by tyydyy 17 Replies latest jw friends
Can you imagine tobacco companies that are pressured saying,
"we've recieved new light, and now we don't say that fags aren't bad for you anymore, so if you have a beef against us, see God about it - afterall, he's the one who gave us the tobacco"
Bang
I understand that those who willingly join the JWs have effectively and legally given up thier legal and human rights except for the fact that they don't have full disclosure (good points). But for those born and raised as a JW...............They have never been given that choice. In my case, I didn't willingly join the religion. Yes, I was baptized at the age of 13 but I don't think that a person is fully capable of making such a decision at that age. I knew at a very early age that if I chose to live a life without the JWs that I would lose my family and friends. (I lost some very dear friends and a brother) This had a tremendous impact on my ability to freely choose what religion I would follow.
If there were no consequences for associating with a disfellowshipped person then they could say that shunning was a personal choice. Since there are rules in place that severely penalize someone who does choose to live normally as a family with a disfellowshipped person then I would think that makes this an organizational penalty and not a religious one.
The JWs have gone to great lengths to set up several corporations to protect themselves financially. It should be easy to prove that the decisions made in the local congregations must have the approval of the "home office". This means that the corporation responsible for the final decision could be guilty of the violation of human rights. Right?
TimB
Well, technically if you are inactive ( not attending the meetings ), no matter what you do, you are not going to be DF'd.
Think again sunshine! They can and will track you down and d/f you...seen them in action!
Sunshine,
Be careful. My sister was just disfellowshipped even though she has not set foot in a Kingdom Hall in over 2 years. They had to try very hard just to find her since she moved to a differerent city.
TimB
Edited by - tyydyy on 26 July 2002 10:24:59
We may not be able to take the Watchtower to court for abuseing our Human Rights, but we can educate people about it.
We can tell them that their basic Human Rights will be abused if they join the JWs. Who wan'ts to join a church like that?
Remember. Many can't leave the Watchtower for family reasons. Those who have doubts will probably not donate money. They will go out in service but they not going to convert new members.
In my experience, people who have never been a JW rarely know about the shunning practices of JWs. How do you educate people outside the religion without a major news story like Jonestown or Heaven's Gate? I don't know about you but I really don't want to preach anymore!
TimB
tyydyy, I just want to say that I don't know if this is a UK thing, but a lot of people here still talk to their disfellowshipped family including me. I've even managed this since knowledge of the August kingdom ministry has been out.
But I do feel very strongly about those who are affected by this. My family is already split in half by the religion. If people were to cease all contact, there would be a lot more apostate preaching going on. Contrary to what the August km says, if I was cut off from speaking to my family, I would not be compelled to re-join but would go on the offensive.
Tyydyy:
I agree that the WT denies people religious freedom.
Unfortunately, the courts have consistently refused to become involved in this area, mainly imo, because to do so opens up a huge can of legal worms as to what constitutes coercion and where a persons right not to talk to others begins and ends. The modern enlightened state does generally prefer not to "make windows into men's souls". The up side of that is less state-sponsored religious persecution, the downside is less accountability by religious organisations. A correct balance is difficult to achieve.
This is an front that must be fought in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law. In fact, that is already happening, and as usual the internet is proving to be the decisive weapon. The vast reduction in baptisms and studies is likely to be because people research on the net and find out about practices such as coercive shunning.
In which case, effort and resource is best spent directed at the media rather than lawsuits for this area.
Expatbrit
