JWs sue Norwegian government

[Srecko Sostar]

It is all about money, firstly.

JW Ben Elder presentation:

He says "I've been one of the JWs probably longer than I can remember". Here, WTJWorg himself refuted the claims that are being made in this court in Oslo, that children are not baptized, but only "adult children". lol

He is the Director of an office called "Freedom of Worship" based in Germany.
In conjunction with that is his role as the EAJW Representative (European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses).

When asked by the Judge what his professional background is, he answers with the words that he is the Office Director and Office Manager. The judge actually asks him about his educational background, and we learn that he is actually a tradesman in building construction.
We learn that EAJW as a "Charitable Body" exists to consider and respond to threats and apparent threats especially within the 46 EU countries.
And right at the beginning this JW representative starts to engage in politics. This is clear from these words:

"So firstly I would like to provide The Court with a brief comment on European context in which the Norwegian government's actions are taking place. Then I would like to address the influence of the Norwegian government's actions elsewhere. And then lastly I'd give the Court an overview of how courts in other countries have handled allegations against JWs." ....
 

He says that the Court should protect the Rights and Freedoms, especially of all those persons who have unpopular views and who belong to minorities.
How absurd. Ex-JWs (how many in EU?) are the Minority who are persecuted in this way by the JW Majority (1,4 mil in EU). WTJWorg Brethren filed a lawsuit in Spain against former JWs. And now the Brethren are suing the Norwegian state because Norway is empathetic towards few ex-JWs who are victims of the JW shunning policy.

Ex-JWs left the JW religion or were excommunicated (or are PIMO), from the JW clergy because of their "unpopular views". By doing so, they became a "despised minority" in the eyes of most JWs. The JWs call that minority "enemies of God" and "their enemies". So what is Ben Elder talking about? His arguments in Court are directed against himself and against his JW brothers. He confirms that WTJWorg is in the "Persecutor" position/mode.

JW Ben refers to a "pluralistic society" that should allow WTJWorg to have whatever religious dogma it wants, but at the same time should prohibit any criticism of its dogma from ex-JW or other secular individuals and institutions. He is indeed deluded in his own wisdom.

He warns that the state has no right to "State Morality", because it is dangerous for citizens. But, he forgets that WTJWorg is also a "Government" that requires its followers to adhere to the so-called "biblical morality" but only such as interpreted by GB.

 

This video clip was preceded by a presentation by the main JW attorney.

The General Counsel for JW, Anders Ryssdal (a secular person), objected to the use of the WTJWorg publication in the Court. The reason for this lies in the possibility that the Court interprets it in its own (wrong) way, and not in the way GB and JWs interpret it. Imagine the stupidity of such a claim. On the one hand, GB is the only authority to interpret the Bible. But we already knew that. Now we find out that GB is the only authority to interpret its own interpretations of the Bible interpretations. lol

A. Ryssdal claims that there is no institutional obligation of shunning towards ex-JW. He claims that it is the personal choice of each individual JW. The lawyer is saying something that is not true. Is this at the behest of WTJWorg? Or is a new doctrinal clarification being prepared? lol

Enjoy the video!

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Because you will not find nothing on JWorg breaking news, as usual, about this perhaps this will help.

 

https://avoidjw.org/news/norway-trial-violation-childrens-rights-shunning/

 

[George88]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

He says "I've been one of the JWs probably longer than I can remember". Here, WTJWorg himself refuted the claims that are being made in this court in Oslo, that children are not baptized, but only "adult children". lol

Maybe he was referring to infants, instead of spiritually developed young individuals.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"So firstly I would like to provide The Court with a brief comment on European context in which the Norwegian government's actions are taking place. Then I would like to address the influence of the Norwegian government's actions elsewhere. And then lastly I'd give the Court an overview of how courts in other countries have handled allegations against JWs." ....

The government's stance on gay rights is clear to the world, and it aligns with the Vatican's acceptance of it. However, the Organization will base its decision on scripture rather than conforming to the popular beliefs upheld by human courts.

What should be before the court is, does the government favor certain religions by granting subsidies without considering their bylaws, while imposing new laws to restrict a religion when they disagree with its bylaws? Is this a matter of financial priorities or a question of the government discriminating against specific religious groups?

Who is worse in the eyes of God? Now, why should the organization promote apostate theories?

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Maybe he was referring to infants, instead of spiritually developed young individuals.

He was talking about himself.

11 hours ago, George88 said:

The government's stance on gay rights is clear to the world, and it aligns with the Vatican's acceptance of it. However, the Organization will base its decision on scripture rather than conforming to the popular beliefs upheld by human courts.

What should be before the court is, does the government favor certain religions by granting subsidies without considering their bylaws, while imposing new laws to restrict a religion when they disagree with its bylaws? Is this a matter of financial priorities or a question of the government discriminating against specific religious groups?

Who is worse in the eyes of God? Now, why should the organization promote apostate theories?

JW representative, Ben Elder, is involved in politics because he comments on political relations within EU countries. It is not his job because he is a follower of the JW religion and as such should be politically neutral and not comment on things that are not in his domain of religious activity. If he wants to be an internal or external political commentator, then he should go into the journalism profession or maybe run for some social and/or political function.
WTJWorg formed a body called "Office for religious freedom", of which Ben Elder is the director. He is a director working in Germany for an American corporation. And now in Norway he is giving lessons to the Court there. Really out of place.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

He was talking about himself.

