TrueTomHarley

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.”
It hardly matters, does it?  Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.
A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him.  It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.”
I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia. 
 

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.” The difference between the ideology of FECRIS and the ideology of Introvigne is that the first stands for intolerance and the second for tolerance. Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not. Introvigne draws the line at defaming faiths with false statements. FECRIS does not. 53% of the statements they make regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses are factually incorrect. It is not enough for FECRIS to say they don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have to lie about them, too.
The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.” FECRIS is a humanist organization. It will tolerate religion only so long as religion embraces humanist goals. If religion is eviscerated to the point where it becomes a majority-rule affair, and thus as subject to contemporary trends as anyone else, FECRIS has no problem with it. 
How does FECRIS know that that model is agreeable with God? It doesn’t, and it doesn’t care. Humanist goals are what it champions. It is plain that Christianity never would have taken root in the first century had FECRIS been around then. The manifest human authority revealed in New Testament writing would have been denounced by them as outside interference. “It is necessary to shut the mouths of these men,” Paul wrote of one situation back then. You think FECRIS would have stood still for that?
It just may be that human authority is inherent in how God leads his worshippers. Any reading of scripture would certainly suggest so, yet that is a suggestion that FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” 
It matters not whether one agrees with the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not the issue taken up by Introvigne or the German Court. The obvious course for anyone in disagreement with the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not to be one. Upon taking that course, there is no longer any problem. Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions. Criticizing other faiths if fine, so long as one does not lie about them. Lord knows Witnesses have criticized other faiths, but they do not lie about them. FECRIS does—53% of the time, it turns out.
If I recall correctly, early Christianity was controversial, so much so that 40 years after Jesus death, Nero was throwing them to the lions. Introvigne would just prefer not to see the scenario repeat. Anything wrong with that?

The German Court, representing persons of legal stature who have both oars in the water, pronounced it absolutely false.
That goes for all the other hyperbolic statement you issued, too.

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.” The difference between the ideology of FECRIS and the ideology of Introvigne is that the first stands for intolerance and the second for tolerance. Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not. Introvigne draws the line at defaming faiths with false statements. FECRIS does not. 53% of the statements they make regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses are factually incorrect. It is not enough for FECRIS to say they don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have to lie about them, too.
The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.” FECRIS is a humanist organization. It will tolerate religion only so long as religion embraces humanist goals. If religion is eviscerated to the point where it becomes a majority-rule affair, and thus as subject to contemporary trends as anyone else, FECRIS has no problem with it. 
How does FECRIS know that that model is agreeable with God? It doesn’t, and it doesn’t care. Humanist goals are what it champions. It is plain that Christianity never would have taken root in the first century had FECRIS been around then. The manifest human authority revealed in New Testament writing would have been denounced by them as outside interference. “It is necessary to shut the mouths of these men,” Paul wrote of one situation back then. You think FECRIS would have stood still for that?
It just may be that human authority is inherent in how God leads his worshippers. Any reading of scripture would certainly suggest so, yet that is a suggestion that FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” 
It matters not whether one agrees with the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. That is not the issue taken up by Introvigne or the German Court. The obvious course for anyone in disagreement with the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not to be one. Upon taking that course, there is no longer any problem. Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions. Criticizing other faiths if fine, so long as one does not lie about them. Lord knows Witnesses have criticized other faiths, but they do not lie about them. FECRIS does—53% of the time, it turns out.
If I recall correctly, early Christianity was controversial, so much so that 40 years after Jesus death, Nero was throwing them to the lions. Introvigne would just prefer not to see the scenario repeat. Anything wrong with that?

It is my understanding that Eleanore Roosevelt was horrified at how Jehovah's Witnesses were treated after the first Supreme Court ruling on the issue of compulsory flag salute ... and influenced the Supreme Court to look at what damage they had caused, by this ruling, resulting in an unprecedented reversal on Flag Day, 1945, as World War II was raging.
Her opinions were generally VERY highly respected.
Perhaps we could use some of her wisdom and intelligence here.

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.”
It hardly matters, does it?  Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.
A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him.  It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.”
I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia. 
 

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.”
It hardly matters, does it?  Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.
A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him.  It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.”
I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia. 
 

