Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments/Archive 1

Would someone please link to (and create if necessary) a page that describes the case Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton

Added link as requested above. Retcon 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed paragraph...

The paragraph under "Jehovah's Witnesses deny their own members the same freedoms and rights they demand as a group" was disputed on Jehovah's Witnesses and moved here by User:Central. There was some discussion of this.. I have transplanted it here.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments Cont.

Moved from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses joshbuddy 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Central moved the disputed paragraph (below) from the main Witness page to the Jehovah's Witnesses and governments wiki:

"Jehovah's Witnesses deny their own members the same freedoms and rights they demand as a group"

- Regarding the intensity and argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization in defending their claimed basic "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech" within the nations in which they have a presence, some criticism has been expressed regarding the internal organizational practices and their effects on the same Human Rights and basic freedoms of individual members. Citing a Witness publication, the contention is that divergent views expressed, or even just thoughts rejecting non-scholarly organizational doctrines by baptized members, will result in disfellowshipping (excommunication), or strong threats thereof on the grounds of "apostasy" with accompanying removal of congregational privileges, communication with family and friends, and respected name and reputation: "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy). According to a letter sent to all Circuit and District Overseers, dated 1 September 1980: "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses], and persists in believing other doctrines, ... then he is apostatizing ... if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the 'slave class' [Governing Body] then appropriate judicial action should be taken." This is seen by some critics as a major restriction of the basic humans rights and freedoms of speech and thought of the members—rights which the organization demands in its legal battles with some governments of the world—as well as indicative of a severe mind and speech controlling policy directly contradicting scriptural precedents. They criticize the organization's pursuit of its rights before governments as hypocritical because they see the organization violating those same rights when dealing with members. The organization sees this as a perfectly reasonable private internal matter by itself and its followers, and states its right to excommunicate members. The Witnesses apply special meaning to the term apostate in the derogatory context of "antichrist and anti-God" when referring to individuals who were Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not apply this label to people who leave other religions to join theirs, and who are also by definition "apostates".

I added a dispute tag (at the time this paragraph was still very much disputed by everyone) but Central removed it. Is this paragraph disputed by anyone other than myself? (Regardless of whichever article it may get moved to). Can we re-add the dispute tag, but with consensus? Duffer 11:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the content per se, however I have some reservations about its placement in a section on governments. I'm not convinced it belongs there. I think its fair to say the practices of JW's page would be a more likely home of an edited form of this paragraph. joshbuddy 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with joshbuddy. The paragraph is very hard to read and needs major editing, in my opinion. I think it is off topic in the JWs and Governments side page. If the subject is to be included in the practices of JWs page it wouldn't need to be any longer than 2 or 3 sentences. Dtbrown 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DTbrown on this. The paragraph is very difficult and clumsy in its present form. Additional problems: generalized reference to "critics" without any supporting names, links, or evidence of said "critics," leaving readers with a mistaken impression that there are numerous and noteworthy critics; several POV insertions when literature was cited, parenthetical statements that, as far as I am aware, do not occur in the original literature; shift in topical matter to the organization's policy of shunning/disfellowshipping--a subject more appropriate to the section on disfellowshipping; use of term "its followers" is misrepresentative and biased in POV. At the least, should say "its membership." In all, the freedom and rights that are sought by the Watchtower is the freedom and right to worship in the way they choose, in accordance with their understanding of the Bible and its teachings. Timothy Kline 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are perfectly valid points. Please feel free to implement them, I look forward to the results. I think these points are generally useful however. I will endeavor to apply them to the main article when I have some time. joshbuddy 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an edited copy I put together. Feel free to modify as deemed appropriate:

"Jehovah's Witnesses deny their own members the same freedoms and rights they demand as a group"

- Regarding the intensity and argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization in defending what they believe are their basic "legal rights, Human Rights, and Freedoms of Speech" within the nations in which they have a presence, criticism has been expressed regarding the internal organizational practices and their effects on the same Human Rights and basic freedoms of individual members. One contention is that divergent views expressed will result in disfellowshipping (excommunication), or similar disciplinary measures which may include removal of congregational privileges and various restrictions of communication with family and friends. Statements in the organization's literature are often cited as demonstrative of alleged hypocrisy on the part of the Watchtower organization, such as "Persons who deliberately spread teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates" (Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock p. 94 Apostasy), and as found in a letter sent to all Circuit and District Overseers, dated 1 September 1980: "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrines, ... then he is apostatizing ... if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the 'slave class' then appropriate judicial action should be taken." It seems confusing to critics and many others, then, that while Jehovah's Witnesses sue governments and courts for their legal right to worship in accordance with their understanding of the Bible, free of government or legal sanctions or punishment, that the same organization takes disciplinary and or organizational action against those who hold to views divergent from that of the organization. However, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible instructs them to remove from their midst those who hold to divergent teachings and improper practices at variance with Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs. Thus the act of organizational sanctions, including disfellowshipping, falls within the framework of their endeavor to worship in accordance with their understanding of the Bible, as they continue to sue for their basic legal and human right to follow and obey the Bible in various lands.

I tried to clean up the text as much as possible. Likely, there is room for further refinements. Still, what is the general consensus on this copy?Timothy Kline 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I believe it's as biased as the original. It is original research that asserts unverified bias. The Wikipedia policy of No Original Research states:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

I would, personally, classify this paragraph (and the rest of the article) as a "novel interpretation". The Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV:

"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted."
"A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics."

