The Thing is, partly because of history of being theistic states, partly because of current cooperations/ contracts between Vatican / Protestant churches and the state, partly because the deep entrenchment between the Church and the Population, western governments are wary of going after a faith because it’s “harmful to its members”.
The issue first became a Problem back in the 60s and 70s when a lot of new relgious Groups popped up, became attractive to Teenagers and the debate about brainwashing and other manipulative methods to gain members started (and Kidnapping + deprogramming methods were thus “justified”).
However, when the new Groups pointed out that a) sect is discriminatory, since it means “split apart from the main Group” but they were original or the real deal, the others were apostates b) that a lot of Mainstream churches like RCC also used scare tactics to Keep members, extort Money etc. , People started re-classifying the extremes ones as “harmful cults”, and realizing the Problem of legislation Tackling one Group because it’s small and powerless, but leaving RCC or similar alone. (With the reveal of how widespread e.g. sexual abuse is in the RCC, this Argument has gained new strength)
In Western Europe, there’s also the Memory of e.g. JW being persecuted under the Nazis, so having a “righteousness Bonus”.
Now, if a church/ cult commits documented acts of Sabotage against the government, the govt. feels justified in re-classifying this cult as threat, and prosecuting them, which is what several EU countries have done with Scientology (causing the right-wing, Religion-leaning US govt. to cry out about religious perseceution).
My guess is that Putin targeted the JWs for similar reasons they’ve been targeted in the past: they’re an easy Goal. They are a small Group, so People won’t protest, or know them personally; they are peaceful, so they won’t engage in violent protests; the rest of the Population likes a scapegoat.
Um, who in this thread or elsewhere outside Russia has said that they are okay with it? Most have pointed out that 1) JWs are harmful to their members and those who want to leave 2) this in no way justifies what Russia is doing.
As I said, my guess is that the JW actively refuse to participate in the trappings of patriotism. As a Canadian, I got dirty looks and yells from Americans when I forgot to remove my hat at the beginning of the national anthem at a Yankees game…
In a country which lost huge numbers of its citizens to foreign invaders and substituted patriotism for national religion for almost a century and has a hostility to religion, especially not the historical national one… What do you think they make of a cult that actively refuses to participate in things like singing the national anthem? It’s not a matter of “who can we scapegoat easily?” It’s almost like the JW’s were taunting the authorities in an authoritarian country. (Kind of reminds me of the Christian getting persecuted in Rome for refusing to sacrifice in the temple to the emperor…)
I read somewhere that there are something like 170,000 JWs in the whole of Russia.
I guess it falls in the “sweet spot” (ergh) for a “scapegoatable” community: There are enough of them that they achieve a certain “visibility”, yet too few for a lot of people to have personal experience of dealing with them.
In the USA you have people whining because someone kneels during the national anthem or (back in 1968) holds their fist up. Try to imagine what the attitude is like to people who disrespect the national anthem and other patriotic mumbo-jumbo when the country has gone through the wars and turmoil the USSR did, and centers their identity around it. I don’t argue what Russia does is right, I’m just saying that JW’s have essentially taped a giant “kick me” sign on their backs. A religion that emerged in the tolerance of the USA probably is not culturally acclimatized to the notion that some other countries take their patriotism far more seriously and tolerate dissent less. Denying basic truths of the primary religion (I.e. trinity) probably doesn’t help.
Yes, but that’s part of the strategy. JWs require their membership to make immense sacrifices, and of course then the sunk cost fallacy starts to apply, and balances against the promise of extreme rewards to come. Basically, persecution by outsiders works very well for the religion, validating many of its claims and culling the membership so that those who aren’t inclined to commit 100% are weeded out early.
Yes, and the “immense cost” they had to set up when starting out in the USA to get their group isolated, translates to a far deeper insult to the host country once the same principles are applied abroad to other countries with other standards.
I’m surprised the JW’s survived the Second World War, considering the vicious ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tartars among others.
Via Wikipedia: " A total of more than 230,000 people were deported, mostly to the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. This included the entire ethnic Crimean Tatar population, at the time about a fifth of the total population of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as smaller numbers of ethnic Greeks and Bulgarians. A large number of deportees (more than 100,000 according to a 1960s survey by Crimean Tatar activists) died from starvation or disease as a direct result of deportation. It is considered to be a case of ethnic cleansing.[1][2][3] For a long time, Crimean Tatars and Soviet dissidents called for recognition of the genocide of Crimean Tatars."
More egregiously, the Tartars who were serving in the Red Army also ended up in the wastes of Uzbekistan.
Apologies If I’m going off topic wrt the Jehovahs Witnesses on this.
And then they came for me, but there was no one to speak out for me, for there were none left.
I am glad i only see 2 people who think it is ok, but still i wonder, how many others globally think the same.
When does it become not ok? After the death camps, and ovens, and gas houses begin operation?
I think most people don’t know what a JW even is, or only knows some minor facts like their avoidance of blood transfusions* and so don’t have much of an opinion either way. Though I believe is some evangelical mistrust of them as “not real Christians,” though not sure if that would affect treatment of them to any scale.
*At a day camp, some kids had some information next to their name on a sign up sheet, like “allergic to bees.” These two siblings had “JW - no blood” next to their names, and my young mind had fun trying to figure out what that meant, reverse vampires?
JWs, as human beings, have the same rights as the rest of us.
JWs, as a religion, should be free to practice their beliefs and rituals, except to the point where they harm innocents.
That’s the sticky point: their own children are harmed by the blood transfusion thing, though I don’t know that this is still current practice. The families of their members are really harmed by the practice of shunning (I have experienced this), and the people within the group suffer a great deal because of the way the organization polices its members (I have witnessed this).
I would be okay if they were banned for specific and intractable harmful and abusive practices, none of which by the way are unique to JWs. I am not okay with their being banned as a religion qua religion, or scapegoated because of mildly irritating social behaviours.
When I was a kid and my grandfather’s generation was beginning to have health issues, it came up quite a lot, as JWs refused surgery (cancer surgery for some of my great-aunts) because it might involve a transfusion. I would be surprised if the observance of this rule was still as strict. When I was born, my mother insisted that my father not allow the hospital to give her a transfusion in the event of complications.
Again, this is 1970s–1980s; I don’t have any knowledge of how JWs feel about the issue after that.