Jehovah's Witness banned in Russia

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Seattle Husker, Apr 20, 2017.

  1. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Russia's equivalent to our SCOTUS labeled them "extremist" and banned them. With this ban the Russian state takes ownership of their St. Petersburg HQ and their 400 Chapters across the country.

    As someone who was attended the church for a short time (babysitter) I certainly don't subscribe to their beliefs but this seems a bit rash. Just another example of the Russia authoritarian state?
  2. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The Russians should take a page from our friends in Saudi Arabia and be more tolerant of the Jehovah Witnesses. Oh, wait....
  3. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    In all fairness, banning them and seizing property seems a little harsh. Of course if Janet Reno had been in charge, it could have been much worse.
    Horn6721 likes this.
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    This is history right here. Musburger actually said something about Russia that was less than eulogizing. It was a pretty tepid criticism, and it was mitigated by diverting attention to Saudi Arabia, but it was a criticism nevertheless. That's progress.

    Either his pay check bounced, or he's trying to hustle a raise.
    mchammer likes this.
  5. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    Yeah, maybe just a tad bit harsh.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    Mr. Deez likes this.
  6. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Not the first time nor the only country where officials have tried to silence Jehovah's Witnesses. In the United States they've had some cases go to the Supreme Court. I credit the group with advancing freedom of speech/religion here. Personal freedoms are quite different in Russia and Saudi.
  7. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The initial post by SeattleHusker was to point out Russian authoritarianism. Interestingly, Pat Buchanan wrote an article today commenting on the death of democracy and hinted that diversity is the driving force behind this process. He makes a strong case.
    Before Trump was elected, I predicted he would move the country toward authoritarianism. If he wished to govern, he had no choice. Now that the election is over, and a number of Trump's promises appear to have been reversed, it hasn't been the result of a democratic process, but rather pressure brought about by non-elected persons with more power than Trump; at least that's my perspective. Where Trump can exercise power, he's moving forward in a unilateral way. In other cases (foreign policy) the forces that control Trump or moving forward their agenda without Congressional input.

    Buchanan's article:
  8. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    That law classifies crimes "motivated by prejudice or, as stated in Russian law, 'ideological, political, racial, national or religious enmity, as well as hatred or enmity towards a social group'" as extremist.

    Didn't the government violate the same law when they nationalized the church property?
  9. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    Really? I thought that elected officials confirmed Gorsuch and temporarily stopped repeal of ACA.

    Even though the 9th circuit stopped the travel ban temporarily, and those with any common sense know that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision if given the opportunity, that is one of the checks and balances in our system. Regardless, you can't claim authoritarianism while simultaneously claiming he is stopped from being authoritarian by others. Just another example of your tripe.

    "Where Trump can exercise power, he's moving forward in a unilateral way". No kidding? He is the head of the executive branch of government. What should he do, defer to someone else?
  10. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    In case you haven't noticed, policy has increasingly been implemented by executive order. Wars are fought before Congressional approval. And even actions such as dropping the world's largest non-nuclear bomb were done without the knowledge of the President.

    Perhaps the most powerful policy maker in the US is the federal reserve. They control monetary policy, are not elected by the public, and are not subject to audit.

    Judges, like politicians, are basically screened by interest groups and powerful corporations before a President gives them consideration.

    Was the general public represented when the ACA legislation was written? Hell, Congress didn't even know what they were voting on.

    As time moves on, America resembles less and less a representative Republic.
  11. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    What you don't seem to grasp is that the whole system is set up to deal with competing interests.
  12. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    That is the point of Buchanan's piece if you take the time to read it. Too many competing interests (diversity) is resulting in governmental dysfunction. The democratic features are rotting. As a result, autocracy fills the void.
  13. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    And yet you argue autocracy that gets stopped by others, or ignore facts concerning elected leaders.
  14. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Stop your inane babbling. Democracy to authoritarianism is a process which runs along a continuum.

    The collection facilities which gather all electronic communications and geospatial data of all US citizens is an authoritarian tool that continues to advance.
    Crockett likes this.
  15. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I don't like the situation, but damn it Musburger1, there is a lot of evidence that validates your point.
  16. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Hager Hair Baby

    The Russian bicycle lobby will not stand for this
    Seattle Husker likes this.
  17. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    In my neighborhood, it's the Mormons who cycle. The JW folks distributing "AWAKE" have been, curiously enough, attractive young mothers walking the neighborhood in dresses and heels. I open the door for them, but hey I'm a liberal, free-speech loving, guy.
    Dionysus and Seattle Husker like this.
  18. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    There have always been many competing interests, but that doesn't hurt democracy.
    Another fallacy. Executive orders have shown a decreasing trend since Truman, but don't let facts get in the way of your job of criticizing all things American.
    Congress has repeatedly issued Authorizations for Military Force, including one to fight terrorists. Additionally, the President does not need pre-approval of Congress to take military action.
    The President clearly stated that he has given military leadership the green light to do what they do best. We have to assume that he would be briefed on the details if that is what he wanted.
    I assume you realize that these people are appointed to their positions like many other government employees. They didn't just get together on their own and decide to engage in monetary policy. To say that perhaps they are the most powerful policy maker is more of your unauthenticated horse manure, but if you can prove that point, feel free.
    Yes, people that have vested interests are engaged in politics. The constitution allows, and even encourages participation in the process.

    Yes they were. The law passed through Congress and the President, unfortunately, which is how the system works. That doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake, like many other laws.
    Really? I haven't seen any change.
    Your predictions are worthless. As stated before, the system won't allow a Russian style authoritarian like Putin in the USA. Too many checks and balances.
    Go ahead and list the ones he has reversed, and we can discuss the importance and impact.

    You need to adjust your tin foil hat and stick with conspiracy theories as part of your useless attempt to undermine America. Those theories can't be proven even though they make you look foolish. By the way, I heard that the standard of living in Russia is about the same as it is in Haiti, and average household income is about USD$17,000 per year. How is that working out for you? Instead of criticizing, maybe you should take a lesson from daddy and try and copy our system.
  19. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Iatrogenic. What is there to say to you? Maybe I should speak in a language you might understand. The language of the sheeple.

    Baaaah Baaaah Baaaah. Go follow the herd.
  20. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

  21. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    As flawed as our system is and as much as money and special interest tend to corrupt the process, we do have an incredibly robust and free press (not always clear headed) and reasonable safety in our persons. Hillary isn't in jail or on the lookout for agents putting radioactive poison in her food or getting injecting by some special agent passerby with a specialized umbrella.
    Mr. Deez and iatrogenic like this.

Share This Page