Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Russia it is not the president who makes legal decisions. Also, I don't know how it works in the US, but groups that consistently violate laws get banned in Russia. Especially if they don't change their ways after receiving warnings. Then again, the US is infamous for having huge loads of harmful crazy nutjobs and out of control cults (anyone remember Jonestown?) which inspired this particular Russian law in the first place. So it probably does work differently in the US. But regardless of how Americans may feel about it, we Russians don't wish any kind of that bs in our country. Jehovah's Witnesses may not be into poisoning kids with Kool-Aid, but they are still crazy. Some of the beliefs they enforce on their members endanger the health of said members and their proselytising makes them an active danger to people who may not have the mental strength to resist them. There are clear reasons why so many countries have banned them, and none of them have to do with the supposedly high moral standards of the Jehovah's Witnesses (a statement which I, on both theological and ethical grounds would strongly disagree with btw).

Without derailing the thread (nor taking it too much into territory that has been warned against in certain other threads), the US has the 1st Amendment which protects the vast majority of religious practices. Even, thus far, up to denying children proper medical care due to the parents' "sincerely held religious beliefs". Personally, I agree with you on the proselytizing front, but I would also caution you on comments about it, due to forum rules, and how we've seen them enforced in this regard in the past.

And our courts/legal system is largely the same. If you paid attention to the US politics thread, you'd see a number of instances where certain presidents wanted to do a thing, and the courts have said, "you cannot do the thing, is illegal"

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry to Godwin the thread but.....

While Hitler began his anti-semitic rhetoric before expanding to target any other group, when it came to actual round ups and executions the first to die were the Pentecostals and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Hitler steered the majority of Germans into the Reich approved churches during a policy known as Kirchenkampf.

Just to add, they weren't technically the first. The Aktion T4 was already started on a low scale in 1938 and expanded in 1939, specifically targeting German handicapped and mental patients for euthanasia that were no longer deemed useful to society.

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Even, thus far, up to denying children proper medical care due to the parents' "sincerely held religious beliefs".

Which is absolute lunacy. You have a right to believe whatever you like and choose to decline treatment for yourself (assuming you're an adult capable of understanding the situation), you don't have a right to let your children die because of your beliefs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Even, thus far, up to denying children proper medical care due to the parents' "sincerely held religious beliefs".

Which is absolute lunacy. You have a right to believe whatever you like and choose to decline treatment for yourself (assuming you're an adult capable of understanding the situation), you don't have a right to let your children die because of your beliefs.

In the Netherlands we just fix it by giving the doctor final say. Does the child need blood transfusion? In that case the parental authority is temporarily revoked until such a time that the child's life is no longer in danger. You can go to court and sue (they try) but the courts always rule in favor of the child's life over parental religious beliefs.

If god didn't want blood transfusions he would've given us all unique blood types

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If god didn't want blood transfusions he would've given us all unique blood types

Well he technically could have, but then Adam and Eve had children...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If god didn't want blood transfusions he would've given us all unique blood types

Well he technically could have, but then Adam and Eve had children...

Do you mean that God's powerful space magic couldn't transcend basic biology? I thought he was all-powerful and stuff…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If god didn't want blood transfusions he would've given us all unique blood types

Well he technically could have, but then Adam and Eve had children...

Do you mean that God's powerful space magic couldn't transcend basic biology? I thought he was all-powerful and stuff…

Hey now, he didn't bet on Eve grabbing that apple in the middle of paradise that was forbidden for some reason. Could he really have foreseen those children?

I just realized, are there only a few blood types due to the terrible genetic diversity available to their kids? Are blood types a genetic defect?!


Edit: More on topic, I can't really find what the value of JW possessions in Russia are, but might it be a significant chunk of money in the end?
The Washington Post has a nice article on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/20/russia-just-effectively-banned-jehovahs-witnesses-from-the-country/?utm_term=.81827f0b8c57

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him?

Like Pussy Riot you mean ?
(But you are making a strong case that this ban is legit and not in any way related to Putin)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government). But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Putin? What the hell does Putin have to do with this? He is the president, not a judge. Do you think Putin is some kind of omnipotent god-man who controls and is responsible for every single thing that happens in Russia? Surprise: The vast majority of things in Russia happen without Putin being involved. Here, it is not Putin who is targeting Jehovah's Witnesses, it is judge Ivanenko who is doing so according to the laws and constitution of the Russian Federation after the Jehovah's Witnesses actions were found to be in violation. No scary mean Putin involved at all.

So he can make an executive order to a overturn the judge on human and civil rights issues. These are Russian citizens, where they are not it is ok to simply target individuals and renounce their Visa.
However Russian citizens presumably have a right to live in Russia, and Vlad isnt actually doing much to safeguard Russian rights to live in Russia.

Also this smacks of the excuses that Hitler had no direct input on the Final Solution, it was all done by intermediaries. This might even be technically true, but doesnt cut it.
Now this isnt a full pogrom on the Jehovah's Witnesses yet, so you aren't defending utter monsters, just partial monsters that want to expel Russians frm Russia that the regime doesnt like. Which makes them at least half monster.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Russia it is not the president who makes legal decisions. Also, I don't know how it works in the US, but groups that consistently violate laws get banned in Russia.

First the 'crime' of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been to openly espouse thier faith and to beleive that other faiths are incorrect. Most faiths are in fact mutually exclusive at least in part. It's a pretty mainstream opinion within religion, including atheism. I am sure you won't need to go far to find a Russian Orthodox priest who thinks Islam has got it wrong, or a an atheist who things the Orthodox priest has also got it wrong, or a Moslem who thinks the atheist has it wrong, and so on and so forth...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Especially if they don't change their ways after receiving warnings.

What ways do you expect them to change? Stop believing in their faith. If so why them?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Then again, the US is infamous for having huge loads of harmful crazy nutjobs and out of control cults (anyone remember Jonestown?) which inspired this particular Russian law in the first place.

Jim Jones cult has no comparison to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now as they are a faith group you will underoubably find someone who is a member who is unsavoury. You can say that about any faith group, but the JW's dont have that type of dynamic, They are not Branch Davidians, Moonies or Peoples Temple; and in none of th above cases were the practitioners stripped of their citizenship for reasons of their cult activity. Jim Jones left the US because he wanted to run his cult without federal and state interference, the US didn't expel his cultists

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses may not be into poisoning kids with Kool-Aid, but they are still crazy. Some of the beliefs they enforce on their members endanger the health of said members and their proselytising makes them an active danger to people who may not have the mental strength to resist them.

Now this much is true, and they are considered a a pseudo-Christian cult in the western world as define by the Evangelical Alliance. An organisation that includes the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and mainstream Baptist and Protestant churches.
However the answer is to counter them, you de-program cultists, not expel them from the country and separate them from home and family.
Also the way to save Russians from Jehovah's Witnesses is not to send the converts packing with the rest of their church and in doing so separate them from their home and family.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There are clear reasons why so many countries have banned them, and none of them have to do with the supposedly high moral standards of the Jehovah's Witnesses (a statement which I, on both theological and ethical grounds would strongly disagree with btw).

Moral standards should be assessed in separation to unity of theological doctrine. They are pseudo-Christian, but that is an error from a select point of view and nothing more, their actionable teachings are self sacrificial in a positive way and law abiding. Their recruitment methods are questionable - and I don't defend those, and as a Christian I found their doctrines erroneous, but it is not my place, or that of any church to consider that factually wrong, but only subjectively wrong.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

This comparison of yours does not make any sense, and I have a strong suspicion you are only making stuff like this up to either slander Putin or Russia because of some personal bias of yours or because you have a genuinely ill-informed view of Russia and its governmental and legal systems. So please take your Godwin out of this thread, educate yourself and refrain from making such outrageous statements in the future unless they actually make sense (hint: A Godwin virtually never makes sense, therefore the adage that the first person to bring one up loses the discussion).

