Science acknowledges the thumb print of JEHOVAH?

 

Against litigious XVI

Litigiius:Introvigne’s argument also fails to address the broader ethical and legal implications of religious communities receiving state funding while engaging in coercive practices. Norway’s decision to deny state subsidies to Jehovah’s Witnesses does not amount to persecution or discrimination.

Myself: you speak of these state subsidies as if they are manna fallen from heaven,the money the state holds in trust is the fruit of our honest toil, and denying us access to it because you find our free exercise of our religious belief icky reduces the state to thuggery,there is no Right to anyone's association if you find my freely choosing to not associate with you traumatic that is your tough luck no state as any business compelling any citizen to associate with anyone they would rather not associate with.

 should the state compel a romantic partner to continue to have intimate relations with someone who has decided to start another relationship with another, because said philaderer finds being denied such intimacies coercive.

Or what if someone cuts of association over your choice of political affilistion should the courts insert themselves in that dispute as well.

All a secular court must concern itself with is the assessing of measurable losses and the safeguarding of actual rights not the fabricated rights our enemies are using to deny us our actual right to freedom of association.

 Litigious:Instead, it upholds a principle of fairness: religious organizations that receive public funds must adhere to fundamental human rights standards, including the right to freely exit a religion. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently upheld the right of states to regulate religious organizations that engage in harmful practices. Jehovah’s Witnesses' loss of registration and state subsidies in Norway does not prevent them from practicing their faith or gathering as a religious community. Rather, it prevents them from benefiting from state support while maintaining coercive disciplinary measures that violate fundamental human rights.

Myself:people have every right to exit our religion and if they find being denied the free association of a tiny minority of the population unbearable all they have to do us not get baptized,an option not available to those born in Catholic homes. They are free to associate with unbelieving relatives family members  workmates,even if they chose to get baptized and were later expelled. according to our self-styled betters these types of association would be superior, and would provide an opportunity for them to be deprogrammed from their cult brainwashing, so this isolation should actually be view as a good thing if people like litigious were being consistent. The free exercise of our right to associate with or indeed not associate with whom we choose to cannot be the business of the state, that is a stupid and dangerous precedent.

Litigious;In conclusion, Introvigne’s defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway is flawed both legally and morally. The Oslo District Court’s decision is not an attack on religious freedom but a necessary protection of individual rights, particularly the rights of minors. Religious freedom does not include the right to impose psychological coercion on members who wish to leave. The Catholic Church’s understanding of religious liberty recognizes the dignity of the human person and the importance of ensuring that religious commitments are made freely, without coercion or fear of social isolation. Ultimately, the decision in Norway aligns with the principles of justice and human dignity. Jehovah’s Witnesses, like all religious groups, have the right to practice their faith, but this right does not extend to practices that unduly infringe upon the freedoms of others. The Oslo court's ruling is a step toward ensuring that religious liberty is genuinely free and not merely a tool for control and coercion.

Myself: the Catholic Church is hypocritical in the extreme it never misses and opportunity to use state power(actual coercion) to force it's mores on individuals at gunpoint,and then shamelessly presumes to speak down to those who are merely exercising their individual rights as guided by their own conscience, those who choose to wield state power to impose their values at gunpoint on unbelievers and other believers are the real threat to civil liberty not those exercising their right to freedom of association they are no threat to any one.

And it is not only equal access to the taxes the state extracts at gunpoint from us that us at stake,but our weddings and funerals would no longer be recognized also the cost of doing necessary business would rise,

Our enemies are being misleading when they make the payments that courts have Said that all taxpayers are justly entitled to are all that are at stake here.