I gathered from your comment that you were suggesting that the Watchtower may baptize "infants" similar to other Christian denominations. However, I do not remember ever witnessing such an occasion.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW representative, Ben Elder, is involved in politics because he comments on political relations within EU countries. It is not his job because he is a follower of the JW religion and as such should be politically neutral and not comment on things that are not in his domain of religious activity. If he wants to be an internal or external political commentator, then he should go into the journalism profession or maybe run for some social and/or political function.
WTJWorg formed a body called "Office for religious freedom", of which Ben Elder is the director. He is a director working in Germany for an American corporation. And now in Norway he is giving lessons to the Court there. Really out of place.

Srecko, where is your source of information coming from? Who is Ben Elder with the Watchtower? Can you provide evidence on it from the Watchtower? I was not aware that the Watchtower had established a separate office called the "Office for Religious Freedom," as the legal department is responsible for handling all legal matters. That doesn't mean the Watchtower doesn't champion or support "religious freedom for its own principles"; they just don't align themselves with secular arbiters.

Now, I do know about Elder Bednar, an influential member of the Latter-day Saints. He has been actively working with Europeans to establish a religious movement aimed at promoting religious freedom throughout Europe.

Once you provide me with the source from the Watchtower, I will thoroughly investigate the matter. If it turns out to be true, it would indeed be accurate to describe that person as either an activist or a legal representative acting on behalf of the Watchtower.

One thing to consider is that not all legal representatives working for the Watchtower are Jehovah's Witnesses, just like Brother Rutherford was not one until he became a Bible Student. The Watchtower occasionally hires external sources to present their case in courts when jurisdiction is in question. This is an important observation on which I am eagerly anticipating further insight.

[Srecko Sostar]

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

Srecko, where is your source of information coming from?

I conclude from your questions that you did not watch the video I uploaded.

[George88]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I conclude from your questions that you did not watch the video I uploaded.

Your conclusion would be incorrect. Is that the only reason why you believe that legal counsel is a baptized JW? Not all legal representatives are Jehovah's Witnesses. They have the freedom to be activists to their heart's content. The State Department website, also known as State.gov, serves as a platform for promoting international religious freedom and encouraging alliances in this important cause. Does that mean they are part of the Watchtower?

https://www.state.gov/international-religious-freedom-or-belief-alliance-statement-on-jehovahs-witnesses/

 

[George88]

The coalition in question, known as Religious Freedom, is based in Germany. It is important to note that, despite the involvement of the representative from the Watchtower, the coalition itself is not affiliated with the organization. That's your first mistake. So, while these other legal representatives can be activists, this particular individual is representing the stance of the Watchtower in a court setting. That's another mistake: he is not an activist. The individual specified that they do not have a legal background and hold the position of manager at that independent corporation.

The Norwegian government must provide a valid rationale for their claim that all types of exclusion result in tangible harm, rather than being influenced by the biased opinions of apostates or disgruntled witnesses. To do so, they would need to enforce similar regulations on those who neglect drug addicts, alcoholics, or homosexuals in a private setting, just as they do on witnesses who practice shunning.

[George88]

Was there a more ideal way to portray the Watchtower? Absolutely! However, he managed to convey the message effectively. It's not like anyone on the panel was particularly dazzled by what we would consider a prose argument in the US. Some individuals seemed taken aback by the scripture that was depicted at the conclusion, although it's doubtful that any contemporary court would appreciate it in the same manner it was once valued.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Your conclusion would be incorrect. Is that the only reason why you believe that legal counsel is a baptized JW? Not all legal representatives are Jehovah's Witnesses.

How can you and I have a meaningful discussion on the topic when you notoriously ignore the words of JW representative Ben Elder who claims for himself, in the court in Oslo, that he was baptized at the age of 13 and then became an official member of the JW religion.
Ben Elder clearly declared himself a JW in his opening remarks.
As for the legal team, I don't have complete information, but most likely it is a team outside the JW milieu.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Not all legal representatives are Jehovah's Witnesses. They have the freedom to be activists to their heart's content.

As I said, the legal team in Oslo is paid to "represent" JWs and most likely there are no JWs among them. This legal team is/are not activists. They are paid for legal job, business in court.

Activists shouldn't be activists for money, but you never know.

Massimo Introvigne would be one of the "activists", for cults and sects and other religious communities, who often defends JW.

[George88]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How can you and I have a meaningful discussion on the topic when you notoriously ignore the words of JW representative Ben Elder who claims for himself, in the court in Oslo, that he was baptized at the age of 13 and then became an official member of the JW religion.
Ben Elder clearly declared himself a JW in his opening remarks.
As for the legal team, I don't have complete information, but most likely it is a team outside the JW milieu.

I understand that part. I was hoping you might have some insight into his legal credentials, especially since he mentioned he had none. I found it puzzling that you were asserting he had engaged in political activities as a Watchtower representative in that hearing. I'm attempting to connect the dots here.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As I said, the legal team in Oslo is paid to "represent" JWs and most likely there are no JWs among them. This legal team is/are not activists. They are paid for legal job, business in court.

Activists shouldn't be activists for money, but you never know.

Massimo Introvigne would be one of the "activists", for cults and sects and other religious communities, who often defends JW.

Based on Ben's presentation, it seems that the Norwegian government has prioritized apostate views over the fundamental rights of its citizens, who contribute through taxes and abide by the same obligations as the general population. This situation raises concerns about potential discrimination within the European Union, therefore requiring a thorough evaluation by The Hague.