You forget quickly. For a start while I consider Putin an enemy I hold him in the deepest respect. I think Vladimir Putin is one of a very few people in politics today who truly deserve the title 'statesman'.
I have made comments on this in previous threads in conversation with you, and have defended Putin on occasion and at others claimed to profess a deep respect as to how he has pulled off what he has done. In Crimea for example; he is a c**t for what he did there, but damn well played anyway.

As for educating myself. No sorry, defending expulsion of a religious group from a modern nation state is repulsive and highly discriminatory. Yes several countries have expelled Jehovah's Witnesses, but the list reads like a rogues gallery of countries with dodgy civic rights records. On so many issues we are seeing Russia slip back into this mold.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Lastly, the Jehovah's Witnesses are far from the only group to have been targeted under this law, so there is hardly anything 'specific' about it. Neither were they targeted specifically in Soviet times (all religious groups were persecuted back then, the Orthodox Church most of all)

'The Soviets did it' is hardly a glowing endorsement when it comes to human rights issues.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also, it is the Wannsee Conference, not Waldsee.

Correction accepted, but its clear you know what I was talking about, and it as accurately placed in its time and purpose if misremembered by name.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him?

Like Pussy Riot you mean ?
(But you are making a strong case that this ban is legit and not in any way related to Putin)

Pussy Riot has not been banned. They just got sent to prison for desecrating a church, which violates Russian law. Anyone would have been sent to prison for that regardless of their opinion on President Putin and his policies. Had they staged their protest anywhere else, they would not have been arrested.
In Russia, criminals do not get pardoned for their acts if they are against the government. Instead, criminals get sent to prison. To the best of my knowledge, this works the same way in the West. Then why do Westerners find it so hard to comprehend that Russia has laws as well?

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government).

That is a wrong assumption. The Russian government is a vast organisation that employs many thousands of people that are allowed to make decisions on varying levels. Putin is just one of them. Sure, he is the leader, but that does not mean he is the only one making decisions. The vast majority of actions undertaken by the Russian government and its many institutions are done without Putin being involved or even knowing of them. Putin is just one man, not a god (though some may claim otherwise) and as such he has limited time. Putin therefore occupies himself only with the very most important decisions and the setting of general policies and guidelines (and even that only on the highest level). The judiciary on the other hand does not even fall under Putin's authority and as such Putin has only indirect influence on them.
The Russian government is much, much more than just Putin.

Disciple of Fate wrote:But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

They are not entirely equated to IS and such. IS and such are placed on a list of terrorist organisations. The thing is that under Russian law, all religious cults are regarded as extremist organisations regardless of whether they are violent or not. It is just a matter of how extreme their beliefs are. Not just anyone can get included on that list. You'll only end up there if your organisation has religious beliefs that deviate too far from the mainstream and if you attempt to exercise a great deal of direct control over the lives of your members. ISIS and Al Qaeda definitely fit on that list, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that they fit the (very strict) criteria that the Russian government has chosen to define religious extremism, doesn't mean that all those organisations are alike or equally evil or something. Extremism comes in many different forms. The fact that the JWs prohibit their members from undergoing certain medical procedures is not in itself the reason for the ban, it is just one of the main arguments. It shows how the JWs attempt to control the lives of their members, potentially endangering their health.

Disciple of Fate wrote:The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

Russia bans the promotion of homosexuality in public because the vast, vast majority of the Russian population (and therefore also the Russian government) views it as a violation of public decency. Russians get upset when they see homosexuality in public, therefore it gets banned. The issue here is not with the laws or the ban, but with the worldview of the Russian people. But regardless of what you might think of it, the Russians as a sovereign, democratic nation have the right to their own opinions and to elect representatives that act on those opinions. Democracy is a system of the majority. The biggest issue with democracy as a political system is that it tends to be not very friendly towards minorities. A true democracy is dangerously close to being a tyranny of the majority.
With cults, it is the same thing. It is not Putin saying "I think these people are not Russian enough, ban them.", it is the Russian people saying "We do not want these people in our midst, they disturb us. Do something about it." to their representatives.
Putin is not a dictator. The only reason he remains in power for so long is because he is (almost) always doing things that the Russian people want him to do. He rarely makes unpopular decisions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government).

That is a wrong assumption. The Russian government is a vast organisation that employs many thousands of people that are allowed to make decisions on varying levels. Putin is just one of them. Sure, he is the leader, but that does not mean he is the only one making decisions. The vast majority of actions undertaken by the Russian government and its many institutions are done without Putin being involved or even knowing of them. Putin is just one man, not a god (though some may claim otherwise) and as such he has limited time. Putin therefore occupies himself only with the very most important decisions and the setting of general policies and guidelines (and even that only on the highest level). The judiciary on the other hand does not even fall under Putin's authority and as such Putin has only indirect influence on them.
The Russian government is much, much more than just Putin.

Are we seriously going to have a debate about the technical limitations of Putin's power? You and I both know that anything important happening in Russia goes by Putin. What Putin wants happens. Of course there are technically a lot of obstacles to absolute power, but lets not pretend that has ever stopped Putin when it mattered to him. The judiciary might be technically independent too, but in this case they rules in favour of the government taking action against the JW.

Were not naive people, Putin officially has a lot less power than he has unofficially.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

They are not entirely equated to IS and such. IS and such are placed on a list of terrorist organisations. The thing is that under Russian law, all religious cults are regarded as extremist organisations regardless of whether they are violent or not. It is just a matter of how extreme their beliefs are. Not just anyone can get included on that list. You'll only end up there if your organisation has religious beliefs that deviate too far from the mainstream and if you attempt to exercise a great deal of direct control over the lives of your members. ISIS and Al Qaeda definitely fit on that list, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that they fit the (very strict) criteria that the Russian government has chosen to define religious extremism, doesn't mean that all those organisations are alike or equally evil or something. Extremism comes in many different forms. The fact that the JWs prohibit their members from undergoing certain medical procedures is not in itself the reason for the ban, it is just one of the main arguments. It shows how the JWs attempt to control the lives of their members, potentially endangering their health.

But IS falls under the same religious extremism laws that the JW witnesses were prosecuted under. Either those are the broadest extremism laws anywhere or the view of what is extremist is very skewed. Whether you like it or not, the government actively pursued a case against the JW to get them placed under these cult laws, they could have chosen not to, yet they chose to employ the same laws they use on IS against a pacifist religious group who's only crime is a weird adherence to medical procedures or evangelizing. This isn't about what falls under Russian law, this is about active government involvement to use that law on them. If medical procedures are one of the main arguments, what are the other arguments in favour of being extremist, was all this just based on the medical procedures or not? All organized religion tries to control its congregation to a certain extent, can you really say hand over heart that JW were among the most controlling groups in Russia?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

Russia bans the promotion of homosexuality in public because the vast, vast majority of the Russian population (and therefore also the Russian government) views it as a violation of public decency. Russians get upset when they see homosexuality in public, therefore it gets banned. The issue here is not with the laws or the ban, but with the worldview of the Russian people. But regardless of what you might think of it, the Russians as a sovereign, democratic nation have the right to their own opinions and to elect representatives that act on those opinions. Democracy is a system of the majority. The biggest issue with democracy as a political system is that it tends to be not very friendly towards minorities. A true democracy is dangerously close to being a tyranny of the majority.
With cults, it is the same thing. It is not Putin saying "I think these people are not Russian enough, ban them.", it is the Russian people saying "We do not want these people in our midst, they disturb us. Do something about it." to their representatives.
Putin is not a dictator. The only reason he remains in power for so long is because he is (almost) always doing things that the Russian people want him to do. He rarely makes unpopular decisions.

