BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

by raymond frantz 51 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Frazzled UBM

  MMM - I think you miss the point - shunning is a form of abuse and even though it is wrapped up in choice, it is a de facto policy of the WBTS which the majority of Wirtnesses comply with (the fact of minor non-compliance without consequence does not mean it is not a policy). If you are so set on what right is being infringed - it is the right not to be subject to psychological abuse. Bullying is widely condemned and punished in schools and workplaces - why shouldn't that also be the case for charitable institutions - partricularly when it is institutionalised bullying. I think besty's contribution is the most insightful on this thread and I fervently hope he is right about how governments will view this in the future. Fraz
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Hi Fraz,

  I don't think I am missing the point. I know what you are saying. I just disagree. Take, for example, the right you listed: "If you are so set on what right is being infringed - it is the right not to be subject to psychological abuse."

  Can you define "psychological abuse"? Can you guarantee that ambigious phrase won't be used sometime in the future to limit other liberties we might enjoy? You do realize that making a "right" out of that may impose some unintended duties on individuals later on, and I don't just mean the WT - I mean simple people? What about the husband that has a wife and family but decides he doesn't want to be with them anymore. Is he allowed to make that choice? Or is an activist court going to come in later and say, "Well, it seems that his leaving constitutes psychological abuse, even in a small degree, and therefore the wife's human right is violated." Or what if it is decided, by wise politicians of course, that being raised a JW is abuse? Should their children be taken away by force? This is not too far fetched, after all, besty did say that he feels it is abuse to be raised in high control groups. What if you are not in a high control group, but want to home school your children? What if the local public school is horrible (as a lot are in inner cities) and a concerned parent, limited by lack of free choice in schools, wants to home school? Again, this is not far fetched. Simply google “home school abuse”. There are individuals who are of the opinion that home schooling is abuse in and of itself.

  What if I decide, for reasons OTHER THAN religion, that I don't want to talk to my mother and father (or children)? Should I be forced because it may be viewed as abuse?

  You mentioned bullying. Do you consider name calling “bullying”? When I was growing up, “bullying” was being physically assaulted.

  MMM
• 

  Giordano

  This site is all about one's right to leave a religion: http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/search/label/JW

  The discussion on the blogs regard Rebecca Hancock has been about the right of the member to leave a church. But I think a more general discussion is called for. Why is a bad idea to continue church discipline on non members? First off it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent. Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, " No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts."A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.
• 

  Giordano

  One of the most troubling aspects of JW shunning is that it remains a punishment even though you have decided to leave the religion. Legally they have no control over a person who changes religions or leaves the JW's. But by shunning they enforce a continuous punishment that many would argue is a form of torture by severely discouraging believing family members from having any contact.

  While it could be argued that shunning a family member may be a sincere action based on one's faith being punished for not shunning is a form of coercion.

  coercion: to make (someone) do something by using force or threats .
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Hi Giordano,

  I read the cases you link to. They are not the same. The shunning comes from the currently active members of the WT.

  Rebecca Hancock had a case of slander until she went to Fox news and outed herself. She was persuing a relationship with a man out of marriage and her current church didn't like that. She terminated her membership, and the church decided it was going to present her wrongs publically to the congragation (probably read a list off one Sunday or something). As you know, JWs don't do this because it could turn to slander. Her case evaporated when she went to Fox news and confirmed everything was true on national TV. Again, she had the freedom to leave. She did. Good for her.

  Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville link: This is a case of a woman, Marian Guinn, who wanted to have a relationship with a man that the church didn't approve of. The church told her no, she quit. Again, freedom of assocation confirmed right there. But here is where it devates drastically from the WT: the church rejected her decision, then excommunicated her, and then went to all the local churches and told them what she had done. This was the problem. The WT is not doing this. They will either terminate their association, or the member will. Their policy of shunning applies to the rest of the currently active members, and they don't go around telling local churches the offenses of the former member, and they don't make the offenses public to the congregation.

  MMM
• 

  Band on the Run

  I choose freedom of religion. Finland evidently does not have the same history the U.S. did. European history is full of governments becoming entangled in church much to the detriment of the country.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Band on the Run,

  You are right to mention this. This thread started out about Finland, but that not where the thread is now.

  MMM
• 

  Band on the Run

  I feel srrry that Finns d not have freedom of religion. I have not read the voluntary withdrawing legal cases. Two people I respect very much have state that the cases are being mischaracterized. Beware of seeing what yu want to see. I could write a long book about the First Amendment and the fear of govt. entanglement. Courts do not want to plunge ahead and monitor what is permissible for a religion to do. James Madison fought against an establishment in VA.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  I wrote a lengthy letter about a year ago to Forum 18 and sent numerous e-mails to the OSCE. I know others have been doing so as well. Could we actually be making a dent in the jewel encrusted under-belly of the WTBTS?!?!

  DD
• 

  cultBgone

  Hey y'all.... Go Finland!