Are You Neutral?

[minister159]

55 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

They would think that I can't tell the difference between politicians, they all look and sound the same to me, so I ignore all of them equally.

 

Kind of like Sting's lyrics in his song,"If I ever lose my faith in You"?:

 

"You could say I'd lost my belief in our politicians
They all seemed like game show hosts to me" 

[Hope]

I believe there is a real challenge when situations involve racial or gender issues (which may or may not be political in nature).  In general, men - especially Western White men - are not affected by and may not be as empathetically aware of the very real issues that women and/or people of color face every single day. Sometimes, even within their congregations, as a result.   Being aware and mindful of one's place in society and one's unconscious or even conscious biases will help a lot with empathy and neutrality, I think.  Also in being able to recognize if an attitude expressed by another is truly non-neutral or if that person is simply expressing/explaining their feelings and experiences in their life.  Making the effort to be humble, loving, kind, and understanding is NEVER wasted.

 

Of course, the above applies to all of us - not just those viewed as "privileged" or not.  

Edited April 17 by Hope

[Hope]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Nuetral is the nu neutral...

 

I am not neutral about misspellings...   

[Sheep]

29 minutes ago, Hope said:

I am not neutral about misspellings...   

Me too. I am absolutely intolerant of any politically-motivated misspellings in the forums. This misspelled topic is a scam, and the the author of the OP should recuse himself.

 

Please change the title of this topic.

 

[Mike047]

Is this some new transgender thing?

[Pabo]

On 4/17/2024 at 2:32 PM, Tsheppar said:

We can do a test! 

 

Does one on these pictures anger you  and stir up deep internal emotions ? 

 

If the answer is yes , then it might be something to think on. 

 

I have the tendancy to call "a spade, a spade". So it want be long before a spade will be needed for these two. How I would use this spade, I'll let you ponder on that.

[IceBreeze]

20 hours ago, Qapla said:

Is there some significance to those pictures? Why would I have any reaction to those pictures?

Yes for sure because I have, and wear, several red ties too 😂

Edited April 18 by IceBreeze

[Mike047]

19 hours ago, Mike047 said:

Is this some new transgender thing?

Ok, so this didn't raise a laugh. But in terms of being neutral, I am not backward in going forward, especially when it comes to clothes befitting elderly gentlemen, since I try to copy their styles.

8 hours ago, Pabo said:

I have the tendancy to call "a spade, a spade".

I also have an aversion to mispronounced words, though sometimes it is difficult to know the difference, for example:

 

They grieved there sun from too 'till nine

And threw the misty reign

The vintners, they began to wine

And the weathercock looked vein

 

They stood around the grave in tiers

The church bells were not peeling

One woman wept between the beers

Her perfume scent some reeling

 

All new the lad wood never give

He thought it was a waist,

He was, they say, a fugitive,

Though he was always chaste

 

The jury, they had come to naught

Though they had maid there peas

The judge and jury were all taut

Tormentors had there teas

 

The moral of this storey is,

If ewe don't want to dye

Let goodness be yore emphasis,

Don't cheat or swear or lye

 

Maybe English isn't so bad

[davanz]

I think that simply having an opinion on something based on politics or government actions is not breaking my neutral stance. Remember the times in history when, at the request of the Branches, we wrote letters to the political leaders of different countries asking them to change their stance against our brothers? Was that getting involved in politics? Or today, do you have an opinion on whether you would like to see the government of Russia lighten up on Jehovah's servants there? Or do you truly not care what happens to them? If you do have an opinion, do you consider this breaking your neutrality? More to my point, when I hear of certain politicians/leaders trying to enact certain laws or push certain agendas, many times I have a personal opinion about it, wishing it were to be this way or that. If I see a certain political or governmental action being helpful or harmful to my family, friends, or myself, I can't help but have an opinion. But as long as I am not campaigning, or voting to get certain leaders elected, I am not breaking my neutrality. 

 

Here is a test for you, to analyze your neutrality. Imagine you live on a city street in a residential neighborhood, and you have children which play outside. Now we all know that children can be inattentive and reckless at times. So, a neighbor comes to you and asks you to sign a petition to present to the City, asking that the speed limit on your street be reduced, or that the City install warning signs to caution motorists about the possibility of children running into the street. Would you sign it? I would, if I thought there were a safety need. That would not be breaking neutrality, in that I am not trying to advocate for a certain politician, or party. Nor would I be advocating on behalf of a human government in lieu of Jehovah's. It is the same principal as the Faithful Slave practices when they work to change the negative attitudes and actions of governments toward out brothers and sisters when needed.

 

Simply having an opinion can be compatible with being politically neutral,

Edited April 18 by davanz

[campanula]

This topic  makes me want to delete most of my posts here.

No joke. 