That is exactly what I mean, maybe Russians get upset when they see JW evangelizing, as that's also forbidden for some reason. Just like homosexuality, the law/public gets angry at minority religions for evangelizing and apparently some wayward extremist cult. See how easy it is to wield the label of public opinion against something that's different? That's what I'm trying to point out by bringing up homosexuality. But its a whole lot more difficult to wield it against some vaguely defined opposition.

I certainly have objections to just calling Russia a democratic nation, as its treatment of the opposition shows. The thing you said about tyranny of the majority and the 'Russian people saying' perfectly encapsulates why Russia is far from a decent democracy. Why does the government give in to the tyranny of the majority and what the 'Russian population says' by prosecuting these people when it should defend them? JW didn't hurt anyone but themselves! Yeah they might have some weird viewpoints but then make legislation that targets those viewpoints instead of just implementing a blanket ban just because 'they disturb' you.

Putin might not be the exact textbook case of a dictator, but the way he suppresses the opposition (critiques conveniently die) certainly does make a good case for him to be called as such. Dictators can frequently be popular however, one does not rule out the other in a state where the government controls almost all mainstream media sources.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



The JWs may be annoying as hell, but calling them "dangerous extremists" is a bit much.



They do make for some funny memes and macros, however:

Extremely annoying yes. Dangerous...no. Pretty much the antithesis of dangerous unless you give in to the desire to fake your won death to not talk to them.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Putin? What the hell does Putin have to do with this? He is the president, not a judge. Do you think Putin is some kind of omnipotent god-man who controls and is responsible for every single thing that happens in Russia? Surprise: The vast majority of things in Russia happen without Putin being involved. Here, it is not Putin who is targeting Jehovah's Witnesses, it is judge Ivanenko who is doing so according to the laws and constitution of the Russian Federation after the Jehovah's Witnesses actions were found to be in violation. No scary mean Putin involved at all.

So he can make an executive order to a overturn the judge on human and civil rights issues. These are Russian citizens, where they are not it is ok to simply target individuals and renounce their Visa.
However Russian citizens presumably have a right to live in Russia, and Vlad isnt actually doing much to safeguard Russian rights to live in Russia.

No. This is the Supreme Court. Not even Putin can overturn decisions by the Supreme Court. In fact, it is the opposite. The Supreme Court can overturn Putin's decisions. Together with the Federation Council and the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in Russia, higher than the president.
And Russian citizens have a right to live in Russia, but they also have the duty to adhere to Russian law. As in other countries, violating the law means you lose many of your rights.

 Orlanth wrote:

Also this smacks of the excuses that Hitler had no direct input on the Final Solution, it was all done by intermediaries. This might even be technically true, but doesnt cut it.
Now this isnt a full pogrom on the Jehovah's Witnesses yet, so you aren't defending utter monsters, just partial monsters that want to expel Russians frm Russia that the regime doesnt like. Which makes them at least half monster.

The "regime" in Russia is democratically elected and represents the will of the Russian people. So now you are calling the Russian people monsters? Good job.
Also, unlike Putin, Hitler had absolute authority in his position of Führer. Hitler was not directly involved with the Final Solution, but he certainly endorsed it and could have stopped it if he had not. Whether Putin endorses the ban of the Jehovah's Witnesses or not does not matter, because he is powerless to stop it. Equating Putin with Hitler is moronic at best.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Russia it is not the president who makes legal decisions. Also, I don't know how it works in the US, but groups that consistently violate laws get banned in Russia.

First the 'crime' of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been to openly espouse thier faith and to beleive that other faiths are incorrect. Most faiths are in fact mutually exclusive at least in part. It's a pretty mainstream opinion within religion, including atheism. I am sure you won't need to go far to find a Russian Orthodox priest who thinks Islam has got it wrong, or a an atheist who things the Orthodox priest has also got it wrong, or a Moslem who thinks the atheist has it wrong, and so on and so forth...

No. Their crime was that they violated the law of Yarovaya, which prohibits missionary activities outside of religious buildings. It also specifically prohibits religious organisations from encouraging their members to commit suicide, engage in illegal acts or refuse medical treatment. This is another thing which the Jehovah's Witnesses violated. Like in the US, religious beliefs are okay only as long as they do not violate the law.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Especially if they don't change their ways after receiving warnings.

What ways do you expect them to change? Stop believing in their faith. If so why them?

Because they violated the law!

Violating laws is illegal.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Then again, the US is infamous for having huge loads of harmful crazy nutjobs and out of control cults (anyone remember Jonestown?) which inspired this particular Russian law in the first place.

Jim Jones cult has no comparison to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now as they are a faith group you will underoubably find someone who is a member who is unsavoury. You can say that about any faith group, but the JW's dont have that type of dynamic, They are not Branch Davidians, Moonies or Peoples Temple; and in none of th above cases were the practitioners stripped of their citizenship for reasons of their cult activity. Jim Jones left the US because he wanted to run his cult without federal and state interference, the US didn't expel his cultists

Under Russian law, they very much do. Both are cults with unsavoury practices that'd be illegal under Russian law.
Russia also isn't expelling any cultists (except maybe foreign ones? But I haven't heard anything about that). It is just seizing the organisation's property and ordering them to stop their religious activities (which obviously won't really stop them of course).

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses may not be into poisoning kids with Kool-Aid, but they are still crazy. Some of the beliefs they enforce on their members endanger the health of said members and their proselytising makes them an active danger to people who may not have the mental strength to resist them.

Now this much is true, and they are considered a a pseudo-Christian cult in the western world as define by the Evangelical Alliance. An organisation that includes the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and mainstream Baptist and Protestant churches.
However the answer is to counter them, you de-program cultists, not expel them from the country and separate them from home and family.
Also the way to save Russians from Jehovah's Witnesses is not to send the converts packing with the rest of their church and in doing so separate them from their home and family.

And how do you de-program someone who does not want to be de-programmed? And is a state allowed to determine an individual's belief? Sounds rather authoritarian to me. In Russia, such would be illegal. Russia has freedom of religion. The state can prohibit actions by individuals or organisations that do not adhere to the law, but it can't prohibit people from believing in something.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There are clear reasons why so many countries have banned them, and none of them have to do with the supposedly high moral standards of the Jehovah's Witnesses (a statement which I, on both theological and ethical grounds would strongly disagree with btw).

Moral standards should be assessed in separation to unity of theological doctrine. They are pseudo-Christian, but that is an error from a select point of view and nothing more, their actionable teachings are self sacrificial in a positive way and law abiding. Their recruitment methods are questionable - and I don't defend those, and as a Christian I found their doctrines erroneous, but it is not my place, or that of any church to consider that factually wrong, but only subjectively wrong.

That is true. And even though I think they are wrong, I respect their right to believe whatever they want. But the moment their actions start violating laws, that is when I'd like to say 'нет'.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

This comparison of yours does not make any sense, and I have a strong suspicion you are only making stuff like this up to either slander Putin or Russia because of some personal bias of yours or because you have a genuinely ill-informed view of Russia and its governmental and legal systems. So please take your Godwin out of this thread, educate yourself and refrain from making such outrageous statements in the future unless they actually make sense (hint: A Godwin virtually never makes sense, therefore the adage that the first person to bring one up loses the discussion).

