Dave, if there is a SCOTUS case on shunning, can you please cite the name? I do not believe they have taken a shunning/excommunication case. The most prominent federal case on this topic that I am aware of is Paul v. Watchtower. There are also a number of state court decisions on church discipline that I know of. I would also quibble with the assertion that "most religions" excommunicate. Hindus, Buddists, Jews, and Sikhs do not. And excommunication is quite rare among mainstream American Protestant denominations.
They want it both ways
by jeremiah18:5-10 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Ticker
I know of no cases where the Christian Churches enforce ex-communication. Rather from what I've seen is they reach out to anyone in need of help. They don't tend to stick their noses in anyones business either but leave it between the person and God as it should be. Each one accounts for their own sin.
It doesn't mean they condone gross misbehavior or would participate in it but they prefer to lend support rather then chastize because we are all sinners and screw ups so why condemn when we are just as guilty. Support works a lot better then punishment but of course the Watchtower chooses the latter as it's corrective measure. I don't recall any Christian who resorted to shunning someone and they would definetly not go through all the formalities. Even then they would never put a period of time on someone being expelled. We are not to judge.
The Catholic Church did and may still ex-communicate but that I am unsure of. I don't follow the Catholic doctrine nor am I knowledgable on it other then suprisingly it has some similarities to the Watchtower dogma. One being they ex-communicate or used to and they claim to be the only way to salvation.
-
GLTirebiter
it's well-known that most religions DO ex-communicate members as a means of punishment (behavior modification),
There are significant differences between WT disfellowshipping and excommunication as practiced by most Christian sects:
(1) WT makes a public display of doing so, rather than doing so privately.
(2) WT insists that all in the congregation ignore and shun the person in a mass display of humilitation, rather than limiting the punishment to exclusion from the community worship.
(3) WT requires a long period of public repentance and humiliation for the person to be reunited with the congregation, rather than a quick (often immediate) reconciliation upon expressing repentance.
(4) Because of the public action (1), encouragement for person-to-person punishment (2), and the continued sanctions even after repentance (3), the effects may linger indefinitely. This is not the closure promised by "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11)
-
DavePerez
Chaserous, you're right about no SCOTUS ruling; the case I was thinking of was the 9th Circuit ruling where plaintiff Janice Paul sued GB for shunning policy, but the Court shunned her claim.
From Wikipedia:
Legality
In June 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Witnesses' right to shun those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding that "shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text … The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs … The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice." [ 97 ] [ 98 ]
Such a case likely wouldn't make it to the SCOTUS, as the lower court's reasoning seems sound (free association means no one can force you to associate with them, against your will).
Besides, how could it be any other way? No one is expected to accept unrepentant criminals with open arms, thus violating one's personal moral beliefs.
Btw, Jews literally wrote a book on shunning: the Torah. The Bible clearly speaks to violations which results in cutting off members from the community, culminating in the ultimate shunning possible: death by stoning. Granted, most religions are prevented by secular law from doing so (countries with Sharia law excepted), but the Biblical basis is clear-cut, and a few Orthodox Jewish groups still do.
Hence why it's high-time to put to rest those silly old 3,000 yr old Bible-based laws, but that's an individual's decision to make.
Ticker said:
I know of no cases where the Christian Churches enforce ex-communication. Rather from what I've seen is they reach out to anyone in need of help. They don't tend to stick their noses in anyones business either but leave it between the person and God as it should be. Each one accounts for their own sin.
All well and good, until the sinner commits another sin and the congregation gets sued for failing to stick their noses into the matter.... That's the issue surrounding the Conti case, where they failed to intrude on what you say should be a matter between the sinner and God.
See, you also can't have it both ways, expecting a matter to be kept private, but then blaming the elders for keeping it private.
GLtirebiter said:
(4) Because of the public action (1), encouragement for person-to-person punishment (2), and the continued sanctions even after repentance (3), the effects may linger indefinitely. This is not the closure promised by " Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more " (John 8:11)
And what does John 8:12 say to do when they DO sin again? Or does it not cover that?