[Theocat0]

I would like to add to this topic.  I think it's fair to say that every JW wants to see justice done! And our stance of who defines this 'justice' is Jehovah!  When the world rules in favor of this justice we are pleased.  When they are not we are displeased...so if the world is displeasing us (by it's lack of justice) it bothers us.  That does not (in my opinion) effect our neutrality because we have a stance.  But we don't go and protest or try to change or rally or in some way try to force our stance on another. Instead we would teach them Bible truth (if they would allow) Neutrality is a difficult concept.  I agree with davanz re: the safety issue.  Some might consider this as breaking their neutrality but really is just following Jehovah's principle re: safety.

 

When a person is so far removed from following Bible principles that it is disgusting it is so easy to not like the person.  This is where our neutrality is tested because we are not supposed to hate the person but hate the behavior!...like I said a difficult concept!

 

"Simply having an opinion can be compatible with being politically neutral, "

[Mike047]

13 hours ago, davanz said:

I think that simply having an opinion on something based on politics or government actions is not breaking my neutral stance.

The difficulty often comes when we express our opinion too loudly and too often. I know personally that this is something to be very aware of. Having an opinion that we keep to ourselves, doesn't go anywhere else, but when it escapes through our lips it can become a problem. I have fallen hostage to this on more than one occasion.

[Dolce vita]

On 17/04/2024 at 22:37, Mike047 said:

Est-ce une nouvelle chose transgenre ?

Very funny indeed, but maybe it's because I'm French.

[IceBreeze]

48 minutes ago, Mike047 said:

The difficulty often comes when we express our opinion too loudly and too often.

The difficulty comes when we express or have a opinion about this anyways.

 

The meaning of "neutral" is to have a opinion about something. Since we are no part of the world, we have no opinion about these things.

[Witness1970]

If someone has been a crook all his life, could you call him a crook and be "neutral."  It would seem to be natural!  What if that crooked person then goes into politics?  Can you still call him a crook and be neutral?

 

There seems to be a belief nowadays that a man who is a crook, can go into politics and suddenly gain ethics.  I realize that one political party may be more crooked than the other, but they are both crooked!  I don't favor one over the other. 

 

  Before Hitler came to power were the German Witnesses aware of what kind of dictator he would be?   Even if they were did they favor one political party over the other?  

 

I don't cheer for the United States in the Olympics just because I live here.  I hardly even watch the Olympics and then I have no favorites.  Some of those athletes are very talented!

 

I told my wife I thought Snoop Dogg was very talented.  She started talking about his type of music.  I told her that I did not listen to that type of music, but I did see his talent.  He was on an episode of "Monk" and that's how I saw him.

Edited April 19 by Witness1970
I had to save and edit to finish my post.

[IceBreeze]

11 minutes ago, Witness1970 said:

If someone has been a crook all his life, could you call him a crook and be "neutral."  It would seem to be natural!  What if that crooked person then goes into politics?  Can you still call him a crook and be neutral?

The Bible says;  “That is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean . . ." If that person goes (back) into politics, it would not be in line with Jehovah's principles. Potentially this person can pick up again a previous lifestyle as what the Bible does refer to as; “That is what some of you were."

Edited April 19 by IceBreeze

[davanz]

53 minutes ago, IceBreeze said:

The difficulty comes when we express or have a opinion about this anyways.

 

The meaning of "neutral" is to have a opinion about something. Since we are no part of the world, we have no opinion about these things.

So Brother K, regarding your last sentence, I have a question for you. I am referring to the illustration I used. When you read about what our Brothers in Russia are facing, and the thought comes to mind of how great for them it would be if the authorities there would stop the bans and persecutions, you literally have no opinion as to whether you would be in favor of relief for them?  You do not care? Or, consider this scenario. One of the local political parties in your area is considering banning your religious practice, but the opposing party says no bans, Jehovah's Witnesses should have the freedom to meet and preach. You really would have no opinion or wishes, one way or other? Honestly?

 

If you would like to see our Brothers in Russia have some relief, due to some governmental policy changes there, or, if in the second illustration, you would not want a certain political party to have their way, then you have a POLITICAL OPINION. 

[IceBreeze]

17 minutes ago, davanz said:

So Brother K, regarding your last sentence, I have a question for you. I am referring to the illustration I used. When you read about what our Brothers in Russia are facing, and the thought comes to mind of how great for them it would be if the authorities there would stop the bans and persecutions, you literally have no opinion as to whether you would be in favor of relief for them?  You do not care? Or, consider this scenario. One of the local political parties in your area is considering banning your religious practice, but the opposing party says no bans, Jehovah's Witnesses should have the freedom to meet and preach. You really would have no opinion or wishes, one way or other? Honestly?

 

If you would like to see our Brothers in Russia have some relief, due to some governmental policy changes there, or, if in the second illustration, you would not want a certain political party to have their way, then you have a POLITICAL OPINION. 

Thank you brother for quoting my response. It is nice to be able to substantiate my response.

