Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society

by AndersonsInfo 183 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pistoff

  There is a significant degree of variation possible in shunning; forgive me if it has been covered before.

  1. The congregation at large may have little or nothing to do with one socially if he is df'd, but still greet him at the hall or on the street.

  2. He may be avoided socially by the overall congregation, not greeted at the hall, but his family keeps their normal relationship.

  3. A more severe form would be for the congregation to avoid speaking to him at all but allow the family to have normal relationships.

  4. More severe, no speaking to him by the congregation, and little or no contact from the family at all, for sure nothing social, only 'necessary' family business, and that business constantly being reviewed and shrunk by the leaderhsip.

  It seems to me that #4 is the 'extreme' shunning that is being talked about here, and it is what we have right now in the witnesses; there is no doubt in my mind that they have ramped up the severity of it in the last 10 years.

  Why? IMO, they are afraid of rank and file realizing that some df'd people are perfectly happy and normal, not raging sexual animals or demonic apostates, and I think the CO's are reporting to them that many families go their own way on the subject, are ignoring what the WT says and are treating the family member well.

  This is annoying leadership, and they seem to be reaching for the most inflammatory rhetoric they can muster to try to stop it.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Clearly there are gradations of shunning - I know that Filipino Witnesses don't fully shun family members BUT to some extent it is the shame of being a df'd person that causes the damage such that the df'd person shuns himself or herself. When I first met my sister-in-law I thought her withdrawn nd hesitatn nature very odd - it was almost impossible to draw her into a conversation but later when I found out what it meant to be df'd and I found out she had been but that she still believed I realised what was going on.
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Simon's comment: 'When I grow up, I want to be sensible and reasonable like Barb '

  And that is why Barbara is such a thorn in the side of the GB and the WTBTS. Barbara does not fit the profile of an 'apostate'. Apostates are not suppose to be sensible, reasonalbe, kind and truthful! Barbara speaks truth, especially on matters pertaining to WT unscriptural doctrine.
• 

  Vidiot

  Simon - "When I grow up, I want to be sensible and reasonable like Barb..."

  I don't wanna grow up.

  I'm a Toys R Us kid.

  BTW, sent you a PM.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I don't believe your statement is correct that no religion can induce its members to refuse conscription during a time of war.”

  Chaserious,

  I appreciate your observations.

  My comment is an overstatement because it makes assertion of current law when I am not sufficiently familiar with current conscription law to know if my comment is precisely true as stated. My point is that religious speech has limitations under law, and the US Constitution in particular.

  The law is whatever legislators choose to make it, even if it means a constitutional amendment. Crime is crime whether it’s done under a banner of religion or anything else. Said another way, if a legislative body criminalizes a certain behavior then it does not matter whether the behavior is performed by a religious leader as a theological construct; it’s still a crime.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “If you go off the dictionary definition of shun as 'to reject' then yes, technically, employers 'shun' the applicants that they do not select.

  “But I know of no one on the planet that uses the word 'shun' in this way so using it to excuse the 'extreme' is a little weak. But then it seems no bridge is too far and nothing can't be streteched far enough when it comes to marvins 'unbiased and impartial commentary' on any matters BBXB.”

  Simon,

  If this discussion is not about me then I recommend that you stop invoking my person as a topic when it’s not. (See your own criterion on page 6)

  Back to the topic, I agree with you 100 percent that it’s futile to address the topic of harmful practices within the context of a little movement like Watchtower. Anything a subset of citizens would have legislators do must be based on behavior the general citizenry can recognize and see the need of addressing. Hence the concept of addressing the harm caused by Watchtower on grounds of hate speech.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “…I'm concerned to see you potentially sacrificing your hard-earned credibility by "grabbing the wrong end of the stick" on this issue.”

  adamah,

  I’m not the topic. My credibility is irrelevant for a host of reasons.

  When a person is discussing an idea no end of the stick is wrong. Discussion is a tool. People should be able to talk freely about ideas so long as they are not inflicting harm with the speech. One thing discussion does is help everyone flesh out subjects for improvement. If you think my idea(s) wrong then continue the discussion to that end, but don’t waste time thinking about anyone’s credibility.

  “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.”

  Perhaps that paragraph explains something important from my perspective. I’m not discussing the article you cite. I’m discussing what I think is the underlying concern of the article. I’m discussing an idea of how to lessen the harm caused by Watchtower’s brand of shunning. I think Watchtower can have a theology of shunning free of the harm resulting from it’s current theological construct on shunning. In other words, I think Watchtower can retain a shunning program yet do so without inflicting harm as it does now.

  In current social climate I think opportunity exists to have this addressed under the concept of hate speech because society at large is beginning to see a need to curb speech that stirs hate because it’s bad for people and, importantly, it’s bad for sovereign states.

  “I see you're moving goal-posts, back to advocating for passing "hate speech" laws (eg as was done in Denmark, was it)?”

  What? Moving the goal post? The idea I’ve been discussing and continue discussing is the notion of lessening harm caused by Watchtower’s shunning program on the basis of hate speech and potential broad form legislation to that end.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  LisaRose

  I agree with those who say that you cannot pass a law to force someone to talk to another, or even to force the Watchtower to not practice shunning. I think what would be more effective is a public education campaign on the negative effects of shunning. I do not think most people realize what is being done by the Watchtower in the name of religion. I don't think even many dubs know the full extent of the damage caused by shunning, the nature of the shunning means those in the religion do not know how hurtful it is or even what caused the person to be shunned in the first place. The Watchtower pretends that only unrepentant sinners are disfellowshipped, when the reality is far more sinister. You can be pulled before a committee for any number of offences, or even no offence, if you get a bad elder. And what constitutes repentance is left up to interpretation.

  The Watchtower is sensitive to their public image, so if this evil practice were to become widely known, it might cause them to back off enough for the individual witnesses to be given a bit more latitude. I don't know how this could be accomplished, but maybe someone here on JWN has experience with the media, or marketing. I would love to see a Sixty Minutes type expose of the practice of disfellowshipping.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “For strictly emotional appeal using the term "extreme shunning" may have some benefit…”

  I think discussing whether “extreme” is a proper adverb for “shunning” is somewhat a waste of time. How we characterize something does not change facts. In this case, as a fact either Watchtower’s shunning program harms people or it does not harm people. If it harms people then addressing a means to lessen that harm is the relevant discussion; not how we characterize a verb.

  The legitimate reason I see for using “extreme” to speak of Watchtower’s brand of shunning is to get people to look at facts of that brand of shunning. I’ve used the language many times in relation to Watchtower’s shunning and until this discussion the only individuals who objected to it were Watchtower apologists.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Vidiot

  LisRose - "...if this evil practice were to become widely known, it might cause them to back off enough for the individual witnesses to be given a bit more latitude."

  That might have worked in the late 80s/early 90s, but now? Jaracz's legacy has left them no wiggle room for their policies, and they're staying the course.

  Besides, are you really sure you want them to give the R&F more latitude? Historically, the more hard-line an authoritarian regime becomes, the quicker it declines.

  The more unhinged the WTS gets, the more conscious-classers will get fed up and leave.