I like the Watch Tower Witness shunning and snubbing. I hope they never change it. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Once a Watch Tower Witness starts shunning and snubbing they lose all influence on their victim. In addition, the snubbing is an effective vaccination for many like me, against the possibility of ever wanting to return to associating, on any level, with the Watch Tower people.
I've enjoyed watching the Watch Tower Witnesses make fools of themselves but after a really short while, they bore me.
Shunning: A Violation of YOUR Right of Freedom from Religion?
by cameo-d 23 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
garybuss
-
IP_SEC
i dunno. shunning has been only a blessing to me.
they bore me. indeed dude. every last one of them.
-
Spook
I'm a big proponent of raising lawasuits against the JW's, even though most of them will be dismissed. I think some day we'll get a big break from the American Medical Association.
-
sammielee24
Disfellowshipping is punishment that is meted out by a judiciary committee. This committee is as we now know not a client/clergy privilege but a judicial committee and therefore, the actions of the committee would I have to assume be accountable as a legal entity separate from the church. Isn't this why Elders are now being forced to testify?
When a person is disfellowshipped, all others are ordered to shun them and as in their latest WT articles, even to the point of kicking them out of their homes if not married and regardless of the hardships those family members may find themselves or even the danger they may find themselves in.
Shunning is carried out by members because of the WTS doctrine and there are enough of their articles to prove it over the years. So now the question is - how can we prove that this practice is dangerous and how legally accountable should they be.
To me, it is pretty clear cut. A parent following the shunning practice, refuses to allow the child into the house to live even though the child is homeless and in danger. The child is murdered. The parent would not have refused the child a home if the WTS didn't enforce the shunning and so the WTS has been reckless in their behaviour by forcing parents to shun their children.
An elderly parent needs financial and physical support, but because of the shunning/disfellowshipping practices, cannot allow their adult children to live in her home. She is neglected, becomes ill and subsequently dies of what could have been a very treatable illness. The mother would have had the support and help she needed had the WTS not enforced the shunning policy and they are again reckless in their behaviour.
The same goes for suicide when a person is shunned.
Alienation of affection because of shunning.
In most cases, disfellowshipping should only be part of a practice that simply ceases spiritual discussion but one that still encourages physical relationships if it were really a religious practice. Shunning as a punishment for the disfellowshipping, clearly pushes it out of a religous context and into a legal and moral one. There is nothing to be gained from forcing a family to remove their loved ones from their lives and by doing so, the WTS has overstepped their rights on a spiritual or religous level and inflicted damage unnecessarily on others.
Ditto for the discrimination of baptized vs non baptized people. A child does not understand the ramifications of baptized and the WTS does not make it clear that there is a major difference in the treatment of those people. This means that two people who commit the same offense do not suffer the same sentence. One is not shunned and the other is - yet the one who is may not have understood the WTS had a different set of rules for each player. sammieswife.
Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
[edit] Recklessness
Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. For example, a person acts recklessly when he throws a small brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. No intent to kill may be found in the situation, and a resulting death would not be considered murder. However, the conduct is reckless, or criminally negligent, holding the principal guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The person is aware of the risk of injury to others, but willfully disregards it.
In jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, if a person is so reckless as to "manifest extreme indifference to human life", the defendant may be guilty of aggravated assault as well as of involuntary manslaughter. [
-
La Capra
The freedom of religion guaranty protects individuals from the government's infringement on religion, and from the government establishing religion (or favoring one over another). There are some extensions within the context of work place and a few other categories. However an individual can shun away. The use of a funeral home would likely fall into the category of privately rented property, though, since someone is always paying for the services and room at the facility.
-
alamb
I think on an adult level shunning exists due to innumerable factors. But I think that when a child/parent relationship is broken or damaged there should be punitive and legal damages. A parent has a legal right to his or her child. A child has a right to two loving parents....no matter their religion.
Also I think these issues border on discrimination on an "adult" level (and I mean that only in an over-21 level.......it's VERY juvenile at best)
-
cameo-d
Rebel 8:
I think ACLU takes on issues that are illegal, right? Shunning is not illegal, nor is asking someone to leave private property just because you don't like them.
It seems to me that 'shunning' would mean avoiding contact. What I am seeing in some of these prior posts is not shunning. It is verbal aggression and physical confrontation. I would think 'shunning' means to ignore and not to engage the person in conversation. That being the case, technically, the JW should just choose not to speak to the person in attendance rather than bully them to leave.
In the particular case I was referring to, the JW who asked someone to leave, was not the person in charge of the event. Therefore, I would think this JW used a silent threat of his position in order to coerce the householder to allow him to dictate the punishment to her guest.
This is beyond shunning. It is public defamation of character.
-
-
Jim_TX
Thank you alamb for posting that link - which shows what I was thinking - and mentioned above.
Religious discrimination.
Which - I believe should be the route to take - especially if they allow some people to attend who are not JWs. The room full of people would break down to JWs, non-JWs, and DF'ed JWs - with the DF'ed JWs being asked to leave.
Reverse the situation. If a funeral were organized by a non-JW (or DF'ed JW), and a JW showed up - and they were asked to leave - they might leave - but would be crying discrimination - or 'religious persecution'.
Again - Discrimination - religion.
Regards,
Jim TX
-
rebel8
Mrs. Fiorini--Check through my old posts. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, so you should find lots of posts.
cameo--
It seems to me that 'shunning' would mean avoiding contact. What I am seeing in some of these prior posts is not shunning. It is verbal aggression and physical confrontation.
Oh. If this is what you're talking about, I guess I'm totally confused as to what the question is for this thread. :?
Harassment and assault can be reported to the police, whether religion is involved or not.
In the particular case I was referring to, the JW who asked someone to leave, was not the person in charge of the event. Therefore, I would think this JW used a silent threat of his position in order to coerce the householder to allow him to dictate the punishment to her guest. This is beyond shunning. It is public defamation of character.
You'd have to find a law that prohibits a non-host to ask a person to leave private property.
Defamation of Character has a legal definition, which would need to be met in order to be considered against the law. How does the situation you're talking about compare to the legal definition?