You forget quickly. For a start while I consider Putin an enemy I hold him in the deepest respect. I think Vladimir Putin is one of a very few people in politics today who truly deserve the title 'statesman'.
I have made comments on this in previous threads in conversation with you, and have defended Putin on occasion and at others claimed to profess a deep respect as to how he has pulled off what he has done. In Crimea for example; he is a c**t for what he did there, but damn well played anyway.

Oh, I remember. You consider him an enemy. And I think this rather extreme viewpoint influences the clarity of your thinking about Putin and Russia. Whether you respect Putin or not, he isn't your enemy. Ever since becoming president, Putin's policies have always attempted to build better relations between Russia and the US. Unfortunately it seems that many in the US still see Russia as a threat and as an enemy, and this goes the other way as well. So now instead of considering each other enemies, let us start right here by banning out such thoughts and instead attempt to understand each other without bias.
And please don't mention Crimea. It is the place I consider home. I love it very much and I get rather emotional about it, which may influence the clarity of my thinking.

 Orlanth wrote:
As for educating myself. No sorry, defending expulsion of a religious group from a modern nation state is repulsive and highly discriminatory. Yes several countries have expelled Jehovah's Witnesses, but the list reads like a rogues gallery of countries with dodgy civic rights records. On so many issues we are seeing Russia slip back into this mold.

So... the US is okay with Al-Qaeda operating in its country? And if a new Jim Jones-like cult arises that encourages people to kill themselves, that is totally fine too? After all, the US was also totally fine with the Branch Davidians abusing kids, wasn't it? Every country in the world sets limits to freedom of religion, and every country in the world acts against religious groups that violate its laws. Russia is no different in this regard. The only thing that is different is that Russian law on religious cults is more strict than the very lax laws of the US.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Lastly, the Jehovah's Witnesses are far from the only group to have been targeted under this law, so there is hardly anything 'specific' about it. Neither were they targeted specifically in Soviet times (all religious groups were persecuted back then, the Orthodox Church most of all)

'The Soviets did it' is hardly a glowing endorsement when it comes to human rights issues.

It isn't, and it wasn't meant to be. I only brought it up as an example of the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't being singled out. Others are judged by the same standards.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also, it is the Wannsee Conference, not Waldsee.

Correction accepted, but its clear you know what I was talking about, and it as accurately placed in its time and purpose if misremembered by name.

Sorry, but I am kinda a Nazi when it comes to proper spelling of place names

I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government).

That is a wrong assumption. The Russian government is a vast organisation that employs many thousands of people that are allowed to make decisions on varying levels. Putin is just one of them. Sure, he is the leader, but that does not mean he is the only one making decisions. The vast majority of actions undertaken by the Russian government and its many institutions are done without Putin being involved or even knowing of them. Putin is just one man, not a god (though some may claim otherwise) and as such he has limited time. Putin therefore occupies himself only with the very most important decisions and the setting of general policies and guidelines (and even that only on the highest level). The judiciary on the other hand does not even fall under Putin's authority and as such Putin has only indirect influence on them.
The Russian government is much, much more than just Putin.

Are we seriously going to have a debate about the technical limitations of Putin's power? You and I both know that anything important happening in Russia goes by Putin. What Putin wants happens. Of course there are technically a lot of obstacles to absolute power, but lets not pretend that has ever stopped Putin when it mattered to him. The judiciary might be technically independent too, but in this case they rules in favour of the government taking action against the JW.

Were not naive people, Putin officially has a lot less power than he has unofficially.

Certainly true. Putin's influence is vast. But even he is not all-powerful. Even Putin can't go against the Supreme Court (and usually he doesn't need to, because he nominates its members, who have to be appointed by the Federation Council (equivalent to the Eerste Kamer in the Netherlands), which is elected by the regions of Russia, in virtually all of which Putin's party is the largest). His influence thus is entirely the result of his ridiculously high approval rates among the Russian people. Just like the Netherlands wouldn't suddenly be a dictatorship if the VVD (or any other party) would win a solid majority in both the provincial and national elections, so Russia did not turn into a dictatorship when Putin won a majority. Putin may walk a fine line between democracy and authoritarianism, but in its thousand year history Russia has never been more democratic than now. Unlike Yeltsin, Putin actually adheres to democratic principles and limits.
But that aside, the key word here is important. Putin is president. A president has loads of tasks. None of which include deciding on whether the Jehovah's Witnesses should be outlawed or not. Putin is unlikely to occupy himself with such judicial matters. This is not important to the president. That is what he nominated a judge for. Subsequently trying to impact that process would be seen as dictatorial and hurt his approval ratings (and therefore threaten his control of the country).

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

They are not entirely equated to IS and such. IS and such are placed on a list of terrorist organisations. The thing is that under Russian law, all religious cults are regarded as extremist organisations regardless of whether they are violent or not. It is just a matter of how extreme their beliefs are. Not just anyone can get included on that list. You'll only end up there if your organisation has religious beliefs that deviate too far from the mainstream and if you attempt to exercise a great deal of direct control over the lives of your members. ISIS and Al Qaeda definitely fit on that list, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that they fit the (very strict) criteria that the Russian government has chosen to define religious extremism, doesn't mean that all those organisations are alike or equally evil or something. Extremism comes in many different forms. The fact that the JWs prohibit their members from undergoing certain medical procedures is not in itself the reason for the ban, it is just one of the main arguments. It shows how the JWs attempt to control the lives of their members, potentially endangering their health.

But IS falls under the same religious extremism laws that the JW witnesses were prosecuted under. Either those are the broadest extremism laws anywhere or the view of what is extremist is very skewed. Whether you like it or not, the government actively pursued a case against the JW to get them placed under these cult laws, they could have chosen not to, yet they chose to employ the same laws they use on IS against a pacifist religious group who's only crime is a weird adherence to medical procedures or evangelizing. This isn't about what falls under Russian law, this is about active government involvement to use that law on them. If medical procedures are one of the main arguments, what are the other arguments in favour of being extremist, was all this just based on the medical procedures or not? All organized religion tries to control its congregation to a certain extent, can you really say hand over heart that JW were among the most controlling groups in Russia?

The law prohibits missionary activities outside of religious buildings. Both IS and the JW are guilty of this. The law prohibits organisations to encourage illegal acts. Both the the IS (terrorism) and the JW (missionary work) are guilty of this. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to commit suicide. IS is guilty of this, the JW are not. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to refuse medical procedures. Afaik, IS is not guilty of this, the JW are. The JW and IS violate the same law on several counts. Do you now see why they were included on the same list?
Whether you think this law is broad or not is up to you. But I think it is justified. Religious people should keep their religion to themselves, and not engage in missionary activities (and I am saying this as a religious person)
And of the religious groups in Russia, the JW probably were one of the most controlling, with the exception of some other cults (also prohibited now) and probably islam (which is too large and established to prohibit)

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

Russia bans the promotion of homosexuality in public because the vast, vast majority of the Russian population (and therefore also the Russian government) views it as a violation of public decency. Russians get upset when they see homosexuality in public, therefore it gets banned. The issue here is not with the laws or the ban, but with the worldview of the Russian people. But regardless of what you might think of it, the Russians as a sovereign, democratic nation have the right to their own opinions and to elect representatives that act on those opinions. Democracy is a system of the majority. The biggest issue with democracy as a political system is that it tends to be not very friendly towards minorities. A true democracy is dangerously close to being a tyranny of the majority.
With cults, it is the same thing. It is not Putin saying "I think these people are not Russian enough, ban them.", it is the Russian people saying "We do not want these people in our midst, they disturb us. Do something about it." to their representatives.
Putin is not a dictator. The only reason he remains in power for so long is because he is (almost) always doing things that the Russian people want him to do. He rarely makes unpopular decisions.

