End shunning or lose tax free status (page 3)

Apognophos

It's a hypothetical.

Which would the watchtower choose if it came down to this in the United States or Europe?

Teary Oberon

"I'm confused....Is the gov banning the JW's for their shunning? Where is this happening?"

No, the OP is simply suggesting that they be taxed for not associating with disfellowshipped ones, essentially using the government as a club to enforce moral value judgments.

In the United States (as least currently) that is impossible, because it would violate the right to free association and Lord knows how many other rights in the process. Europe on the other hand, being that great bastion of Statist and Collectivist philosophy, would probably have no problem demolishing the right to free association. It just further cements the power of the government doing it anyways.

Quarterback

oh

Teary Oberon

Which would the watchtower choose if it came down to this in the United States or Europe?

I might also add in answer to this question:

Even if the United States and Europe came down and made shunning outright illegal, the Witnesses would be fully justified in continuing to do it under the radar, because it would be a case of the Governments transgressing against the rights of the Witnesses. The Governments would be in the wrong, and morally speaking nobody is obligated to endure blatent violations of their rights, even if by their own Government. Civil Disobedience 101.

Band on the Run

You forget the WT has a First Amendment right to shun which is not going to change. All religions would be affected by a tax exempt status loss. The politics don't exist. Furthermore, it might be grounds for impeachment for a federal judge to target the JWs.

metatron

I don't see a problem if they give up 'official' disfellowshipping.

They shunned people for getting married and/or having kids during the Rutherford era. Witnesses shunned each other in Nazi death camps, too. There was no official disfellowshipping back then.

Witnesses are downright eager to shun each other, in my experience as an elder. The Society could get rid of the announcement and judicial committees and it wouldn't change much.

The Jews in Jesus' day shunned zealously. Didn't make them compassionate or morally clean.

metatron

Quarterback

Canada did pull the Charitable status funding of a religious group last year. It was the PTL network. It was initiated due to their stand on Homosexuality. Apparently, the group would not offer help in Africa to those that were gay.

Teary Oberon

"They shunned people for getting married and/or having kids during the Rutherford era."

That is facinating. I've been lurking around ex-JW circles for long time and I've never heard that one before. Any specific cites?

metatron

It came from an elderly couple (now passed away who told me about their "rebellion"). If you check old WTS books (written by Rutherford), you will find strong quotes about how Armageddon was so close, blah, blah, blah, wait for marriage.

Old timers thought 'woe to the pregnant women in those days' might apply to them. Also, that maybe they needed the advice of 'ancient worthies' in the resurrection to pick the right mate.

This idiocy mostly ended when Knorr got married. Suddenly, there were proposals in Bethel, I was told!

metatron

OK, if you want to stir up trouble about df'ing, I can only suggest:

Try hitting them about df'ing gays or "disassociation" for joining the military or how it relates to child custody cases.

Gay groups used to attend assemblies to check for hate speech. And the whole "DA" thing was invented by Fred Franz to dodge trouble involved with expelling Witnesses who join the military. It came in handy when they got caught with the Bulgarian Blood compromise (i.e. they lied to authorities and got away with it).

Yes, 1st Amendment protections are pretty strong. Try other legal systems.

metatron

End shunning or lose tax free status

Share this