behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.

And yet, clergy members tend to get away with things because they use their religion as excuse. People use religion as an excuse and get away with it daily. That's why certain religions should flat out be banned.

Which means that the idea and the law itself might be okay, yet it isn't enforced well enough. certain religions should be banned more easily as it is easy enough to prove that "wanordelijkheden" are often the direct result of doctrine.

Example. parents can be ignored in their wishes to not give blood to children, yet this wish is direct result of religion. Punishments need to not only be given towards members, but the religion (if its organized) aswell. does it happen? almost never, or with way to much effort.

"shunning is not illegal" But that's all a matter of perspective, because JW church in particular teach their members that everyone who stops believing is "apostate" and should be shunned. this is straight up discrimination and forced mental abuse by the church, which is enforced by the church to shun members who don't shun ex members..

that's my point, it's easy enough to prove how (in this case JW) religion is harmfull when doctrine is forced in some way on members, or oneself. therefor, the "freedom of religion" should be way more controlled en enforced.

Shunning people for safety is different from shunning people based on discrimination. please don't compare them as if they are the same.

With regards to CSA JW have miscalculated the limits and they are feeling some consequences for that now. The changes they made to their policies are just enough to comply with the law, yet of course their policies are still quite bad and immoral. In some countries lawmakers are now looking to change the law to make sure JW and others do more to protect children.

If a country needs to adjust its laws to protect children, there are more things wrong than just "freedom of religion"