The state subsidy is denied to WTJWorg in Norway

[Srecko Sostar]

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

[Pudgy]

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 …..

[Pudgy]

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.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

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.

[Srecko Sostar]

quote from document:

The content of the complaint

In the complaint, it is mainly stated that the religious community does not violate the Religious Communities Act §§ 2 and 6, and that the State Administrator's decision is incorrect. It is also stated that the decision violates sections 16 and 101 of the Constitution and Articles 9 and 11 of the ECHR.

The religious community writes in the complaint that they do not prevent anyone from opting out and that their exclusionary practice is protected under ECHR art. 9. They also write that children in practice are not excluded, and that the State Administrator has in any case not proved that the exclusion harms the children.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Just one more nail in the JW Org coffin. So a JW dad thinks it's ok to 'punish' his son and to cause him financial ruin.

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified),

What is this supposed to mean ? BUT, it does show that a JW is not allowed to disagree with GB teachngs. 

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously.

I think you could be using this as an excuse GB style. Perhaps both countries take people's lives seriously and not the man made rules of 8 men. 

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

I think the JW Org has got to be one of the biggest social clubs on this Earth. For a start JWs are told not to mix with 'those horrible worldly people', so that means that JWs are confined to socialising with other JWs. 

Add to that the point you made earlier about the man's business being ruined. Why ? Because he only or mainly did business with other JWs. "It's a rat trap and JWs have been caught".

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously.

Not necessarily 'too seriously' but wrongly directed. Misuse of scripture and having to agree with the GB and Elders on everything. Otherwise, as above, being d/fed for not obeying the rules. 

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Now this is an important point. Is it possible for me to read, in JW / GB policy, the written direction of shunning, and whom should be shunned. Also the punishment for not shunning a person. 

It appears to me like the '1975' arguement. Most JWs say that 1975 was never put into print but many JWs believed it would happen. Now, shunning, is it in writing or just 'word of mouth' rules ? 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

6 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

and that their exclusionary practice is protected under ECHR art. 9.

It seems they are more concerned about law than about serving YHWH through Christ. 

I would love to read the Watchtower / GB policy on all this. 

[Srecko Sostar]

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously.

If I'm not mistaken there are several other religious communities that are very exclusive and strict as JWs when it comes to "sinful members" whether it is morally unacceptable behavior of a member or "dissidents" and "rebels" who oppose doctrines. They strongly ignore their former members.

There is another aspect of “seriousness” that concerns believers of other religions. There are members who are very moral and in this respect can be compared to any JW in terms of morals and honesty. In this way, they are a kind of "competition" to WTJWorg because they prove that their alleged affiliation with "Babylon" (and to the World) does not reflect badly on their moral behavior.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Probably so. But not without consequences. The book ‘Secular Faith’ (Mark Smith) reassures its secular audience that religion comes around to secular trends. It may take a bit longer, but it happens. And that is the goal of such policies as this in Denmark. 

He examines five contentious issues in America’s past (slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, woman’s rights) and concludes modern church members have more in common with contemporary atheists than they do with their own church counterparts of long ago. In the absence of firmness, spiritual values erode.

Thus far, the ECHR has declined to reinterpret religious interpretations of scriptural text. If you tax-exempt one faith, you must tax-exempt them all. (You don’t have to tax-exempt any of them.)

With the Ukraine war raging, they may even remind the Danish governments that invading troops are drawn from virtually every background of religious belief and secular disbelief except Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that perhaps if the latter were forced to accommodate dissenting views that might not be. They would learn to ‘modernize’—look to secular direction rather than ecclesiastical direciton, and thus in time be talked into anything by the ‘king,’ who can always mold the consciousness of his citizenry.

[Pudgy]

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?

 

[Pudgy]

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!

 

[Pudgy]

As JWInsider brought out, our specific instructions were that it be a matter of PERSONAL CONSCIENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY.

I can see that Matthew 18 solves ALL PROBLEMS, internal and external, without exception.