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!

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

Being sued, and losing, is how the Society decided it was OK to take blood if it was fractionated and transfused in 13 separate tubes. 

I found the Norwegian people exceptionally well reasoned people.
….. meanwhile, back in the United States …..

In Europe alone this “new light” will mean perhaps about a hundred million dollars in tax subsidies.
That will buy a LOT of batteries!

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.

In your dreams.

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

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? 

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?
 

Fortunately, Jesus told us AS INDIVIDUALS exactly and in precise detail how to chastise disobedient ones, and AS INDIVIDUALS what to do next.
The question remains, are we doing it “just so”  ….. or just so that power and money are preserved?
(Matthew Chapter 18, emphasizing verse 15).
Anything more than that is brazen self aggrandizing tyranny, and usurpation of the authority of the Christ.
….. it is also cruel and unfair!
 

In the 1947 Awake! the idea of shunning as the Catholics did it, and the way that we do it TODAY is described as:

What principle changed since 1947?
Hebrews 10:26-31 (…. Also emphasized in the 1947 Awake!.)

What part of verse 30 changed since 1947?
 

Fortunately, Jesus told us AS INDIVIDUALS exactly and in precise detail how to chastise disobedient ones, and AS INDIVIDUALS what to do next.
The question remains, are we doing it “just so”  ….. or just so that power and money are preserved?
(Matthew Chapter 18, emphasizing verse 15).
Anything more than that is brazen self aggrandizing tyranny, and usurpation of the authority of the Christ.
….. it is also cruel and unfair!
 

In the 1947 Awake! the idea of shunning as the Catholics did it, and the way that we do it TODAY is described as:

What principle changed since 1947?
Hebrews 10:26-31 (…. Also emphasized in the 1947 Awake!.)

What part of verse 30 changed since 1947?
 

I suspect it will two years before we are again allowed to treat people decently.
Here is how it was a year after I was born, as explained in the 1947 Awake! Magazine.
 

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

I suspect it will two years before we are again allowed to treat people decently.
Here is how it was a year after I was born, as explained in the 1947 Awake! Magazine.
 

Being sued, and losing, is how the Society decided it was OK to take blood if it was fractionated and transfused in 13 separate tubes. 

I found the Norwegian people exceptionally well reasoned people.
….. meanwhile, back in the United States …..

If it wasn’t for Americans, you would be a slave, and the son or daughter of slaves, and if you still had a tongue, be speaking German.

quote from document:
The reasons for the decision
The Religious Society Act sets several conditions for being able to receive state support. In our investigations, we uncovered several violations of the Religious Communities Act.
1.
Right to free withdrawal according to the Religious Communities Act § 2 Persons who voluntarily leave the faith community shall be treated in the same way as excluded members. This means that remaining members, family and friends, will not have contact with the excluded. The preparatory work for the Religious Communities Act § 2 points out that the right to freedom of religion presupposes that withdrawal can take place unconditionally and without obstacles on the part of the religious or philosophical community. By having rules for how the members should relate to excluded members, we found that the religious community prevents withdrawal. We regard the practice as a violation of the Religious Communities Act § 2
2.
Baptized minors may be excluded The exclusionary practice applies not only to adults, but also to baptized minors. This means that children can be excluded if they break the rules of the religious community. We have considered this practice to be a negative social control, and that it therefore violates children's rights. The religious Society itself describes the practice as a "strong form of correction". We consider this a violation of the Religious Communities Act § 6.
3.
Minor members may be exposed to social isolation For other children in the congregation who have not yet been baptized but who are considered “unbaptized publishers,” there is a similar practice of exclusion. If unbaptized publishers violate community rules, they should be deprived of the status of publisher and congregation members should avoid contact with them. We have considered this treatment as negative social control, and in violation of the child's rights. We also regard this as a violation of the Religious Communities Act § 6.
presuda Norveškog suda o uskraćivanju državnog financiranja JW 20220330LTI_no.pdfpresuda Norveškog suda o uskraćivanju državnog financiranja JW 20220330LTI_no.pdf

If it wasn’t for Americans, you would be a slave, and the son or daughter of slaves, and if you still had a tongue, be speaking German.

If it wasn’t for Americans, you would be a slave, and the son or daughter of slaves, and if you still had a tongue, be speaking German.

.

Me either….but if you could see his face and hear the voice, I think it would be better …

Pudgy - I have an idea we all see satire in something different. If it is a shared life experience, I think we all get it but I must say, I like satire, but I do not always see the satire others see. Sometimes I just don't get it.

You seem to suffer from delusions of self importance and a need to be noticed.  Well that is the only reasonning I can find for all this dribble of stupid pictures.  
And as for dear Carroll here she seems to forgt that the GB / Leaders used to say that the JW religion was the 'new ark' and that everybody had to be a baptised JW to be that ark, to be saved. 
I think they've thrown that idea out the window now