 

Like you, I naturally wish only the very best for all my fellow brothers and sisters. This also means for the brothers and sisters you quote in your example. With this I would also like to emphasize that I do care about the well-being of my fellow brothers and sisters. (nor did I intend to give the impression that I don't care about this).

 

What I am trying to explain is that I will not take sides in the political decision-making because these parties are, with all due respect, part of Satan's system. And they do not serve Jehovah.

[davanz]

33 minutes ago, IceBreeze said:

Thank you brother for quoting my response. It is nice to be able to substantiate my response.

 

Like you, I naturally wish only the very best for all my fellow brothers and sisters. This also means for the brothers and sisters you quote in your example. With this I would also like to emphasize that I do care about the well-being of my fellow brothers and sisters. (nor did I intend to give the impression that I don't care about this).

 

What I am trying to explain is that I will not take sides in the political decision-making because these parties are, with all due respect, part of Satan's system. And they do not serve Jehovah.

I think we are in agreement. I just think that some of our fellow believers believe that to be politically neutral means to not care at all what political party holds office, or who gets elected. For me, that is not the case. In my 76 years I have had occasion to observe elections, observe how various political parties enact certain laws, and at times these things can be harmful or helpful to my family or our worship of Jehovah. In those instances, I cannot pretend not to care who is in office, which party is in control, or what their actions might be. 

 

Having said that, I emphasize that no, I do not get involved in the worldly political processes, such as campaigning or voting. Nor do I get into such discussions with workmates, neighbors, or unbelieving relatives. That would be denying my neutrality stance. Like all of us here, the only Kingdom I actively work in behalf of is the Kingdom of the Christ.

[IceBreeze]

6 hours ago, Mike047 said:

...The difficulty often comes when we express our opinion too loudly and too often...

I saw your confused "like", but thank you for your like anyways. 😊 

I'm happy to point it out for you too, in detail. I refer to for instance this dictionary; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/neutral#google_vignette

 

When you scroll down in this dictionary you come across several examples of being neutral, like the one included below in this post.

It does mention what I shared in my previous post; "Not expressing an opinion, No opinion".

In this example you will see that it is about a disagreement, or war, but the same does apply for being political, or politically tinted situations.

 

Having said this, I repeat that ofcourse I want the best for my brothers and sisters and their wellbeing.

What the politics do is up to them, since they are ruled by Satan.

 

Ofcourse in my prayers I also include my brothers and sisters and ask Jehovah to help them to find "the way out of their difficulties and circumstances", despite what political organisations decide. 

 

😁

 

Edited April 19 by IceBreeze

[Reader]

I remember a talk by Bro. Jackson a few years ago. He mentioned about the time when there was an election in Austrailia and compared the 2 candidates. One was for a military draft and the other was against it. He thought to himself, how good it would be for the candidate who was against the draft to win. That would certainly make it easy for the brothers there. But he had to catch himself because that wasn't showing political neutrality. He said he needed to readjust his thinking and not want a particular candidate to win. That was a good example for us to follow. We can easily get drawn into political issues that seem worthwhile. But we must always maintain our neutrality even if it means we will live under less than desirable circumstances.

[Mike047]

I appreciate your points, 'K', but having opinions is what we are about. We seek to present a point of view, based on our theocratic training, and we should remain unbiased concerning political activities, and any other issues that could present us as supportive of the present system, and thus opposed to Jehovah, Christ Jesus and the Kingdom.

 

However,  we do have views concerning the issues that relate to the 'last days', across the spectrum, and these are strongly held. You notice on the JWTalk website that often brothers and sisters will include the acronym imo or imho, to confirm that they have a view, but it is often just their view. Paul, at Rom 14:1 says "Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions". Paul at 1Cor 7:39, 40 "A wife is bound as long as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whomever she wants, only in the Lord. But in my opinion, she is happier if she remains as she is; and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit." (Also 2Cor 8:10)

 

Having said this, lets just make sure that our opinions are God's opinions too.

 

 

 

 

[IceBreeze]

55 minutes ago, Mike047 said:

I appreciate your points, 'K', but having opinions is what we are about.

Thank you for appreciating.

 

I best add to this that after all this is not about "my points of view, or opinion", but about the Bibles point of view.

The Bible says we are NO part of this world. Therefore my personal thinking does not play a role in all of this. Also this is not to judge someone.

 

Defenition of opinion;

Synonyms of opinion. 1. a. : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.9 apr 2024

 

Please kindly watch the video "Neutrality in Thought and Action" (see screenshot) it's from the society. Come to a conclusion based on that video.

 

Source of screenshot citation; JW.org

 

😊

 

[Qapla]

Personally, I would rather have the type of neutrality that is akin to having a car out of gear ... not merely sitting with my foot on the clutch.

 

[IceBreeze]

2 minutes ago, Qapla said:

Personally, I would rather have the type of neutrality that is akin to having a car out of gear ... not merely sitting with my foot on the clutch.

 

You are too neutral to be true! lol 😂😂