DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

by Terry 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Finkelstein

  Many times when discussing the DFing policy of the WTS. I think about it emulates how a private

  company sets about rules of conduct and behavior placed upon its employees. Not only in how

  supportive they are toward the produced manufactured product in its selling

  agenda but how they look and how well they represent the company (WTS.) outwardly toward the public.

  Kingdom Halls are actually sales training centers for the WTS. more or less where the WTS's managers and

  foremen shape recruits and train these ones to be the WTS's own subjective sales representatives.

  Step out of those established set guidelines and a head sales managers or perhaps

  two from that division ( Kingdom Hall) will most likely take you aside and have a direct personal talk.

  In this sense being Dfed could be liken to as Donald Trump would say " Your Fired "
• 

  ABibleStudent

  Terry - DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?

  Probably not a human rights violation, because an organization promotes that its members shun former members and organizations are not governments.

  Probably not defamation of character, since the WTBTS only says that a person is no longer a JW. Cult speak and indoctrination are very powerful.

  Personally, I feel that organizations promoting shunning of former members is more onerous than DF'ing and DA'ing without promoting shunning.

  I wish that all governments would not financially support nor allow tax exemptions for any organization, when an organization and its leaders promote shunning of former members.

  Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

  Robert
• 

  DATA-DOG

  How is accusing an individual of a crime punishable by eternal death, and demanding that no one associate with them, thereby causing emotional and mental anguish not defamation of character?

  The problem is getting past all the double-speak and half-truths. Have you ever noticed how whenever an indoctrinated JW is in court, they lie? " Child Custody packet??? Never heard of it!", " Governing Body??? Nope, never heard of 'em, they don't exist!" There is a reason that the lower level dubs take the heat in court, and do everything to keep the GB of the stand. If the GB ever went to court the transcripts would likely become known to all. Those transcripts would show either blatant lying under oath, or admissions similar to the Walsh Trial. At this point in time, either one would be bad for the WTBTS, and they know it.

  Remember what a " Code Red " was in A Few Good Men? The order that did not exist and therefore could not have been given? That's how df'ing is, in a sense. They will never come out and say that DF'ing is a punishment for not following every order they give, despite their orders violating scripture or your conscience. If a good lawyer ever got them on the stand...
• 

  Chaserious

  There are a lot of valid points here about the moral culpability of the leaders of this organization. But the reality is that it doesn't amount to defamation. You can't look at what the words mean as defined in the rest of their literature and then apply that to the mentally diseased quotes in yet some other piece of literature and patch it all together to amount to slander or defamation. You have to look at what they directly say about you, and they don't say boo about anyone except that you are no longer part of the org.

  Besides, as someone pointed out an another thread recently, you have to be careful what you wish for. If you want it to be so easy to make a defamation case, how do you know that you wouldn't be liable to the WTS for defaming them? I have certainly seen material posted on this site accusing the WTS org of things that are impossible to verify and in many cases almost certainly false. Sue them for molestation, sue them for swindling Aunt Mildred out of her savings. But when you try to restict what others can say and teach, you are endangering the democratic right of free expression in the public squares of a free society.
• 

  Terry

  So, have we concluded that an organization really can be allowed to reduce your human value to zero and get away with it?

  If Elders trump up charges against you because you blow the whistle on them for covering up child abuse you should just say "Thank you sirs, may I please have another?"

  We must buy in to the idea the bad guys are supposed to win?

  It isn't worth the trouble of defending your reputation, your integrity and your family solidarity?

  Gosh.

  I'm truly surprised at how cowed we are!
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  So, have we concluded that an organization really can be allowed to reduce your human value to zero and get away with it?

  Terry, at the beginning of the thread I thought you were going to underscrore an internal moral issue within the WT doctrine. In other words, it is as if their moral values are at odds with one another internally. I was with you. But I don't know if I can get behind the legal aspect of this.

  I don't think anyone should let the WTB&TS "get away" with making them feel worthless. And I don't believe they are getting away with it. However, I would be very weary of expanding the legal bounds of defamation of character in order to fight religions. Although I have felt the same way at times - that it would be great to see the WT suffer legally and financially each time they want to exercise their stupid DFing doctrine - I often quickly change my mind after thinking of the unintended consequences. Having that legal club to beat the WT might be great to have now, but once we are done with it, the club exists. Who knows, it might be used to beat us down later for a completely different reason.

  As I said earlier, the WT isn't getting away with it. The arguments are being taken to the people. Like the convergence in Scientology you mentioned, the WT is starting to experience a decline in membership. Less and less people join, and more and more people leave. This is the type of damage that can't be contolled no matter how many lawyers the WT gets.

  MMM
• 

  Finkelstein

  Creating a law suit against one person for Defamation of Character is one thing, creating a tangible law suit against an entire

  religious institution who has an enormous amount of power and wealth is something totally quite different.

  As long as the secular governments let religions develop their own social behavioral laws upon their own adherents, people will be cruelly

  mistreated and have their own individual human rights taken away.

  The shunning policy of some of these religious sects is just one of the human rights that gets cast aside and passed over.

  Why ? because secular governments let it happen even though they know whats happening is wrong.

  Freedom of religion over rules freedom of ones individual basic human rights.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Finkelstein:

  So you think the governments aught to step in and outlaw shunning polcies held by religions?

  MMM
• 

  Finkelstein

  Yes , its a very old and archaic way of discipline anyways, mentally cruel and so forth (abandonment)
• 

  Terry

  Terry, at the beginning of the thread I thought you were going to underscrore an internal moral issue within the WT doctrine. In other words, it is as if their moral values are at odds with one another internally. I was with you. But I don't know if I can get behind the legal aspect of this.

  Let's look at it from a different angle, shall we?

  In chess there is a principle that I believe was espoused by Grandmaster Aaron Nimzovich:

  A THREAT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ITS EXECUTION.

  A strategy of defending yourself doesn't win. Aggressive counter threats keep your opponent off balance. By creating even the semblance of aggressive

  countermoves your opponent must rethink any all out win.

  The Elders want to stifle, smother and quash PUBLICITY inimical to the brand: Jehovah's Witnesses.

  The total fear of the Watchtower leaders is evidenced by the rotten policies they've enforced of not going to the police, for example.

  When the judicial committee convenes they seek to overwhelm by force and intimidation.

  Where is the countermove if not a gambit which establishes one thing clearly: "I can make public what goes on here and it can sting!"

  Naturally, both sides hide behind a mask of touchy-feeling spiritual b.s. language!

  But, boundries must be established!

  You can't cross this line.

  WHERE IS THAT LINE? YOU MUST KNOW AND THE ELDERS MUST KNOW.

  Here is what goes wrong for innocent Jw's sitting there surrounded by prosecutors---assuming you are powerless even if you are in the right!

  You can't assume Jehovah is going to watch out for you!

  "Look, before we begin this little get together--let me just say I will remain respectful and humble but I will not stand for having my rights violated and I will engage an attorney if you step over the line. Am I clear?"

  There is the gambit. An implied threat which can be more powerful than its execution.

  Don't Tread on Me.

  By the way, there is a moral dissonance in disfellowship policy when it is used as a weapon or a means of silencing a legal or criminal issue.