from the religious community today, it is problematic that the religious community has a scheme where it is possible to exclude children. The threat of being ostracized and losing contact with family and friends appears to the State Administrator to be serious for a child. As we have referred to in the decision of 27.01.2022, the scheme is in our assessment negative social control.

In section 98, the religious community points out that it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to have contact with an excluded child. To this end, we will show our assessment above, which shows that the religious community has rules that in reality prohibit just such contact.

In section 110, the denomination states that unbaptized minor publishers are in no way socially isolated. However, as we pointed out in the resolution of 27.01.2022, the denomination writes this in “Organized to Do Jehovah's Will,” pp. 154-155:

“If an unbaptized offender does not repent after two elders have met with him and tried to help him, it is necessary to inform the congregation. A brief statement is made that reads: ‘[The person's name] is no longer recognized as an unbaptized publisher.’ The congregation will then regard the transgressor as a worldly person. Even if he is not excluded, Christians will be careful to associate with him. (1 Corinthians 15:33) The congregation will not accept any field service reports from him."

We understand the passage as the child being socially isolated from the congregation, and that this is done in response to the child's behaviour. We therefore maintain our assessment that this treatment is also regarded as negative social control on the part of the religious community and that the treatment violates the child's rights, cf. the Religious Society Act § 6.

Page 2/4

With regard to the allegations that the decision of 27.01.2022 violates the Constitution §§ 16 and 101, and ECHR art. 9 and 11, we would like to point out that the decision applies to the religious community's requirements for subsidy funds, and not whether the religious community should be able to operate as a religious community in Norway, nor does it limit how the religious community should be able to practice its religion. The decision also does not include or restrict the religious community's freedom of assembly. The Religious Communities Act is a subsidy law, where the state has set certain conditions for religious communities to be able to receive public financial support. The state is free to choose how one wants to support religious communities and has no positive obligations under ECHR art. 9 in the case of government grants. We would also like to remind you that the ECHR has stated that access to financial support does not affect the individual's right to express their religion.

The rules in the Religious Communities Act apply to all registered religious communities in Norway.

Regarding the allegations about the State Administrator's case processing in section 146 of the complaint, we will refer to the letter dated 15.09.2021 with notification of the investigation case and the letter dated 25.10.2021 with answers to the religious community's questions about the prior notice. We announced that we were initiating an investigation on the basis of an inquiry from the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. The inquiry contained the warnings from Furuli and the statement of Jehovah's Witnesses. In a letter dated 15.09.2021, we explained which inquiries, statements and notices were the background for the investigation case, and which provisions in the Religious Communities Act authorized our right to initiate an investigation case, and which provisions we investigated if the religious community had violated based on the mentioned inquiries, statements and notices. We were also clear that we did not instruct the religious community to answer further questions in this round as the religious community had already commented on several occasions on precisely these inquiries and warnings. The religious community nevertheless had the opportunity to express themselves and chose to do so in a letter dated 19.11.2021. This statement also forms the basis for our decision of 27.01.2022. We will maintain that we have given prior notice in accordance with the Public Administration Act § 16 and that the case was well enough informed before a decision was made, cf. the Public Administration Act § 17.

After a review of the complaint, the State Administrator cannot see that new and significant information has been added to the case. We uphold the decision.

The case is sent to the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs for a final decision.

A copy of the case documents and other relevant attachments is included with the complaint.

36 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

Norway believes in rehabilitation more than punishment.

It sounds like a Christian theology in which Jesus calls people to accept God’s grace.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

I thought the topic was about The state subsidy is denied to WTJWorg in Norway.

Correct, and ... "shunning practice" stands between state money and WTJWorg pocket.  

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I thought the Charity Commision here in UK were going to end the 'charity status' of the JW Org because of the Child Sexual Abuse within the Org and because of the GB's obstanance and refusal to change their man made rules. Pity the CC didn't follow through on the plan. 

[Pudgy]

6 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I thought the Charity Commision here in UK were going to end the 'charity status' of the JW Org because of the Child Sexual Abuse within the Org and because of the GB's obstanance and refusal to change their man made rules. Pity the CC didn't follow through on the plan. 

….. perhaps the CC examined the evidence, and decided not to go on a “witch hunt”?

[Pudgy]

9 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

…… Your analogy of algorithms reminded me of a dog that urinated in a fire hydrant, and then another dog came around and urinated in the same fire hydrant. Does that mean, those dogs come from the same household? ….

If you have ever watched a dog sleeping, sometimes you can see them dreaming … paws twitching, and sub-vocal barks … and is usually assumed that they are “chasing rabbits”.
This is true, everywhere.

My theory is that they dream of Heaven, where each dog has his very own fire hydrant.

[Pudgy]

I find it VERY IMPORTANT that Norwegian Authorities chose to emphasize and make it crystal clear that they were not in ANY WAY  interfering with how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice their religion.

However, if they CHOOSE to do as it is well documented that they do…..

NO “FREE MONEY” from the Norwegian taxpayers!

[Pudgy]

Therefore, because the Watchtowers are prepared about six months in advance, and when “new light” on this matter is reconsidered by the Society’s lawyers and accountants, who nowadays are the Puppet Masters, and it is discovered that the Scriptures “really say” that disfellowshipping, voting, and shunning etc. are a PERSONAL MATTER OF CONSCIENCE, the entire process will take a minimum of two years.

The only downside is a lot of Society Lawyers will no longer be needed at Colony Park, NY, and they will have to begrudgingly slink home to be with their nagging wives, 24 hours a day.

[Pudgy]

In Europe alone this “new light” will mean perhaps about a hundred million dollars in tax subsidies.

That will buy a LOT of batteries!