Research on legal implications of group shunning (page 4)

lisaBObeesa

mrmustard...see my post 2228 and 2230 on this thread for why I argue the announcement=the shunning=the discipline. I really have to get off the board here or I would try to make s better explanation here... In short the 'announcement' is not just an announcement with no repercussions, it is code to the congregation telling them the person is an unrepentant sinner and that the cong is required to shun (discipline) the person. No announcement, no discipline. The announcement IS the discipline. This fact needs to be exposed. Yes, the WTBTS are using word games to hide the facts. It must be exposed.

A church disciplining a non member= is treating the peson as if they are a member = not allowing the person to not be a member.

The first amendment give us freedom of religion, and that includes the freedom to not be a certian religion.

I am free to withdraw my membership in a church at any time. As soon as I do so, I, like any other non member walking down the street, am not subject to the church's rules or discipline.

Non JWs are not shunned. Only DF/DA JWs are shunned. I can withdraw my membership from the JWS and be a regular NON JW. Not a DF person or a DA person, designations that are part of the JW religion that I am no longer a part of...just a regular person who is not any part of the JW religion.

If they do not allow me to withdraw my membership and become NON JW, (because they announce me as a DF or DA) they are violating my first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

That is how I understand it anyway. and I could be wrong. :) but that is what I think the cases I cited were saying..

DT

Although I think it is morally wrong for a religion to teach that former members should be shunned, I don't think that in itself should be illegal.

The problem I have is that Jehovah's Witnesses continue to meddle with a person's personal relationships and business long after they leave. If you talk to a family member or friend who is a JW, then you are exposing them to the possibility of being punished also as a twisted method of extending their influence over you. They might not be punishing you directly, but they are still interfering with your personal relationships and using a form of blackmail as a form of control.

If someone makes a personal choice to avoid me, that's fine. However, if a third party uses threats and intimidation to try to force others to avoid me, then that is a problem. I don't think that Jehovah's Witnesses could get away with using the same bullying tactics against a racial or religious minority. Yet former members should be able to enjoy the same protections that any nonmember has.

You really aren't free from a religion if they continue to monitor your activities and actively use intimidation to prevent friends and family from having anything to do with you.

MeanMrMustard

@lisaBObeesa,

I re-read the previous posts you cited. But I am still confused. The shunning, accourding to the WTB&TS, is the disipline - not the announcment. You said, "The shunning IS the discipline that the elders are applying.". So, I don't see how announcing membership (or lack of membership) can be viewed as the discipline. Just because it "informs" the members as to the status of the DFed or DAed individual doesn't mean that it is the discipline itself. Again, most churches maintain a members list - even on their websites. So would you feel OK with the congregational members list being posted on the annoucnment board instead?

But if you want to say that the shunning is the discipline, then that changes the topic back to what Band On The Run was addressing: the legality of shunning in general. Concerning the 1st amendment: it seems to me that the 1st amendment is more binding on the government ("CONGRESS shall make no law...") than on any religious institution. In other words, JWs shun based upon their intpretation of the biblical text. It seems like a very great infringment upon the 1st amendment rights of the JWs if the courts attempt to tell JWs how to reinterpret that text.

Good luck on your midterms.

MMM

rebel8

I don't really understand the question..

I was responding to your question about a church having a right to discipline non-members.

DesirousOfChange

When you say "the announcement=discipline" - how do you figure? If the annoucement is "So-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", how does that amount to discipline? It would seem to me that the announcment itself can be viewed, from a legal perspective, as a membership maintenence issue. How would this be any different than there being a "membership list" hung on the announcment board for anyone to see?

The difference is that when a member leaves the Congregation to move to another Congreagation, there is no announcement made that "Bro Has Moved" is no longer a member of the "Yada yada yada Congregation".

Clearly the announcement that one is ". . . . no longer one of JWs" is NOT a membership issue. It is a covert message to say that everyone here must now take punitive action against this person to punish them.

WTS would say that the announcement simply states that one is not longer a "member of the World Wide Congregation", however they only make announcements of new LOCAL members when a person gets baptized -- NOT of the World Wide membership Newbies. Thus, if they announce that a member leaves (via DF/DA) they should announce when a local member leaves via re-location. Or, they should announce when ANY MEMBER WORLDWIDE leaves and NOT just the LOCAL member. If the announcement differs in content, then one is punitive and punishment.

This is eventually going to come up and bite them in the ass. The courts (society) is already holding religions responsible for the emotional pain resulting from sexual abuse, it is only a matter of time that they are held responsible for the emotional pain resulting from the emotional abuse of shunning. It is a hate crime based on religious intolerance.

Doc

jonahstourguide

I'm finding this thread very interesting.

It's got me thinking about how this would apply if a congregation had a "constitution"?

For example, in Australia the individual congregations had to unanimously accept a

congregation specific constitution in order to continue recieving the

Charitable Institution Tax concession.

I noticed therein that members were described as 'active publishers' of the so and so congregation.

So, does the congregation's constitutional description have any bearing on this threads direction?

I'm thinking,,, ok if I am not an active publisher then I have no rights that a member would have, or be

subject to any "treatment" that a member would. If I write a letter stating my resignation from the

membership that should be the end of it, shouldn't it?

LIke as a financial or non financial member of an organisation that describes membership criteria.

Just wondering.

jtg

apostatethunder

Why should the WT have the power to bully people into having or not having association with anybody?

The WT acts as if they owned its members and that is a Human Rights violation.

They wouldn't be where they are today without the help of America's government. In America the rights of Corporations are above the rights of citizens. That leaves the individual at the mercy of these organizations pretty much in the same way that people was at the mercy of the government in communist countries.

The WT has 7 million drones in every country of the world for whatever purpose they want to use them.

It is not a coincidence that America is the first exporter of sects to the world.

The announcement so and so is no longer one of JW is figuratively a public execution and achieves the same thing: social control.

valkyrie

Two part question:

a. Is a baptized JW, who is inactive in "publishing" (formal field service, and submission of time and product reports) for 6 months, 1 year, or even longer, announced to the congregation as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"?

b. Can a baptized JW, who has been inactive in publishing [and/or meeting attendance] for 6 months, 1 year, or even longer, simply return and engage in publishing activities and time report submission - without further ado? [Such unchallenged return to activity being tacit acknowledgment that such person has been, and continues to be an accepted and recognized member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.]

Frazzled UBM

I would start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Giordano

To lump someone who has simply changed their mind about the truth with child molesters, violent criminals, thieves and other significant criminal conduct is astounding. Which is what they do when when they dismiss a sincere person by saying SO and SO is no longer a JW.........

What is equally astounding is now many times the WTBTS has changed it's mind about their own 'truth'. Their flip flops on doctrines are legendary. As far as I can tell it could be said that by their own rules "The WTBTS is no longer a JW".

Research on legal implications of group shunning

Share this