That is exactly what I mean, maybe Russians get upset when they see JW evangelizing, as that's also forbidden for some reason. Just like homosexuality, the law/public gets angry at minority religions for evangelizing and apparently some wayward extremist cult. See how easy it is to wield the label of public opinion against something that's different? That's what I'm trying to point out by bringing up homosexuality. But its a whole lot more difficult to wield it against some vaguely defined opposition.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I certainly have objections to just calling Russia a democratic nation, as its treatment of the opposition shows. The thing you said about tyranny of the majority and the 'Russian people saying' perfectly encapsulates why Russia is far from a decent democracy. Why does the government give in to the tyranny of the majority and what the 'Russian population says' by prosecuting these people when it should defend them? JW didn't hurt anyone but themselves! Yeah they might have some weird viewpoints but then make legislation that targets those viewpoints instead of just implementing a blanket ban just because 'they disturb' you.

This is all very true. A good democracy safeguards the rights of minorities. Russia is far from being a good democracy. But it is even further from being a dictatorship. Russia is a flawed democracy, and you could definitely call it a dictatorship of the majority. But that makes the people the dictator, and not Putin.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of people who frequently criticise Putin are all still alive, and the only ones who died were the ones that ran afoul of criminal elements or a certain mister Kadyrov.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Putin might not be the exact textbook case of a dictator, but the way he suppresses the opposition (critiques conveniently die) certainly does make a good case for him to be called as such. Dictators can frequently be popular however, one does not rule out the other in a state where the government controls almost all mainstream media sources.

A dictator is an absolute ruler, a lord who is served by his country and by his people. Putin on the other hand, is the servant of Russia rather than Russia being the servant of Putin. An important distinction to make.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

They aren't a danger to anyone else then themselves, and their children, which, obviously, isn't good, but do you really think that "but think of the children!" is behind this?

This sounds like a pure instrumentalisation of the health issues surrounding JW behaviour, in line with the current anti-multicultural trajectory of the russian state. As if seizure of property was an appropriate response to a group`s religious belief somewhat endangering themselves tangentially, when they are already in danger (you ususally don't necessitate transfusion if everything is going well).

Sadly enough, JW are a traditional target for authoritarian governments. Up here in La Belle Province, it goes back to 1936 and Maurice Duplessis as Prime Minister making it illegal for groups of more than 5 JW to assemble in public.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

They aren't a danger to anyone else then themselves, and their children, which, obviously, isn't good, but do you really think that "but think of the children!" is behind this?

No, and I stated as much in my earlier post in the last page, but it certainly makes the job of those who dislike JW's easier. Ultimately, my own intuition is that it's simple nationalist nativism hitting against an easy-target foreign "other".

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[ The "regime" in Russia is democratically elected and represents the will of the Russian people. So now you are calling the Russian people monsters? Good job.
Also, unlike Putin, Hitler had absolute authority in his position of Führer. Hitler was not directly involved with the Final Solution, but he certainly endorsed it and could have stopped it if he had not. Whether Putin endorses the ban of the Jehovah's Witnesses or not does not matter, because he is powerless to stop it. Equating Putin with Hitler is moronic at best.

Apologies for nitpicking this one point out of many, but what are you trying to say here? Hitler didn't literally pull the trigger on millions of murders? While technically true, it is disingenuous in the extreme to say that Hitler was not directly involved in the Final Solution.

That's like saying Captain Picard is not involved in making the jump to warp. He doesn't run the engines or input the coordinates, but he's the one who says "Make it so."

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

They aren't a danger to anyone else then themselves, and their children, which, obviously, isn't good, but do you really think that "but think of the children!" is behind this?

No, and I stated as much in my earlier post in the last page, but it certainly makes the job of those who dislike JW's easier. Ultimately, my own intuition is that it's simple nationalist nativism hitting against an easy-target foreign "other".

Yeah, that is true. But it is important to remember that it is not the Jehovah's Witnesses specifically who are targeted, but all cults. Cults and sects are seen as a destructive Western influence by most in Russia that threatens traditional Russian belief structures. And to be fair, most cults and sects indeed come from the West, particularly from the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[ The "regime" in Russia is democratically elected and represents the will of the Russian people. So now you are calling the Russian people monsters? Good job.
Also, unlike Putin, Hitler had absolute authority in his position of Führer. Hitler was not directly involved with the Final Solution, but he certainly endorsed it and could have stopped it if he had not. Whether Putin endorses the ban of the Jehovah's Witnesses or not does not matter, because he is powerless to stop it. Equating Putin with Hitler is moronic at best.

Apologies for nitpicking this one point out of many, but what are you trying to say here? Hitler didn't literally pull the trigger on millions of murders? While technically true, it is disingenuous in the extreme to say that Hitler was not directly involved in the Final Solution.

That's like saying Captain Picard is not involved in making the jump to warp. He doesn't run the engines or input the coordinates, but he's the one who says "Make it so."

This is not relevant to the tread at all. It is a semantic matter of how you'd define 'direct involvement'. Suffice it to say no one is trying to clear Hitler of blame here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

They aren't a danger to anyone else then themselves, and their children, which, obviously, isn't good, but do you really think that "but think of the children!" is behind this?

No, and I stated as much in my earlier post in the last page, but it certainly makes the job of those who dislike JW's easier. Ultimately, my own intuition is that it's simple nationalist nativism hitting against an easy-target foreign "other".

Yeah, that is true. But it is important to remember that it is not the Jehovah's Witnesses specifically who are targeted, but all cults. Cults and sects are seen as a destructive Western influence by most in Russia that threatens traditional Russian belief structures. And to be fair, most cults and sects indeed come from the West, particularly from the US.

Aye, JW's arent the first to be hit like this and wont be the last I'm sure, and yeah, a lot of them do have US origins, the US is something of a factory for these things, and some like Scientology (which is looked upon largely unfavorably even in the US) have been banned even in other "western" nations, or at least prevented from operating as protected religions. A lot of US originated religions faced discrimination in the US at various points as well, such the Mormons, so it's not terribly surprising when such groups get into trouble outside the US.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, that is true. But it is important to remember that it is not the Jehovah's Witnesses specifically who are targeted, but all cults. Cults and sects are seen as a destructive Western influence by most in Russia that threatens traditional Russian belief structures. And to be fair, most cults and sects indeed come from the West, particularly from the US.

So, we've all moved past pretenses that this is related to a health concern, then? Good.

Even the Agitprop couldn't spin this one properly.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government).

That is a wrong assumption. The Russian government is a vast organisation that employs many thousands of people that are allowed to make decisions on varying levels. Putin is just one of them. Sure, he is the leader, but that does not mean he is the only one making decisions. The vast majority of actions undertaken by the Russian government and its many institutions are done without Putin being involved or even knowing of them. Putin is just one man, not a god (though some may claim otherwise) and as such he has limited time. Putin therefore occupies himself only with the very most important decisions and the setting of general policies and guidelines (and even that only on the highest level). The judiciary on the other hand does not even fall under Putin's authority and as such Putin has only indirect influence on them.
The Russian government is much, much more than just Putin.

Are we seriously going to have a debate about the technical limitations of Putin's power? You and I both know that anything important happening in Russia goes by Putin. What Putin wants happens. Of course there are technically a lot of obstacles to absolute power, but lets not pretend that has ever stopped Putin when it mattered to him. The judiciary might be technically independent too, but in this case they rules in favour of the government taking action against the JW.

Were not naive people, Putin officially has a lot less power than he has unofficially.

