BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz 51 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  what are the "human rights" that are violated if a group doesn't want you as a member anymore? - MMM

  It's not about removal from membership, it's about using threats of sanctions to enforce damage on family relationships.

  Ok, fine. The “sanctions” you refer to is the shunning. So what human right is violated by someone’s choice not to associate (shun)? The shunning comes from the members. The active members, that engage in the shunning, do so because they believe it is right - they believe the WT interpretation of the Bible in that regard.

  There is a human right - an actual right - a “negative” right (or liberty) - of freedom of association. Are you saying that JWs should not be allowed to exercise that right?

  MMM
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Just like to change this phrase:

  They need to be brought to accounts over this especially since they delusionally feel they have the right to break up families over their coporation bull shit on how to treat their "dismemberment victims" by enforced shunning/vilification/ also placing a taboo on reading any emails from the victim and implying that no one can have a good reason for leaving the Corporation's clutches classifying them as mental diseased, and encouraging a Xenophobia towards victim which even reaches inside his own home and family.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

  Xenophobia is the irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. [1] [2] It comes from the Greek words ξένος ( xenos ), meaning "strange," "foreigner," and φόβος ( phobos ), meaning "fear." [3] Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup , including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity. [4] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality". [5] Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action urges all governments to take immediate measures and to develop strong policies to prevent and combat all forms and manifestations of racism, xenophobia or related intolerance, where necessary by enactment of appropriate legislation including penal measure. [6]
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I don't think society in general has figured out where to draw the line for freedom of religion

  IMHO its a form of child abuse to raise kids in high control groups like JW's etc - but what can be done without impinging on the more benign religions?

  But let’s say you could do something without hurting the more benign religions. Are you saying that JWs shouldn’t be allowed to have children? Or perhaps if a JW family were to have a child, it should be taken?

  Step 1 is the stringent application of a strong public benefit test with charitable status set with a higher barrier

  As I stated before, I don’t think the WT would pay this. The members would pay. The end result would be the shunning would continue, and the members would be poorer.

  Government moves slowly but surely - 30 years ago JW kids in the UK were dieing over the blood issue - that simply doesnt happen anymore - so i figure maybe we are due for another step change - perhaps in how society perceives religious shunning

  I am shunned because I am black gay ex-JW - its not OK, but thats where we are right now.

  So are we saying that a JW, meeting an ex-JW on the street, has an obligation to converse of the former member would like to? I am not trying to be difficult. I really want to know where you are drawing the line in terms of a human "right" - to come up with a statement or two.

  MMM
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The issue isn't that human rights are potentially violated when someone is expelled from a religious organization...

  ...it's that human rights are potentially violated when an individual voluntarily leaves a religious organization for personal reasons, and any family members or acquaintences who might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact are, instead, compelled to shun him under direct or indirect threat of expulsion themselves.

  Because they are willing members of said religion? So you are also saying that shunning itself violates some human right? What right is it? It can’t be the right to leave a religion, because the DFed individual already has left the religion. Is it a right to join a religion and not abide by the internal rules of the religion/group if you don’t want to? (since we are talking about active members that “might otherwise be perfectly willing to remain in regular contact”).

  I know a bunch of Witnesses now that are in regular contact with DFed friends. They make that choice, and accept the consequences. Most of the time nothing comes of it. But I know a lot of former witnesses that would love to talk to their families - but their families don't want to talk to them. It sucks big time, but they believe it is right.

  In addition, this also has the potential effect of making the individual himself feel coerced to remain associated with an organization that he otherwise would not, and what's more, accept and promote an ideology that he can no longer in good faith honestly subscribe to...

  ...which is also, arguably, a potential violation of human rights.

  Why is this a violation of a human right? Because it puts someone in a bad spot? They willingly baptized themselves. Perhaps they were duped - as many of us were. But you do have the right (a true negative right) to leave, knowing what you got yourself into (the shunning doctrine isn’t really kept a secret). What if I “feel” coerced into living in a crappy apartment because I can’t afford a big one? What if a wife “feels” coerced into staying with her husband, when she would rather leave, but stays because she could never achieve the level of income as her husband. Are you saying that the wife’s human rights are violated because circumstances are bad for her?

  "Feeling" coerced isn't the same as being coerced. Is is a human right not to "feel coerced"?

  MMM
• 

  Londo111

  I think there's a spot on the GB for you.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Vidiot is correct to point out the "coercing" that occurs to those who no longer can support the "error" of the teachings of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  One only has to read and or watch (you tube) to become familiar with this. Add the testimony in the Douglas Walsh trial about supporting error and you can see what Vidiot said is right on the money.

  Also, I can tell you personally, that at this moment I know several who are going to meetings only because they have been threatened with loosing their families. Only because they want to save their wife and children. To see people I care for go thru this is my greatest source of anxiety. I can only describe the feeling, as like having a dream where you watch someone drown and you can not do anything about it. Problem is the coercion is real and happening as we speak.

  If one wants to go further into research about coercion inside the "organization", read about Manuela Dormain's experience. She was the mother of an abused boy. For years her son had a behavior problem. Only by reading her son's letter to his girl friend did she find out he had a bad thing happen to him when he was young. Manuela was compelled to warn a father about the possibility that his son was also abused. The father turned out to be an elder who knew abuot Compos being an abuser. Not only was Manuela disapointed that this elder did not warn her, but the elder coerced her to not go forward with making known Compos abuse of her son.

