Quote Ian McKay Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:27 am
It is fair enough to say the JW group is extreme, harmful to individuals and harmful to family and social cohesion. It is opposed to modern knowledge, learning, science and some branches of medicine. It teaches an extreme form of fundamentalism and exercises an oppressive control over its members. In most of these ways it is almost as extreme as Exclusive Brethrenism.
So to ban it would seem a good idea, except for one thing: this would erode the longstanding guarantee of religious freedom, and would set a controversial precedent. Who would be next?
end quote (my bold)
On the one hand here Ian seem to imply that
1. There has been some longstanding guarantee of religious freedom which has as yet to experience any form “erosion”
But then on the other hand Ian had also already implied
2. that the JW’s exercises an oppressive control over its members (beliefs )
These two statement form a contradiction
1.If JW’s beliefs were oppressed .
2.Then where? was their longstanding “guarantee” of religious freedom
Religious freedom is never no more than a pipe dream .Theist must need to adopt use of a type of mental gymnastic’s so as to still enable themselves to be able to continue to “faithfully believe” and also therefore pretend otherwise
These are some of the feeble foundations of this sad horrid situation. Mental gymnastic’s
In contradiction of Ian’s claimed longstanding guarantee of religious freedom, the United States commission of civil rights group had instead had to say about the situation
The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.
They were intent on pulling no punches and just saying it like they feel it’s been. No games . No interest of entering into use of mental gymnastic’s .
And however yet again on wikipeebia within that very same thread The Questioner had had this to say on Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:28 am
I wouldn’t want the EB banned because I believe in freedom of belief. I do not believe in freedom of action. People’s beliefs do not need to be for the public good and in any case, who would decide that? Teresa May or Donald Trump? Or even PeterF or The Questioner?
None of that is the same as them having tax support as in the UK and other places.
But the exclusive brethren beliefs do indeed also incorporate some actions .
To say “I wouldn’t want the EB banned because I believe in freedom of belief”
Is a little bit like someone saying well “I wouldnt ever want to see Hitler being regulated or subdued , because i also happen to believe the freedom of human life”
The idea of
banning regulating oppressive groups like the exclusive brethren, doesnt necessarily erode freedom of religion any more than what the idea of regulating Hitler might also need to erode the right of human freedom of life
Consider these thoughts again.
1.Through the war effort against Hitler (the leader of Hitler-cult and all his faithful followers) was thus actively regulated . And that this regulation of Hitler his henchmen then also helped to allow far more humans to then be able to enjoy a far more positive freedom of life
2 So there is no good reason to expect it might necessarily need be so-different in regard to any regulation of any oppressive religious group’s either
Theist also like to apply a good dose of the scavenger’s trade as well too . For use of that “extra” effect on people’s mind (fear factor)
For instance, like this
“People’s beliefs do not need to be for the public good and in any case, who would decide that? Teresa May or Donald Trump? Or even PeterF or The Questioner?”
Here the questioner try to create (for us) “a vision” of this fearsome slippery slope that we might suddenly need to be faced with . Spoken as if we are not already being faced with one anyway?
Because, in another life,yes indeed it might just as easily have been someone totally different, such as someone like Teresa May or Donald Trump? Or even PeterF or The Questioner? who might have been able to become top dog of the exclusive brethren cult
Instead of it being Bruce Hales who had happen to seize control
So we dont ever get to actually escape this need to face the situation of a slippery slope .
However there is also no evidence to suggest that it cannot be done in a far more appropriate orderly manner. The same way we (society) are also being faced with other slippery slope issues of life ,such as building codes or road codes and so on
So these theist might do well to stop with playing around with metal gymnastic’s . Or perhaps? they are doing us all a great disservice by not caring to do so
Fisherman also “tap dances” around the truth .The man would like to admit the fact, that idea of freedom of belief, is pretty much impossible to uphold .
Quote fisherman Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:49 pm
The problem arises when these ‘freedoms ‘ cross the line and impact the lives of other people. One of the challenges of people emigrating to this country is them trying to excercise the ‘rights’ and practices of their old country.Sharia law might be acceptable where they came from, but not here. You can’t beat a woman in this country for not covering her face
They want to admit it. Accept for the fact that that might then also serve to start to curb their own right to become dominant
So instead they rather choose to revert to use of tactic of scaremonger (warning us of the slippery slope, hoping that this warning might serve to help make-us overlook the thought that we are already being faced with a type of dangerous slippery slope anyways.)
PeterF on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:14 am says quote
As for Euthanasia how long will it be until mandatory euthanasia is acceptable? Those incapable of adding to the GDP and or population replenishnent should not be allowed to devour scarce resources?
No evidence . No proof . Only foundation of a scaremonger’s faithfully believed bullshit
Its not as if we are free to make our own choice. Fact is we are already bound-up to the faith beliefs of the Christian. In effect someone else has already made the decision. So see how we are already being faced within the constrants of this slippery slope
We could just as easily ask PeterF . How long? has it been, that the Christian-beliefs have forced us all to need to allow for human to needlessly suffer. The level of suffering like we often wouldn’t care to ever dare allow our own pets and animals to need to suffer
This is a slippery slope like we are already being faced with (a slippery slope which is already been dominated-over by the Christian-beliefs)
So much evidence is now continually amounting that points toward religion having already been an anti freedom aspect within far too many people’s lives
Like this study for instance . Quote :
POLLS COULD BE WRONG ON HOW MANY ATHEISTS ARE ACTUALLY IN AMERICA
No big surprise .That there may be very many closet atheists who may have felt like they would need to tell lies about their atheism (they felt they had needed to, because religion does not honestly tend to help to promote right of freedom of religion) Due to fear of repercussion
This is reality
So much for this so called “longstanding guarantee of religious freedom”
So much evidence seem to continue to amount-up . Suggesting that the idea of religious freedom is bullshit
It remain the pipe dream of the theist . A pipe dream foundered on feeble mental gymnastic’s of tap dancing around with the truth