Certainly true. Putin's influence is vast. But even he is not all-powerful. Even Putin can't go against the Supreme Court (and usually he doesn't need to, because he nominates its members, who have to be appointed by the Federation Council (equivalent to the Eerste Kamer in the Netherlands), which is elected by the regions of Russia, in virtually all of which Putin's party is the largest). His influence thus is entirely the result of his ridiculously high approval rates among the Russian people. Just like the Netherlands wouldn't suddenly be a dictatorship if the VVD (or any other party) would win a solid majority in both the provincial and national elections, so Russia did not turn into a dictatorship when Putin won a majority. Putin may walk a fine line between democracy and authoritarianism, but in its thousand year history Russia has never been more democratic than now. Unlike Yeltsin, Putin actually adheres to democratic principles and limits.
But that aside, the key word here is important. Putin is president. A president has loads of tasks. None of which include deciding on whether the Jehovah's Witnesses should be outlawed or not. Putin is unlikely to occupy himself with such judicial matters. This is not important to the president. That is what he nominated a judge for. Subsequently trying to impact that process would be seen as dictatorial and hurt his approval ratings (and therefore threaten his control of the country).

I think the problem is that we don't know exactly what happens in the backrooms and what deals Putin has and how independent the supreme court in Russia truly is. i never said Putin is a dictator because he has majority support, its his actions against the opposition that make him a dictator, political assassination and oppression is not the hallmark of a democratic leader. Being more democratic than ever also says very little.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

They are not entirely equated to IS and such. IS and such are placed on a list of terrorist organisations. The thing is that under Russian law, all religious cults are regarded as extremist organisations regardless of whether they are violent or not. It is just a matter of how extreme their beliefs are. Not just anyone can get included on that list. You'll only end up there if your organisation has religious beliefs that deviate too far from the mainstream and if you attempt to exercise a great deal of direct control over the lives of your members. ISIS and Al Qaeda definitely fit on that list, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that they fit the (very strict) criteria that the Russian government has chosen to define religious extremism, doesn't mean that all those organisations are alike or equally evil or something. Extremism comes in many different forms. The fact that the JWs prohibit their members from undergoing certain medical procedures is not in itself the reason for the ban, it is just one of the main arguments. It shows how the JWs attempt to control the lives of their members, potentially endangering their health.

But IS falls under the same religious extremism laws that the JW witnesses were prosecuted under. Either those are the broadest extremism laws anywhere or the view of what is extremist is very skewed. Whether you like it or not, the government actively pursued a case against the JW to get them placed under these cult laws, they could have chosen not to, yet they chose to employ the same laws they use on IS against a pacifist religious group who's only crime is a weird adherence to medical procedures or evangelizing. This isn't about what falls under Russian law, this is about active government involvement to use that law on them. If medical procedures are one of the main arguments, what are the other arguments in favour of being extremist, was all this just based on the medical procedures or not? All organized religion tries to control its congregation to a certain extent, can you really say hand over heart that JW were among the most controlling groups in Russia?

The law prohibits missionary activities outside of religious buildings. Both IS and the JW are guilty of this. The law prohibits organisations to encourage illegal acts. Both the the IS (terrorism) and the JW (missionary work) are guilty of this. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to commit suicide. IS is guilty of this, the JW are not. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to refuse medical procedures. Afaik, IS is not guilty of this, the JW are. The JW and IS violate the same law on several counts. Do you now see why they were included on the same list?
Whether you think this law is broad or not is up to you. But I think it is justified. Religious people should keep their religion to themselves, and not engage in missionary activities (and I am saying this as a religious person)
And of the religious groups in Russia, the JW probably were one of the most controlling, with the exception of some other cults (also prohibited now) and probably islam (which is too large and established to prohibit)

The fact that missionary activities are forbidden for smaller organizations though shows a two tiered system in place. A system that discriminates against certain religious groups based on arbitrary laws in a democracy being used to target them.

The law might be justified, but I certainly have grave doubts about it being used as a bludgeon against the JW. I very clearly see why Russia included them on that list, I also see it had nothing to do with this law. Its a smokescreen for a targeted government campaign against a peaceful religious group.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

Russia bans the promotion of homosexuality in public because the vast, vast majority of the Russian population (and therefore also the Russian government) views it as a violation of public decency. Russians get upset when they see homosexuality in public, therefore it gets banned. The issue here is not with the laws or the ban, but with the worldview of the Russian people. But regardless of what you might think of it, the Russians as a sovereign, democratic nation have the right to their own opinions and to elect representatives that act on those opinions. Democracy is a system of the majority. The biggest issue with democracy as a political system is that it tends to be not very friendly towards minorities. A true democracy is dangerously close to being a tyranny of the majority.
With cults, it is the same thing. It is not Putin saying "I think these people are not Russian enough, ban them.", it is the Russian people saying "We do not want these people in our midst, they disturb us. Do something about it." to their representatives.
Putin is not a dictator. The only reason he remains in power for so long is because he is (almost) always doing things that the Russian people want him to do. He rarely makes unpopular decisions.

That is exactly what I mean, maybe Russians get upset when they see JW evangelizing, as that's also forbidden for some reason. Just like homosexuality, the law/public gets angry at minority religions for evangelizing and apparently some wayward extremist cult. See how easy it is to wield the label of public opinion against something that's different? That's what I'm trying to point out by bringing up homosexuality. But its a whole lot more difficult to wield it against some vaguely defined opposition.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I certainly have objections to just calling Russia a democratic nation, as its treatment of the opposition shows. The thing you said about tyranny of the majority and the 'Russian people saying' perfectly encapsulates why Russia is far from a decent democracy. Why does the government give in to the tyranny of the majority and what the 'Russian population says' by prosecuting these people when it should defend them? JW didn't hurt anyone but themselves! Yeah they might have some weird viewpoints but then make legislation that targets those viewpoints instead of just implementing a blanket ban just because 'they disturb' you.

This is all very true. A good democracy safeguards the rights of minorities. Russia is far from being a good democracy. But it is even further from being a dictatorship. Russia is a flawed democracy, and you could definitely call it a dictatorship of the majority. But that makes the people the dictator, and not Putin.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of people who frequently criticise Putin are all still alive, and the only ones who died were the ones that ran afoul of criminal elements or a certain mister Kadyrov.

As long as political opponents happen to get killed and opposition politicians get harassed and arrested it runs closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. when the state controls almost all media and consistently runs pro-Putin material while criticizing his opponents you cant really have free elections. This is why Putin is a dictator. The idea that the only ones who died ran afoul is ridiculous, are you really saying Magnitsky, Litvinenko and of course Ukranian president Yushchenko fell afoul of bad elements? These people were clearly killed or were tried to kill because them living was inconvenient to Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.d48965f9784f

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Putin might not be the exact textbook case of a dictator, but the way he suppresses the opposition (critiques conveniently die) certainly does make a good case for him to be called as such. Dictators can frequently be popular however, one does not rule out the other in a state where the government controls almost all mainstream media sources.

A dictator is an absolute ruler, a lord who is served by his country and by his people. Putin on the other hand, is the servant of Russia rather than Russia being the servant of Putin. An important distinction to make.

A dictator is more than just an absolute ruler, that is only the strictest dictionary definition. In the sliding scale of international politics Putin certainly is more on the side of dictator than democratic president. Putin certainly has put on a good show of being a servant to Russia however!

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, that is true. But it is important to remember that it is not the Jehovah's Witnesses specifically who are targeted, but all cults. Cults and sects are seen as a destructive Western influence by most in Russia that threatens traditional Russian belief structures. And to be fair, most cults and sects indeed come from the West, particularly from the US.