  What did Manuela do? She and her family did not allow themselves to be coerced. Watchtower settled out of court with a gag order. How much? I do not know. It is not the money. It is that someone faced the threat and came out the better for it.

  Watchtower has first amendment rights. Watchtower has a substantial legal team. Watchtower has financial assets.

  What Watchtower also has is a record of wrongdoing that the public needs to know about. Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.

  If and when something else comes up then: "here I am send me" LOL

  Make Lemonade,

  Surely you are correct! Shunning does hurt. There are many examples. We could all probably look to the members on this site for more than enough of these - and if not here, then just read through In Search of Christian Freedom by Ray Franz.

  But I am not ready to push toward some sort of government involvement - as if that would stop the shunning. JWs went to the gas chambers with Jews for their faith. JWs die of lack of blood transfusions for their faith. As long as the WT says shunning is Biblical, you’ll have shunning. Period. No matter what laws are passed. And the law (like most laws) will have the opposite effect. But in the haste to address the “human rights” tragedy, we loose sight of what a real “right” is. We start to assert all sorts of positive rights that may put duties on others and undermine some liberties you, as an individual, may want to enjoy in the future.

  I agree with you when you say this: “Education of the public is perhaps the only action that means anything.” That statement is spot on.

  MMM
• 

  Vidiot

  MeanMrMustard - "So what human right is violated by someone’s choice not to associate (shun)? The shunning comes from the members."

  You're right, the shunning comes from the members.

  But how many do you really think would do it if they weren't under threat of shunning (for noncompliance) themselves?

  MeanMrMustard - "I know a bunch of Witnesses now that are in regular contact with DFed friends. They make that choice, and accept the consequences. Most of the time nothing comes of it."

  Good for them.

  If that kind of passive rebellion against the GB's fatwas were more common, things would get really interesting.

  MeanMrMustard - "But I know a lot of former witnesses that would love to talk to their families - but their families don't want to talk to them. It sucks big time, but they believe it is right."

  Don't make the mistake of confusing belief with compliance.

  Besides, just how much of a "belief" can it really be, if (as a hypothetical scenario) the GB could abandon the WT's shunning policy with a word, and 7 million JWs worldwide suddenly felt free to associate with their DFed friends and relatives?

  MeanMrMustard - "...the shunning doctrine isn’t really kept a secret."

  Maybe not, but you can bet your sweet ass they don't focus on it much while they're recruiting somebody new.

  All this is academic, really.

  Even if the courts determined that shunning - as it is practiced by the WTS - isn't technically a "violation of human rights", requiring the rank & file to ostracize former members simply because of dissenting views is still unethical; and what's more, the WT publications have even stated this.

  Demanding "unity at all costs" and enforcing it by authoritarian means whilst pretending that you're not is fundamentally dishonest and indefensible.
• 

  Make Lemonade

  MeanMrMustard

  The abuse case I was involved in was dismissed at summary judgement. "Internal church policies and first amendment rights" was the reason. This fact alone makes what you are saying worthy of consideration. American law was originally put in place to protect freedom of worship. It is hard to get it in our heads that something as wrong as coercion is allowed by law. On top of that we all know that the information about shunning on the "official website" is misleading.

  Who said life is fair. It is not.

  However, when you loose according to the rules, all you have to do is win by following the rules. Speaking out to make people aware of the dangers of the Watchtower is also protected under first amendment rights. Like smoking. People choose to smoke to their own harm. If those who are about to start smoking are educated and then decide not to smoke, that is great. Those who did the educating feel better because they did what was in their power to do.

  No matter what happens in Finland the exposure will be educational to the public.

  We just have to do what we can do.
• 

  Bob_NC

  This just means that the end is really REALLY close, now that the nation has turned its attention to Jehovah's Organization.

  It is Gog of Magog standing in the Holy Place.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  You're right, the shunning comes from the members.

  But how many do you really think would do it if they weren't under threat of shunning (for noncompliance) themselves?

  A few, maybe 20%. There is no way to know for sure, but I think it is safe to say it would be some small minority. But I don’t see the point as it relates to human rights. How many people would buy a new car if they weren’t under a budget?

  Good for them. If that kind of passive rebellion against the GB's fatwas were more common, things would get really interesting.

  I believe it is more common than one might think.

  Don't make the mistake of confusing belief with compliance.

  Besides, just how much of a "belief" can it really be, if (as a hypothetical scenario) the GB could abandon the WT's shunning policy with a word, and 7 million JWs worldwide suddenly felt free to associate with their DFed friends and relatives?

  Let’s say it is 20% belief and 80% compliance, as I guessed in the first answer above. I don’t think it is relevant to the issue of “rights”, and freedom of association. They would feel free to associate with DFed (or DAed) individuals because the organization they are a part of says it is OK, no dispute from me on that. But by having the current policy, what "right" is the WT violating? We all think the WT abuses its authority when it comes to former members. But we give the WT that authority by choice, and we can take it away - and by this I mean the current active members that choose to do the shunning and comply (belief or not) with the WT. The government on the other hand is a different story. If the power is granted to the government to smash the WT in this regard, then fine. But the government still has that power afther the WT bashing is over. It shouldn't have that power at all.

  MMM