Exactly. Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be the most tolerant of religions in that, with regard to confronting other faiths, their weapons are words only. Not only do they reject the hard violence of physical persecution of those of other beliefs, they also reject the soft violence of attempting to legislate their views upon others. 
 
In this case you have ones who failed to remake the JW organization in their own image, and who thereafter resort to incessantly attacking it, pitching and repitching many of the same defamatory mischaracterizations that FECRIS was rebuked for—and concocting some of their own. Three times in the last few weeks their have been statements against the JW organization (one from Witness, and two from Patiently Sitting on my Hands) that almost immediately had to be retracted as they were found to be false. Will that prevent further misrepresentations? I doubt it. 
In the face of this, ones adhering to the JW way of worship either respond with some bluntness or walk away. I would not choose the same words as Arauna, (OCD hate) but I see where she gets it from. Having left the JW faith, presumably you’ve found a life somewhere else. Continually attacking the faith you were not able to change smacks of sour grapes—why do you not move on in life? OCD is not such an unreasonable description at all.

Exactly. Jehovah’s Witnesses have to be the most tolerant of religions in that, with regard to confronting other faiths, their weapons are words only. Not only do they reject the hard violence of physical persecution of those of other beliefs, they also reject the soft violence of attempting to legislate their views upon others. 
 
In this case you have ones who failed to remake the JW organization in their own image, and who thereafter resort to incessantly attacking it, pitching and repitching many of the same defamatory mischaracterizations that FECRIS was rebuked for—and concocting some of their own. Three times in the last few weeks their have been statements against the JW organization (one from Witness, and two from Patiently Sitting on my Hands) that almost immediately had to be retracted as they were found to be false. Will that prevent further misrepresentations? I doubt it. 
In the face of this, ones adhering to the JW way of worship either respond with some bluntness or walk away. I would not choose the same words as Arauna, (OCD hate) but I see where she gets it from. Having left the JW faith, presumably you’ve found a life somewhere else. Continually attacking the faith you were not able to change smacks of sour grapes—why do you not move on in life? OCD is not such an unreasonable description at all.

Not crumbled completely, however. Here is a German Court that ruled how most of the “anti-cult” organization, FECRIS—most of their charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses were false.
https://bitterwinter.org/fecris-sentenced-in-germany-for-defaming-jehovahs-witnesses/
It is the VP of that organization who rides high in Russia and is a prime instigator of the ban on Witnesses. Would that the ruling had more teeth, but it is still good to show that the world of judicial reason does not side with such anti-cult fanatics. All the other “cults” FECRIS opposes—Witnesses disagree with them all, and they with us. But we prefer to ‘do battle’ with them in the marketplace of ideas, not by ruling them illegal and muzzling them. Whatever ruling illegal is to be done will be done by God, not any humans.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. 
Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts.
As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. 
Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. 
Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts.
As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. 
Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. 
Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts.
As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. 
Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. 
Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts.
As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. 
Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Of course. Originate your own content and nobody has a problem. 
Anyone posting on the internet knows that pictures from ANYONE cannot be used without authorization. You get around that by obtaining authorization, using your own photos, or finding public domain sources. I run into this all the time with my own posts.
As for text, when the intention of anything other than brief “fair use” passages is to misrepresent and beat them over the head with it, of course they will not be happy about it. 
Only a dodo would read paranoia into it.

Means nothing. Not to worry. But JTR used to say that phrase a lot. I don’t seriously think you’re him. But in these days of multiple personalities, nothing can be categorically ruled out.
Hmm. The more I think about it...

Means nothing. Not to worry. But JTR used to say that phrase a lot. I don’t seriously think you’re him. But in these days of multiple personalities, nothing can be categorically ruled out.
Hmm. The more I think about it...

This better not be JTR in drag.
 

This better not be JTR in drag.
 

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. 
And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef?
”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

Practically speaking, how does that work? What’s it like there that some would choose it for their future?

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. 
And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef?
”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. 
And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef?
”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. 
And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef?
”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

This reminds me of when Pastor Inqvist was talking lessons from the TV preacher in order to spice up his sermons, and he was pausing in such odd...........places, that nobody could follow him.
Yes, sorry about everyone who has died, of course. That said, I doubt very much I would post it online were a loved one of mine to pass away.