So, we've all moved past pretenses that this is related to a health concern, then? Good.

Even the Agitprop couldn't spin this one properly.

Oh, but it never was about a health concern. That is just how the western media has spun it in order to ridicule Russia. This is about Russia's law against religious extremism which the Jehovah's Witnesses violated on multiple counts, one of them being encouraging its members to refuse certain medical procedures.
Also, just to nitpick, agitprop serves to agitate people so that they go and do something the state wants them to do (its short for agitation propaganda). It does not serve to bend facts or misguide or such. That is why it is distinguished from 'normal' propaganda.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I can see why Putin doesn't like the Jehovah's Witnesses though, they just don't fit in his picture of patriotic Russia. Its just one of those 'deviant' ideologies that they don't want in Russia.

Again, this has nothing to do with Putin. This has nothing to do with 'deviant' ideologies that don't fit in 'patriotic' Russia. This is a just a matter of Russian law not allowing the existence of cults that forbid their members to undergo certain medical procedures. If the Jehovah's had not violated the law, they would have been free to be every bit as deviant as they would have liked to be (not that they were though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical).
The whole premise is ridiculous. If Putin wants to crack down on deviant groups, then why does he not outlaw the groups that directly criticise and politically oppose him? I know that all the media is constantly telling you about how absolutely evil Russia is and that Putin is the reincarnation of Hitler, but please do not abandon all common sense when thinking about Russia.

A cult or sect if you will is an inherently negative label that already implies behaviour that deviates from normal religion, or deviant. Of course me saying Putin is a bit short but he is the main representative of the Russian government (and in many ways is the government).

That is a wrong assumption. The Russian government is a vast organisation that employs many thousands of people that are allowed to make decisions on varying levels. Putin is just one of them. Sure, he is the leader, but that does not mean he is the only one making decisions. The vast majority of actions undertaken by the Russian government and its many institutions are done without Putin being involved or even knowing of them. Putin is just one man, not a god (though some may claim otherwise) and as such he has limited time. Putin therefore occupies himself only with the very most important decisions and the setting of general policies and guidelines (and even that only on the highest level). The judiciary on the other hand does not even fall under Putin's authority and as such Putin has only indirect influence on them.
The Russian government is much, much more than just Putin.

Are we seriously going to have a debate about the technical limitations of Putin's power? You and I both know that anything important happening in Russia goes by Putin. What Putin wants happens. Of course there are technically a lot of obstacles to absolute power, but lets not pretend that has ever stopped Putin when it mattered to him. The judiciary might be technically independent too, but in this case they rules in favour of the government taking action against the JW.

Were not naive people, Putin officially has a lot less power than he has unofficially.

Certainly true. Putin's influence is vast. But even he is not all-powerful. Even Putin can't go against the Supreme Court (and usually he doesn't need to, because he nominates its members, who have to be appointed by the Federation Council (equivalent to the Eerste Kamer in the Netherlands), which is elected by the regions of Russia, in virtually all of which Putin's party is the largest). His influence thus is entirely the result of his ridiculously high approval rates among the Russian people. Just like the Netherlands wouldn't suddenly be a dictatorship if the VVD (or any other party) would win a solid majority in both the provincial and national elections, so Russia did not turn into a dictatorship when Putin won a majority. Putin may walk a fine line between democracy and authoritarianism, but in its thousand year history Russia has never been more democratic than now. Unlike Yeltsin, Putin actually adheres to democratic principles and limits.
But that aside, the key word here is important. Putin is president. A president has loads of tasks. None of which include deciding on whether the Jehovah's Witnesses should be outlawed or not. Putin is unlikely to occupy himself with such judicial matters. This is not important to the president. That is what he nominated a judge for. Subsequently trying to impact that process would be seen as dictatorial and hurt his approval ratings (and therefore threaten his control of the country).

I think the problem is that we don't know exactly what happens in the backrooms and what deals Putin has and how independent the supreme court in Russia truly is. i never said Putin is a dictator because he has majority support, its his actions against the opposition that make him a dictator, political assassination and oppression is not the hallmark of a democratic leader. Being more democratic than ever also says very little.

Trouble is, there is no evidence Putin has ever undertaken anything against his political opposition (beyond locking them up when they inevitably violate laws on organising mass rallies without permit). And to be honest, I have never understood that myth in the first place. Why would Putin, with his massive approval ratings and control over the majority of media have a need to assassinate obscure political so-called rivals that half of Russia has never even heard of and that never really enjoyed any significant political support whatsoever? The people who got assassinated were absolutely no threat to Putin. Why would he risk everything he has built up to clear them out of the way when they aren't even in the way in the first place?
Combined with the fact that all of the people who are often named as people who were killed by Putin had dealings with criminal or corrupt elements (either by investigating them or in some cases participating in them) makes me believe something else happened, and that the whole 'Putin assassinates his political rivals' story was then made up by the liberal opposition in order to discredit Putin (a story subsequently taken up and expanded on in western media). It is no secret that the liberal opposition in Russia (Putin's most vocal critics) have always had close ties to western media.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But religion has certainly been prosecuted before in (Soviet)Russia. they have been targeted under the extremism laws and it is hard to believe this is just about medical procedures. They also forbid evangelizing by minority religions, which is exactly what JW love to do. JW are also far from the only group that has problems operating in Russia. The way the state depicted JW also goes way beyond having problems with medical procedures. I mean people on the list that now includes the JW are Al Qaeda and IS! They could have chosen to whom they wanted to apply this label, the idea that its Russian law is ridiculous, as they prosecuted the JW to be placed under the effects of this law! Please tell me why refusal of medical procedures is so extreme, if you can just put in the law that you can't refuse them? Are 'normal' Russians not allowed to refuse procedures? Why are they equating JW to Al Qaeda and IS legally speaking?

They are not entirely equated to IS and such. IS and such are placed on a list of terrorist organisations. The thing is that under Russian law, all religious cults are regarded as extremist organisations regardless of whether they are violent or not. It is just a matter of how extreme their beliefs are. Not just anyone can get included on that list. You'll only end up there if your organisation has religious beliefs that deviate too far from the mainstream and if you attempt to exercise a great deal of direct control over the lives of your members. ISIS and Al Qaeda definitely fit on that list, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that they fit the (very strict) criteria that the Russian government has chosen to define religious extremism, doesn't mean that all those organisations are alike or equally evil or something. Extremism comes in many different forms. The fact that the JWs prohibit their members from undergoing certain medical procedures is not in itself the reason for the ban, it is just one of the main arguments. It shows how the JWs attempt to control the lives of their members, potentially endangering their health.

But IS falls under the same religious extremism laws that the JW witnesses were prosecuted under. Either those are the broadest extremism laws anywhere or the view of what is extremist is very skewed. Whether you like it or not, the government actively pursued a case against the JW to get them placed under these cult laws, they could have chosen not to, yet they chose to employ the same laws they use on IS against a pacifist religious group who's only crime is a weird adherence to medical procedures or evangelizing. This isn't about what falls under Russian law, this is about active government involvement to use that law on them. If medical procedures are one of the main arguments, what are the other arguments in favour of being extremist, was all this just based on the medical procedures or not? All organized religion tries to control its congregation to a certain extent, can you really say hand over heart that JW were among the most controlling groups in Russia?

