Hi Marvin,
For the record, let me state here and now that I've run across the material you've written on your blog and have great respect for the fine work you've done on JW blood policy, as it demonstrates your understanding of the value of having a cogent argument backed by sound reasoning and solid evidence (which anyone can confirm on their own). It's very compelling material (at least to those who value (and DEMAND!) that kind of logic before sacrificing their very lives, due to someone else's scripture-twisting).
That's partly why I'm concerned to see you potentially sacrificing your hard-earned credibility by "grabbing the wrong end of the stick" on this issue.
Marvin said-
Everything I’ve suggested that can be dealt with legislatively is precisely to avoid the targeting of any particular religion and for sake of a sovereign state’s citizenry at large.
In particular, you write, “Instead, only laws that apply to ALL citizens and are in the public interest (such as anti-polygamy laws, which obviously effect Mormons, as well) will withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.”
This is another way of saying precisely what I’ve said, which is why I conclude our minds have yet to meet in this discussion. But then, that’s what discussion is useful for; a meeting of minds; if not sooner then later.
Because I have an idea rather than a rough draft of legislation does not mean I’m unable to articulate the idea with words. It only means the idea I can convey in words is not something I’ve attempted to construct into legislative language.
And as if a Missourian, I've quoted their State motto: SHOW ME!
(another ruder way to say that would be, "put us or shut up!")
Remember: the title of the article is "Outlaw extreme shunning". OUTLAW, ie pass legislation to criminalize shunning (that's how MOST readers would interpret it, as most aren't going to see it as drafting legislation that allows filing civil suits against churches, based on claims of IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress), etc.
And while there may be some obscure legal theories that could be cobbled together by someone with a brilliant legal mind on which to accomplish the criminalization of shunning, I suspect it's more like a theoretical pursuit, like searching for a perpetual motion machine (which is KNOWN to violate other well-established principles of physics).
Possible legal theories aside, the GREATER HURDLES are that there's NO existing mechanism to enforce such a law, but more importantly, there's absolutely NO POLITICAL WILL to pass such a law! To the contrary, it likely would be POLITICAL SUICIDE for any politician who sponsored or voted for such a bill, since can you imagine the attack ads that would be used against them when they came up for re-election?
"Senator Thinkshesgod voted to support a bill that dares to tell God what to do! Although he professes to believe in God, he's PUSHED his Godless agenda on us by voting FOR a bill that intrudes on YOUR religious freedoms which ultimately failed! Stand up for freedom and GOD! Show the Senator that he's not God, by voting for X!"
Richard Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly how we live in an age where public opinion polls show that religions have such a tight grasp on people's minds that atheists are more distrusted than pedophiles, and a politician coming out of the closet as an atheist is political suicide.
Not only that, but religions enjoy EXTENSIVE political lobbying power, and you'd come up against powerful special interest groups opposing any such legislation. If you haven't figured it out, 'God' is big-business, and has a powerful lobby with a vast war-chest, where only the most egregious and flagrant of abuses of religious power (eg the RCC child molestation by preists) are going to be kept in check.
As Simon and others have repeatedly said, it's going to take EDUCATION of the electorate on the issues for them to break the power of religious institutions; the shunning and all the other nonsense will collapse. Will it happen anytime soon? Not likely, and there's not much reason to think otherwise (eg we're living almost 2,000 yrs AFTER Jesus said "Uh, I'll be right back; there's something I've gotta do...." and people STILL are waiting for him to return). Religions like the JWs are easily able to move goal-posts, all in the name of serving Jesus and God, all driven on what people WANT to believe, allowing their personal narcissism to be played like a fiddle, believing THEY'RE so loved that the all-powerful creator wants to be BFF with THEM!
Marvin said:
Religious speech has limits. The limit is the point at which a particular piece of speech is demonstrably a threat to a state’s sovereignty, and a state’s sovereignty begins with citizenry. Hence protecting the citizenry from harm ranks religious speech, no matter the particular religion.
If the only thing that changes is how Watchtower is able to spew its religious rhetoric about associating with “unrepentant sinners” there is opportunity for improvement because I don’t see how the circumstance could be worse than it already is.
I see you're moving goal-posts, back to advocating for passing "hate speech" laws (eg as was done in Denmark, was it)?
Well, sure, but THAT'S a different matter, since regulating speech IS possible. And that's exactly what everyone is advising: focusing on the POSSIBLE, not the pipe-dream. It seems you've realized that publicly stating you're taking on the issue of shunning "head-on" by outlawing it just makes someone look silly and undermines their credibility, since it makes them appear powerless: they're content to tilt at windmills (as if delusional Don Quixote) by taking on religious delusion with an even GREATER sense of personal grandeur.
So hopefully the issue can be put to bed?
And to correct what I previously said about shunning being an 'all or nothing' affair (I said there are no gradations of shunning), I was incorrect: I neglected to consider the temporal aspects of shunning, where JW members ARE allowed to 'turn off the JW Shun Gun' at certain times without being sanctioned, eg JWs are allowed to discuss personal family matters amongst married couples and/or children (advised to stay away from discussing spiritual matters). In fact, JW parents are REQUIRED to train their DF children in Bible principles, etc.
So the claim of JWs being an example of "extreme" shunning seems even MORE questionable, since they ARE allow exceptions which I suspect the Scientologists and Mennonites may not allow (I'm not sure, but I'm not wasting time looking into a trivial detail).
Meanwhile, I see little participation coalescing around an idea which IS likely to have more of an impact (it relies on an EMOTIONAL and MORAL appeal, targeted to the participants who shun, and not some legal strategy). We're quibbling here, while a valid useful strategy is ignored and shunned. And why?
I suspect it's precisely BECAUSE it requires people standing up and doing exactly what Migram's study found: people are unwilling to take personal responsibility for THEIR involvement in an immoral practice but insist on being seen as victims of the "system" ("I was only following orders"), refusing to even acknowledge their past participation in a practice they now demand OTHERS to take personal responsibility for participating in. I suspect that the personal narcissism that explains WHY someone would become a JW is also the same sense of personal narcissism that PREVENTS one from cutting the invisible Gordian knot that keeps people hostage, and prevents them from helping others seem it.
I believe Jesus declared that kind of thing as hypocritical, or refered to the Gordian knot NOT as a rope, but as a rafter/splinter? For how can you hold others accountable, unless you're able to publicly acknowledge having been guilty of participating in a "cruel" practice, in the past?
Adam