See also Undue weight. It is also noteworthy that this article is a POV fork and an Attack Page. I would venture to say that under the above mentioned, as well as Wikipedia's guidelines of unpublished (and minority) Theories, that this entire article is a good candidate for Speedy Deletion. Duffer 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarification, Duffer: you are saying that the segment falls under "original research," which, according to the WP link you provided, means that statements are drawn from non-reputable sources or of one's own originality. However, the sources from which the statements are derived are pieces of Watchtower publications.

Is it your stance that Watchtower publications do not qualify as "reputable sources" from which quotes may be derived?
Furthermore, how might the segment in dispute be worded so as to not create the impression that it is "novel interpretation"?
Specifically, which statements are problematic in this way, and how would it be better worded?

I will follow up with further requests for clarification once you respond. Timothy Kline 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Jehovah's Witnesses deny their own members the same freedoms and rights they demand as a group" is both original research and not even sustained from the references given. Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I know, have only asked for the freedom to preach, not broad rights to free speech generally. (Jehovah's Witnesses do not, as far as I know, believe in broad free speech rights) Regardless, it really has no place here, the content is covered in other more appropriate places, and no need to double down on this. It simply has no place in this article about governments. I will give it a day before giving it the boot. Perhaps someone will come along and salvage it. If need be we'll get some conflict resolution on this, but its incredibly tenuous to claim this has anything to do with the subject matter at hand. This information belongs in Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Shunning where most of it is already covered. joshbuddy 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was an attempt to at least make sense of the confusing segment. But to be fair and honest, I really don't see any practical way for the segment to be revised to the extent necessary for inclusion in the article itself. Besides, the material in the segment has been adequately covered in other sections of the article on Jehovah's Witnesses under the respective sections. Timothy Kline 10:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is User:Central? He continues to make edits, but does not participate in the discussion. This cannot work. joshbuddy 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central has been idenfinitely banned. - CobaltBlueTony 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph needs to be removed. The lead-in does not give sufficent scope for the discussion of rights within JWs, and I believe, the article should not contain said scope. Can we find another home for a more NPOV version of this content? joshbuddy 17:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter so much about the content so much as the idea being accurately referenced. This idea seems more dispersed among opposers' sites and not so cohesively outlined. Thus, it looks a bit too much like original research to even mention it. - CobaltBlueTony 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence should be changed from "Jehovah's Witnesses in the majority of countries have legal status or are recognized as to having basic rights afforded them similar to those of MAINSTREAM religions."

to

Jehovah's Witnesses in the majority of countries have legal status or are recognized as to having basic rights afforded them similar to those of OTHER religions.

This is more NPOV. Larryk12308 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)LarryK12308[reply]

I removed the baseless claim that "voting is considered a compromise of their Christian neutrality." This has been discussed on other JW article talk pages already. The November 1 Watchtower of 1999, pgs. 28-29 lifted the ban on voting in political elections for Jehovah's Witnesses. Sungmanitu (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of this article with Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses or Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

Quite frankly, this article is just a mess. It's such a mess that I'm not sure if it can be salvaged.

I would like to offer for your consideration the following articles which have been created or substantially modifed by me over the last few days: Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada.

What I'm looking for is a way to work these into a logical and coherent framework. I just can't see how to integrate Jehovah's Witnesses and governments into the framework of the articles that I've listed above.

The idea which seems most logical to me is to merege Jehovah's Witnesses and governments into Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I understand that there might be encyclopedic content about the relationship of JWs and governments which is outside of the topic of "persecution". "Persecution" is kind of a POV word anyways.

I suspect that Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties may be a better candidate target for the merger.

I would like to hear what other people think on this topic.

--Richard 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

This article is a mess. After the introductions, it mentions motivations, with following statemtns that only relate to one of those motivations. It then jumps to geographically sorting issues without addressing the motivations. It excludes Germany from Europe in its heading divisions. And then it jumps back to general issues. Input required as to whether the article should continue to be divided geographically, or by issue. Or both, with a requirement for more in the motivations section. Recommend that country names not be used as 1st level headings at the same level as general issues, with the alternative of a heading introducing issues by country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider my merge proposal from a year ago. (see comment immediately above this section).

In the meantime, I think it is best to remove the "motivations" section altogether and replace it with an "Issues" section which covers the broad issues of interaction between JWs and governments. Following this section, there can be a discussion by region or country. I do still think that there is a lot of overlap between this section and the "Persecution of JWs" series mentioned in my comment above. --Richard (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I didn't actually notice your section above - after noticing how utterly atrocious the article was, I just went straight for the 'new section' tab on the Talk page. In light of your comments, I think this article can probably be scrapped altogether, with relevant parts incorporated into the other articles if they're not there already (except Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties no longer exists, and redirects to United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.) I think Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses needs some work too, particularly in the lead, but I'll leave that for another day...--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a year since I worked on these articles. It seems that I started by creating Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties which was later renamed to United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses per an AFD discussion. The problem is that this suggests that the only discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties and Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is within the context of United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. This is plain wrong. Upon rethinking all of this, I retract my earlier proposal to merge this article with anything else. Let's fix it by rewriting/reorganizing it and then referencing the articles on Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll try to work on this when I have time but the next couple of weeks are very busy for me so it may be a while until I get to it. Feel free to take a whack at it if you are so motivated. --Richard (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes. I still don't like it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]