The law prohibits missionary activities outside of religious buildings. Both IS and the JW are guilty of this. The law prohibits organisations to encourage illegal acts. Both the the IS (terrorism) and the JW (missionary work) are guilty of this. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to commit suicide. IS is guilty of this, the JW are not. The law prohibits an organisation from encouraging its members to refuse medical procedures. Afaik, IS is not guilty of this, the JW are. The JW and IS violate the same law on several counts. Do you now see why they were included on the same list?
Whether you think this law is broad or not is up to you. But I think it is justified. Religious people should keep their religion to themselves, and not engage in missionary activities (and I am saying this as a religious person)
And of the religious groups in Russia, the JW probably were one of the most controlling, with the exception of some other cults (also prohibited now) and probably islam (which is too large and established to prohibit)

The fact that missionary activities are forbidden for smaller organizations though shows a two tiered system in place. A system that discriminates against certain religious groups based on arbitrary laws in a democracy being used to target them.

The law might be justified, but I certainly have grave doubts about it being used as a bludgeon against the JW. I very clearly see why Russia included them on that list, I also see it had nothing to do with this law. Its a smokescreen for a targeted government campaign against a peaceful religious group.

It had everything to do with this law. The law was specifically made in order to also have leverage against non-violent religious cult groups. A cult does not need to be violent in order to be undesirable. Violating cultural norms is reason enough for many punishable offenses (also in the West), and I believe if there is an entire group dedicated to encouraging or excusing such deviant (or even illegal) behaviour that banning them is the right thing to. This is something that happens a lot. Dutch law followed the same line of reasoning when it banned Vereniging Martijn (a club of pedophiles), when it attempts to ban biker clubs or when it bans racist groups.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that while its opposition they might still adhere to what Putin views as Russian. Why does Russia ban the promotion of Homosexuality in public? Why not just ban the whole opposition in one fell swoop? Its clear hes removing cultures and religions he views a harmful to Russia as a whole. Its a lot less easy to just construct a law that bans all opposition, that's why you just murder the important ones

Russia bans the promotion of homosexuality in public because the vast, vast majority of the Russian population (and therefore also the Russian government) views it as a violation of public decency. Russians get upset when they see homosexuality in public, therefore it gets banned. The issue here is not with the laws or the ban, but with the worldview of the Russian people. But regardless of what you might think of it, the Russians as a sovereign, democratic nation have the right to their own opinions and to elect representatives that act on those opinions. Democracy is a system of the majority. The biggest issue with democracy as a political system is that it tends to be not very friendly towards minorities. A true democracy is dangerously close to being a tyranny of the majority.
With cults, it is the same thing. It is not Putin saying "I think these people are not Russian enough, ban them.", it is the Russian people saying "We do not want these people in our midst, they disturb us. Do something about it." to their representatives.
Putin is not a dictator. The only reason he remains in power for so long is because he is (almost) always doing things that the Russian people want him to do. He rarely makes unpopular decisions.

That is exactly what I mean, maybe Russians get upset when they see JW evangelizing, as that's also forbidden for some reason. Just like homosexuality, the law/public gets angry at minority religions for evangelizing and apparently some wayward extremist cult. See how easy it is to wield the label of public opinion against something that's different? That's what I'm trying to point out by bringing up homosexuality. But its a whole lot more difficult to wield it against some vaguely defined opposition.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I certainly have objections to just calling Russia a democratic nation, as its treatment of the opposition shows. The thing you said about tyranny of the majority and the 'Russian people saying' perfectly encapsulates why Russia is far from a decent democracy. Why does the government give in to the tyranny of the majority and what the 'Russian population says' by prosecuting these people when it should defend them? JW didn't hurt anyone but themselves! Yeah they might have some weird viewpoints but then make legislation that targets those viewpoints instead of just implementing a blanket ban just because 'they disturb' you.

This is all very true. A good democracy safeguards the rights of minorities. Russia is far from being a good democracy. But it is even further from being a dictatorship. Russia is a flawed democracy, and you could definitely call it a dictatorship of the majority. But that makes the people the dictator, and not Putin.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of people who frequently criticise Putin are all still alive, and the only ones who died were the ones that ran afoul of criminal elements or a certain mister Kadyrov.

As long as political opponents happen to get killed and opposition politicians get harassed and arrested it runs closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. when the state controls almost all media and consistently runs pro-Putin material while criticizing his opponents you cant really have free elections. This is why Putin is a dictator. The idea that the only ones who died ran afoul is ridiculous, are you really saying Magnitsky, Litvinenko and of course Ukranian president Yushchenko fell afoul of bad elements? These people were clearly killed or were tried to kill because them living was inconvenient to Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/?utm_term=.d48965f9784f

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm somewhat conflicted on this topic because of personal experiences.

Most active JW's I've met have been perfectly happy, nice and functional people, if a bit weird. No harm there, we're all a bit weird.

I also know many former JW's who describe it as an oppressive cult, highly controlling and often ruining family relationships (most typically parent-child from the people I know) and are extremely insular, to the point where a child simply leaving the church is effectively dead to a practicing parent, disfellowship is a very serious thing.

I dont know enough to comment further than that, my ignorance on JW doctrine and internal workings is almost total, my experience purely anecdotal. They dont seem to cause issues with anyone beyond annoyance to those who have never been part of their faith, but it's also not hard to see where JW's are easy targets, rightly or wrongly, for this sort of banning in places where freedom of belief is either not guaranteed or not seen the same way as the US.

My "experience" of JW is almost purely academic, but your anecdotes do line up with much of what I've read in university settings. Among the bizarre things are the doctrines of disfellowship (if someone leaves the church, they are ostracized and are not to even be communicated with, as you said. . . the person leaving is dead to the family)

As they are literal interpreters of the bible, obviously SSM is no bueno, but that isn't really all that bizarre in an evangelical christianity context.

But the "weirdest" belief that I came across was the literal interpretation of the 144,000 people ascending to heaven thing. Basically, the 170k Russians are competing with the several hundred thousand or million or whatever other followers around the globe, including those who are already dead, for 144k "seats" in heaven.

I've worked with a few JWs in my time and something I respect is why they don't vote or join the military or go for public office. The good book says (paraphrasing) 'don't worry about the kingdom of man, worry about the glory of god".

When asshat politicians say "God told me to run for Senator" or whatever, well, that's not what the Book says.

 feeder wrote:
I've worked with a few JWs in my time and something I respect is why they don't vote or join the military or go for public office. The good book says (paraphrasing) 'don't worry about the kingdom of man, worry about the glory of god".

When asshat politicians say "God told me to run for Senator" or whatever, well, that's not what the Book says.

I think politicians have made it abundantly clear that the Book says whatever they need it to say.

Interesting to note that on their official website, www.jw.org there are summaries of each day's proceedings. If the State had handled their case before the USSC the same way they handled it before the Russian SC, I think they would have been laughed out of the room.

Also from what I can gather their stance on blood is from the Bible and not just some weird thing someone came up with. Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:14, and Acts 15:22. It would seem from a Google search that many medical professionals are opting for bloodless procedure even for non-JW patients, faster recovery, less rejection, and fewer post-operative issues like infections.

On the 144,000 thing it doesn't seem to be so much a competition to get to heaven as a chosen number who are regarded as 'anointed' or 'chosen' and their number was sealed long ago (Revelation 5:9,10; 14:1-4), they believe that a much larger number is going to inherit the earth forever under Jesus Christ's leadership. Revelation 21:1-4, Matthew 6:9-14, Isaiah 65:22.

That's from their website. I digested a bit. If anyone knows their bible it's them.

I don't think any of that makes them terrorists or really even dangerous to their neighbors.

Also maybe some of our Russian contributors could explain Article 28 of the Russian constitution, doesn't it guarantee religious liberty?

Whether you love JW's or hide when they come around (haven't seen them around here for a few weeks) they seem to be decent folks and deserving of the same rights as everyone else.