I know this question is a "slippery slope." but I am wondering if you belive there is a sin, that merits excommunication? I vote Child Molesters and Rapist and Murding (A unjustifiable murder, serial killers, outright evil by community standards.) as actions that merit shunning, what is your view on this subject matter?
Is There A Sin That Is Justifiably, For Excommunication Or Shunning?
by AvocadoJake 14 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
clarity
I vote child abusers, rapists and murderers too.
Have a look at this ... evidently the governing body does not!!
http://www.silentlambs.org/education/92_murder_letter.cfm
clarity
-
EmptyInside
Yes,they should be disfellowshipped ,but only after they are sent to prison. If I was still a Witness and knew of someone molesting a child,I would't go to the elders. I'd take it to the authorities.
This has been on my mind a lot lately. Someone close to me was molested by a Witness. And the parents of his victims did nothing. They didn't even report it to the elders. I don't understand it at all.
This man was eventually disfellowshipped after decades of incest and molesting other little girls in the hall. He recently got reinstated. He's old now,but I'm really frightened for the children at his hall. It's hours away from me,and I'm not sure what congregation. I saw him talking to a severely handicapped woman at a Convention,and thinking she could easily become one of his victims. He should be rotting in prison,not just recently reinstated,ugh.
-
AvocadoJake
If you have gone through a situation where molestation of a child is discovered, by a "glorious one", "the earthly princes." you will find out how impotent the elder body is. I pity individual christians who belive the elder body will provide you shelter, if there is a storm from the physical abuse, mental abuse or demonic elements raining down on them, your out of luck! The friends are noticing the Elders and Elderettes are repelled by dealing with the depressed souls and enjoy visiting those who will upbuild them with their fantasy field service stories. Years ago a elder with his crystall ball told my friend, "You have been reinsatated but it won't be long until you are gone again! You will be disfellowshiped again, why bother?" when his daughter feel in love with another woman, he covered this transgression over. It took letters to the Society for those toothless watchdogs (this certain body.) to take action. This action was only taken when his daughter got caught again, lusting after the fleshly bodies of other beautiful sisters. The daughter blamed her daddy for not punishing her the first time, and ratted out her daddy o. Is there others that have noticed that elders are told to stay away from those abused? There are rumors and peronal data that demostrates the elders are told to stay away from those with emotional problems. This begs the question, if you refuse to help those with emotional problems or those with depression, you might as well count on losing sixty percent of the brothers and sister. The Society can count on backing out 1,000,000,000 field service hours, since the majority of the Witnesses do suffer from different forms of anxiety, fear, depression, bi-polar, hypo-mania and a plethora of other mental problems. Does anyone know if there is proof, besides the observation of many depressed ones, the elders have been told to not spend their finite time with them?
-
Violia
serios crimes only . If you try and enforce the moral laws ( fornication adultry, homosexuality etc) you are the sharia police.
-
jwfacts
No. The criminal system should be involved in punishing of serious wrongdoing. The legal system may not be perfect, but it is far better than a 3 man kangaroo court commonly known as a judicial committee.
I don't think there is any reason a religion can rightly create a blanket rule that a person must be shunned by everyone potentially for life. Individuals should be treated as adults and be alllowed to make the choice of who to associate with and how to avoid.
- For instance, an active JW will be unlikely to keep company with an "apostate" that keeps tearing down the religion.
- A parent will forbid a child molestor into their home. It is far safer for the parent to know their is a child molestor in the congregation because the courts have dealt with it, than for the elders to deal in secret with the person, and the family never find out what the sin was.
- People that don't like smoking will not allow a person to smoke it their house, and may choose not to invite them over if smoking offends them enough.
-
sizemik
As regards the depression thing . . .
I developed an anxiety disorder during the waking-up-but-still-attending stage. It assisted my rapid fade immensely. In fact, the cogregation probably faded from me to a large extent. I think Elders shy away at a personal level from assisting. They know they're not properly equipped and aren't prepared to sacrifice the time required to be of any value . . . so they shy away and hope someone else will take care of it . . . like that's going to happen. I know of several who slipped quietly out the door with little more than a whisper.
-
rebel8
shunning ≠ religious ritual shunning & excommunication
We all shun some people, don't we? Don't you have people in your life or past life that you won't speak to or socialize with? Or if they're not people you had any type of relationship with, maybe criminals or others you would never speak to if you encountered them?
Shunning is appropriate. We should not be forced to interact with evil people.
But should it come from the pulpit? My immediate response is no, if we're talking right vs. wrong. But maybe it's just me. To me that is just another way religion is used as a weapon for social control. Adults should know the difference between evil and good themselves, and decide for themselves when to shun.
However...what if there's a member who molested some of the kids there (for example). Should s/he be welcome in the club, so to speak? It's private property. People go there for wholesome socialization and to teach their kids good things. Shouldn't they be allowed to kick out an evildoer such as that person? Are there no limits at all to who can be a member? Then maybe they should be banned from membership/the property but no edict on how members should treat the person.
jws and other fundies df/shun because the person did things they personally find terribly offensive or evil. They turn evil into a subjective concept when it's really not that subjective at all. Then they take it to the extreme by shunning people who didn't even commit those deeds.
It's complicated.
-
EmptyInside
Also,in the case of crime being committed,I see another reason to disfellowship/excommunicate the person. It's so the organization can say,they are no longer a Jehovah's Witness. That person can no longer represent the congregation.
But,I agree,it is mainly a case for the authorities to handle.
-
GLTirebiter
There is an important distinction between disfellowshipping and shunning, as practiced by the Watchtower and other high-control groups, compared to excommunication as practiced by most major religions.
On one hand: treating somebody as if they did not exist, limiting contact to "necessary family business", "hating with a true hate" and humiliating a person by publicly announcing their status as a grave sinner (thus seeding the local gossip grapevine with unfounded speculation about what the accused might have done). On the other: excommunication means limited participation in some religious rites, no restrictions on dealing with the person in everyday life, maintaining normal family and social contact, and limiting disclosure to those with a genuine, legal "need to know"--not making the situation a matter of public speculation.
The watchtower presumes the authority to dole out public punishment and humiliation; others seek to correct while leaving public punishment to the law of the land. What sins deserve a Watchtower-style shunning? I can't name one. Which deserve the more traditional excommunication? Offenses against the community of believers: acts of sacrilege, heresy, and the like. For offenses punishable by the law of the land, neither is appropriate: "Render unto Caesar" is the proper response.