Religious Freedom Laws...

wisdomfrombelow

I wonder if the religious freedom laws would allow active JWs to discriminate against former JWs? Could a business owner decide not to serve or sell to someone they consider "apostate" according to their beliefs? If so it could take shunning to a whole new level in some states.

cappytan

Interesting point!

SAHS

Church and state are now separate entities – and for a reason. The government (especially in the USA, as well as here in Canada) is rightly advocating basic human and civil rights across the board, enforceable by popular abd prevailing law. But as for the various religious institutions and movements, I think that they, being as they are detached from any palpable position of administering legally culpability, also have the right to dictate their own unique and peculiar brand of arbitrary ecclesiastical policy upon their members. Now, if one were to differ from such ecclesiastical – religious – dictates of policy, then they always have the option to simply leave that partucular religious affinity for that of another. But as for the extremist disfellowshipping mandates of cults such as the WT organization, the choice to allign with and comply with such mandates is, unfortunately, the privilege enjoyed by – and legally guaranteed by – its membership.

It’s a definite balancing act between allotting reasonable humanist laws by the state government guaranteeing fundamental rights and guaranteeing reasonable concessions and protection to all the various religious institutions and movements.

Basically, as I see it – as distasteful as it may be to some – if you don’t like any particular religious movement, then leave it and find another one. But, most unfortunately, if that would result in an extremest form of shunning, there’s really not much that can be done regarding the complicity of such shunning by family and friends. Although . . . . , fortunately, it is legitimately well within the auspices of all citizens of the “free world” to thoroughly expose the facts surrounding any such religious – or governmental, for that matter – entities to everyone.

So, basically, if you don’t like any religion, then just leave it. But if you can’t leave it without extremist sanctions (i.e., disfellowshipping/shunning), then thoroughly expose it – that’s your right too!

sir82

The spate of "religious freedom" acts being introduced in several states strike me as a sort of Alamo / Custer's last stand battle against the inevitable tide of moral progress.

I expect such acts to be about as successful as the combatants of those battles, as well.

Future generations will undoubtedly view the current crop of mouth breathing yokels who sponsor & support these thinly disguised "I hate homosexuals" acts as exactly as immoral & bigoted as those who argued for slavery, repression of women's suffrage, etc.in the past.

Giordano

I believe the Society is vulnerable because they demand that Shunning, is enforced by coercion...... as a JW is not able to exercise their freedom to not shun a Df person or a DA person.

Coercion

is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure.

In general, intimidation and threats are against the Law however wide latitude has been granted to religions probably under the assumption that it is not a dangerous act more like an inconvenience.

The shoe has dropped on the JW leadership who with the guidance of the Society, has made it possible for pedophiles to hunt among the children in the KH and be protected by the two witness rule. It's taken a while to get to this place in time that even religions can be held responsible.

Shunning may reach the same outrage that forces change. If it comes it may be any of the following religions that trigger it.

JW's are in the same company as Scientology, the Amish, the Mormons, and that extreme orthodox conservative religion which actually holds a mock funeral.