by adamah 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I remember being involved in a senseless difellowshipping becaus eof the "2 strikes and you are out" idea.
Whenever I encounter a disfellowshipped person (like in the KH washroom) I try to acknowledge the other person.
they might be shy though, because fearing that being participant in a breach of current WT/GB policy might lessen their chance of re-instatement.
it is rewarding to act as a human.
Marking for later.
Adamah I agree with everything you say on Milgram, mob mentality, losing your humanity by shunning at the command of an organisation. However how to present this to family members who are shunning me is the problem. They would not talk to me about it and if I put it in a letter they would not reply. This has gone on for almost 25 years. I basically just get on with my life and leave them to it, I've tried everything I can think of.
adamah: I suggested starting a "Shunning Confession" thread; this thread could serve that purpose, serving as a PUBLIC confession of ex-JWs who've stood up and shared their past experiences of shunning others.
Here's a thread on a related topic:
Thanks for BTT that other thread, Oubliette; the OP asks some great questions, and there's some great answers in it.
It really is a difficult and painful process to ADMIT to shunning, and reflecting on WHY it was wrong, and focusing on the damage it does to oneself.
It's interesting to see how many said they didn't shun, or how they KNEW at the time it was wrong/felt guilty.
You'd actually expect to see more who said, "You know what? I didn't CARE if it was wrong, since the Bible told me THEY NEEDED to be shunned! It was steadfast faith to God I cared about! I INTENTIONALLY shunned, and was PROUD to do so and saw it as SERVING Jehovah, since I knew it was making Jehovah HAPPY!"
The interesting part is how much like in sexual harassment lawsuits, the reaction of the target of harassment is what matters: sexual harassment cases hinge on how the action was PERCEIVED, NOT the intent of the harrasser. Therefore, the court considers what the harassee did to make it clear that the harasser's behavior WAS unwelcome to them.
Guess I'm saying that even an honest oversight (not seeing or even recognizing the person) could be blown out of proportion in the shunnee's mind, and it would be impossible to know if it was intentional or not without trying to clarify the shunner's actual intent.
Xanthippe-
Adamah I agree with everything you say on Milgram, mob mentality, losing your humanity by shunning at the command of an organisation. However how to present this to family members who are shunning me is the problem. They would not talk to me about it and if I put it in a letter they would not reply. This has gone on for almost 25 years. I basically just get on with my life and leave them to it, I've tried everything I can think of.
Xanthippe, I hear you; it's difficult. Just realize there are others out there in the same situation, so you're not alone.
That's why the indirect approach is needed: since you are shunned, by definition you cannot plead on your own behalf directly to them! (To use a religious analogy, we need a "mediator", except with a twist: someone who will plead on THEIR behalf, pointing out the harm they're self-inflicting).
That's why I'm suggesting the value of creating a video which is uploaded to YouTube, containing the many voices of those who have shunned others in the past but NOW see the harm and damage it caused them, is needed. Sometimes the people we most should listen to are the ones we most refuse listening to! Sometimes we need to hear it from a stranger, since hearing it from loved-ones (or, the ones we CLAIM to have loved) obviously carries much baggage with it.
So the point is, although such a message may not personally benefit YOU, it may help someone you'll never even meet? Does that give any sense of feeling empowered? It should, as that's the very definition of an altruistic act: helping another EVEN IF you KNOW you don't stand to personally benefit from the action.
BTW, in the video above, I like the way Jess Black defines a 'cult': a group that relies on policies that are outdated or even contrary for the time (eg blood policy). If you haven't seen it, don't miss the last two minutes where he talks about how his parents exceeded his wildest expectations by leaving the JWs, and how he has a much-closer relationship with his Mother than he ever imagined.
Of course, to the shunned the practice represents an affront to OUR egos, with one's sence of self-worth challenged and deprecated by one's own family as if we're worthless (literally, WORTH LESS) having been placed below their loyalty to what are essentially strangers.
An expression attributed to Elanor Roosevelt seem fitting:
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
So true....
But the sad TRUTH is that this really boils down to accepting that there is no way to force people to have a loving relationship with us; there's no faking that which doesn't exist (without resorting to delusions and denials).
It's something Bonnie Raitt wrote a song about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfwylq9ZDyw
It's not simply a JW issue, either: it's part-and-parcel of existence as a human being.
Sometimes the best thing is to just let it be, and just say "it is what it is", where the last stage of grief following loss is simply 'acceptance'. I've had to accept that my family (JWs or not) are what they are, and I can accept them as they are, or waste energy/time to try to change them. Note that although I may or may not change THEIR hearts and minds, I get a sense of value by thinking SOMEONE ELSE might benefit from our efforts.
In the end, we can only lead thirsty horses to water, whether they realize they're dehydrated or not, and whether getting we lead them using carrots or sticks (JW uses sticks, we need to focus on carrots). The decision to drink is SOLELY up to them, and must be made voluntarily by realizing and accepting the personal responsibility for their own acts and not cite "I was just following orders".
Adamah
Shunning is legal according to US Court of Appeals!
found that on Wikpedia "JW and congregational discipline"
Does the US court not know what shunning means? Do they mistake it as mere "excommunication"?
Where is the text of this embarrasing american law? Please send us a copy. We will send it to the
Human Rights court on 12/10 Human Rights Day to clear what is "shunning" at all.
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."[99][100]
shunning is not the same as excommunication or disassocation
Thank you for this information
@ TheWonderOfYou...
The American courts...
x
...proudly upholding everyone's right to be assholes, now and forever.
Really excellent discussion!
It seems that the WTBorg Cult Inc. adopted "Disfellowshiping" with shunning as an essential component of it back in 1952.
Just looked at this video today. An Orthodox Rabbi's son decided to leave Judah-ism and was "shunned" in a manner very similar to what the JWBorg are required to exercise. Perhaps a little less violent but otherwise strikingly similar in both actions and terminology. One must wonder, have the practices of Judah-ism been incorporated into WTBorg Cult Inc. policy and dogma?
