Legoyda on Jehovah's Witnesses *: More Explaining Why They Are Banned

[Tbs77]

Use Google Translate to see this:

 

https://ria.ru/20201015/legoyda-1579986551.html

 

MOSCOW, October 15 - RIA Novosti. The authorities should more clearly explain the decisions that raise questions among people, including the situation with the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses *, said Vladimir Legoyda, head of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media.

On Thursday, he took part in the online seminar "Prevention of terrorism in the framework of the implementation of state youth policy", which was held by the workshop of the "Senezh" management of the presidential platform "Russia - the country of opportunities".

"The more important point that I constantly encounter and what, it seems to me, the authorities fail to do is when some decisions are made, especially unpopular, something is prohibited - from the pension reform to the ban of Jehovah's Witnesses * (the organization is banned as extremist - ed.) - a modern person needs to be explained in detail, respectfully. As an Orthodox, I am not a fan of Jehovah's Witnesses *, I know that they are banned for extremism. But I do not fully understand, even I was not explained what they are. extremism, "Legoida said, adding that he exaggerates a little.

[Tbs77]

So is he serious about not knowing why witnesses are labeled as extremist? he's part of the ROC. If he's serious he may be in trouble for sounding somewhat concerned about transparency.

[Piotr Gonczar]

Do you think he don't know.

What can we expect from these people, when they contact with media - straight talk and true?

 

This remind me a false statement of Sergey Lavrov (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation)

He said:

"The structures of Jehovah's Witnesses that operated in Russia directly refused to comply with the requirements of Russian law"....

Original link

Lavrov statement about JW in Russia

 

 

[campanula]

21 hours ago, Tbs77 said:

So is he serious about not knowing why witnesses are labeled as extremist? he's part of the ROC. If he's serious he may be in trouble for sounding somewhat concerned about transparency.

This news source is one of the main Government's sources of propaganda. The only thing that this official wants is even more propaganda that means all sorts of dirt about us and our activity to excuse current political regime.  Do not be misled.....

[Katty]

I'd say they aren't really stating the real reason why they're banning Witness activities. They're only expressing the excuses they're making. 
It's a bit scary but unsurprising how many countries have these vaguely written anti-extremism laws. The UK already has similar laws in place, and this how people have actually been arrested simply from participating online with far right groups. Technically, under today's laws in many Western countries, The Witnesses could be classified as "terrorists" and nothing could be feasibly done about it, because the laws are written so vaguely, they're pretty much at the discretion of lawmakers. In a way, it's exciting, because we can see how all the countries are poised to turn their attention to "eating the fleshy parts" of Babylon the great.

I don't think this is the real reason why they're persecuting our brothers, however. Revelation 12 says a key reason why they're doing this. Satan came down with great anger and wants to destroy Jehovah's people, and is using the governments to do it. I believe governments like to make these convoluted excuses, because they don't actually know why they want to persecute the Witnesses, they just know that they want to.

[jwhess]

All human governments "desire" complete submission to thier will.  Autocratic governments "demand"  such submission.  Since we only offer relative submission and refuse verbally and in print to the demand for compete submission then they are correct in saying (as Br. Piotr cited)...

 

"This remind me a false statement of Sergey Lavrov (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation)

He said:  "The structures of Jehovah's Witnesses that operated in Russia directly refused to comply with the requirements of Russian law"...."

 

We refuse to swear allegiance to them, we refuse to join their military services, we refuse to vote for them and so on.  Since all or their regular citizens do these things as required by law, we are on the "extreme" edge of their view of required normalcy.  They do not like us, or our preaching and our attachment to a world-wide organization of peace. So we must be "extremists" in their view.

 

In Nazi Germany, we could sign a paper denouncing our beliefs, disavowing association with JWs and promising not to engage in the preaching.  We would be set free.  I am sure if we made such promises to the Russian government we could get back to normal lives ourselves.  But in these efforts, such authority does not understand our dedication to serving God before men.  The Sanhedrin didn't, the US government who locked our leaders in prison in 1918 didn't, the Nazis didn't so we are not surprised that the Russians don't either.

[Eejay]

On 4/15/2021 at 4:36 PM, jwhess said:

So we must be "extremists" in their view.

"extremist" is a very difficult word to define precisely. Dictionaries range from :

1. "someone who has an opinion or ideas that seem unreasonable to most people" 
2. "someone who goes through extreme tactics to reach their goal. These could involve torture, attack on innocent people and over-the-top violence." 

 

Definition 1.  has a focus on the thinking of the  accused. The application is highly subjective in that it requires a shared definition on what is "normal" by a supposed majority, a definition that the definer appears to arbitrate. That appears to be the method employed in Russia. Authorities use a local, political expectation of what is considered "normal", and measure Jehovah's Witnesses against that criteria. It is one thing to have  a view on what is considered to be "normal", but another thing altogether to seek to impose such a personal interpretation on someone else. Such a method actually denies freedom of choice and thought. Paradoxically, set against a wider international base of what is considered "normal", it is the Russian position that really fits the definition of "extremist" in that to deny freedom of thought in such a manner appears to be the extreme position.

 

Definition 2. has a focus on the behaviour of the accused.  It appears that the only way Russian authorities can shoehorn Jehovah's Witnesses to fit this method of defining an "extremist" is to characterise their religiously motivated behaviour as criminal, and then to arrest them for it. Interestingly, this definition would appear to be the basis of counter arguments against the accusation as it is leveled against Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. Their position as law-abiding, non-violent, honest, hard-working, obedient tax payers, substantiated by civic awards and general recognition  by academic authorities, is cited as evidence contradicting the claim that they are "extremists". 

 

From a Christian perspective, the "normal" view held by "the majority" is reflected in the words of Revelation 12:11: "“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!"

And the behaviour prompted by this commonly held recognition is also described in that same book at Revelation 7:11-12: "All the angels were standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, saying: “Amen! Let the praise and the glory and the wisdom and the thanksgiving and the honor and the power and the strength be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”

 

On that basis, it appears that both the viewpoint and the activities of the Russian authorities, if adhered to further, are actually themselves meeting the definitions of "extremist".

[jwhess]

The ones in charge make the rules, set the standards and interpret the outcome.  Our old adage about the "Golden Rule" says, "He who has the gold... rules"..🙂