by AndersonsInfo 183 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Marve,
I don't know?(not certain), that word extreme is what bugs me. One has to assume an awful lot it sounds too black and white. Extreme/Mildest/most moderate/miniscule. I get turned off by it, it is my own prejudice it's true, but that is my opinon. What else can I say it is just an opinon.
Simon said: " Trying to 'legally' stop shunning would be extremely difficult if not completely impossible and just seems to be a waste of time."
Agreed! Even if it were possible to get around the current legal protections (of whatever country), and even if there were some way to come up with acceptable language for a law (which is like drawing a square circle), and even if the law were focused only on JWs (let's just ignore the other religions in the article), I think all arguments for any "good" coming from a legal ban would be eliminated by the unintended consequences. This would essentially be a partial ban on JWs. Seen as persecution, most Witnesses would double-down, go into persecution mode, defying the law to the fullest extent possible. The kids in those situations would suffer. Their exposure to other ideas would be limited FURTHER. The end result would be more NET suffering, it may even slow the members currently bleeding out of the WT.
IMHO - the best way to undermine the WT, or any other religion that shuns, is through information and education. The WT can fight, and win, legal battles. And even if they can't win the legal battles, the loss would cause a persecution complex to kick in among members. But a slow death by the 1000 cuts of public awareness will eventally cause people, of their own free will, to leave... or never join, and this is a force that the WT can never beat.. they can't even fight it.
MMM
-
frankiespeakin,
Thanks for answering my question. It’s appreciated. I accept and respect that you hold the view you do.
In my case, I think “extreme” is appropriate usage speaking of Watchtower’s shunning doctrine because of how it imposes isolation of family members and friends. Isolation is a killer.
Marvin Shilmer
Oh look, there's a surprise: Marvin appears to act as defender and spokesperson for them. How incredibly and utterly predictable.
I don’t see any reason to characterize the author as being a user. Are we supposed to stay mum about suicides? Are you kidding me? Why not just say “I don’t like the author” and be done with it?
The way he talks about Oompa is designed to give the impression that he was literally on first name terms with him. The reality is he has got that information from this site (without reference) and likely didn't know the man.
I don't know Richard Kelly to know whether I'd like him or not. I don't like some of the things his organization has done and the way he and some of his followers have behaved though. I tend to value 'things people do' over whether they are likeable or amiable as it just seems such a better way of judging people.
There are relevant differences between the author’s organization and the beast it speaks about (i.e., Watchtower) so that it’s not disingenuous for the former to speak of the latter, despite the former having his own history of mistaken management and judgment.
They managed to become the very thing they were criticising within weeks, if not days of launch. That's quite a feet. Truly, a 'remarkable' organization.
Lest we forget: The Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses (AAWA) [WARNING]
The name can change but the song remains the same.
And yes, it is completely disengenuous to be 'warning' people about the harmful effects of shunning while as an organization they were dismissive of people's personal privacy, put people at direct risk and he personally was happy to take retaliation against someone who spoke out.
On what basis do you say the author’s organization still does not have clear policies for protection? How would you know this to assert it in certain terms?
Because if they had good and clear policies then they would be clear to read. Because their policies have clear vulnerabilities that can be exploited and abused.
Would I be surprised if they end up causing real serious damage to someone? No.
The fundamental issue is they are a bunch of activists now maquerading as offering support and that is a recipe for disaster.
I think what future legislators and judicial systems do or don’t do about this depends on what is criminalized by statute. Religions have done many things under banners of theology. Many of these theological practices are today made illegal by statute.
Yes, things that can be clearly legislated.
A thing called “hate speech” is getting traction in contemporary western society as something that should be disallowed by statute. I can see a day when Watchtower has a policy of removing members from its roles but without being able to demonize them and have them treated as some sort walking undead folks.
Sure, 'hate speech' is a thing. Shunning is the absence of a thing. There is a huge difference.
What next, can the courts force people to be friends and force families to kiss and make-up?
Now I want to make this clear Marvin - we're not here to discuss YOU or the BBXB or engage in one of your endless and senseless thread derailments.
"extreme" shunning is maybe just a form of hyperbole and an appeal to sensationalism. Shunning is the only word required IMO.
More words coudl have gone into describing the ways of shunning and the trivial reasons for it / use as a form of control.
Coming soon to an article near you: "Shunning to the Max".
I have one question for Marvin:
Did Dick Kelley know Eric in real life? You are such good friends, you should know.
zed
(let's see if he will respond . . .)
Yah. If you want to hit the WT in the balls just go after the money. Hit them where it hurts. They won't walk around like a stallion if you hit them in the balls enough.
@Narcissistic Supply: 
So I catch up to Eric after the resurrection:
Me: 'What did you think of the article written about you entitled..."It's Time To Outlaw Extreme Shunning In Modern Society?"'
Eric: 'I appreciated someone showing interest enough to write something about me and how the GB of the WT drove me to do what I did.'
Me: 'Do you think that using the word 'Extreme' in the title was too extreme?
Eric: 'No, I would of been O.K. also with 'It's Time To Outlaw Lethal Shunning In Modern Society' or It's Time To Outlaw Deadly Shunning In Modern Society.'
Welcome back Eric!
Oh, yay.
JWGoneBad speaks with the dead. And can discern from a couple of random internet posts what a person would or would not have agreed to, if he were still alive.
