Mandated Shunning is a Crime

by Lee Marsh 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stan livedeath

  • +3 / -0

  • 

    FatFreek 200514 hours ago
    I've been out of WT for 45 years but the shunning from my two children didn't begin shunning till sometime after the Ray Franz debacle.
    The children are now 63 and 60 years old respectively.

    i know how you must feel--2 of mine have been shunning me for 40 years now. Ive never met their partners and kids either.
• 

  jhine

  Am l missing something here ? The words MANDATED SHUNNING is in capital letters 6 times in the OP . I looked at the website and it clearly says that it's mandated shunning that it proposes to outlaw.

  Jan from Tam
• 

  Lee Marsh

  @ NotFormer

  What about freedom of association? I should be allowed to avoid people I have nothing in common with. What is the dividing line between shunning and the avoidance of those we distrust or otherwise dislike for whatever reason?
  

  Everyone has the right to a personal choice. That is a basic human right.

  There is a serious problem though when leaders decide for you who you can and cannot talk to or even be in the same room with. They make the rules and enforce them.

  If you asked a Witness if they choose to shun most would say it is a personal choice. But if you are coerced into that “choice” then you aren’t really choosing the shunning. You are choosing not to get punished.
• 

  Lee Marsh

  Jan, the term Mandated Shunning is actually rather new. It is important to make the distinction between a personal choice to shun someone and a rule from any organization that requires shunning of certain people regardless of the damage it causes not only to the one who is shunned but to those who are forced to do it.

  The caps was my way to help people become familiar with the term
• 

  truthlover123

  The way it is mandated in the org is that a persons name is given off the platform, causing the entire congregation to realize there is a sinner?? in their midst and at once, are to shun that person. Is that against any countrys privacy act? It should be. The elder is announcing someone's personal issue, albeit a masked announcement leading to all kinds of speculation, where there may not be any- where is the HR for that?
• 

  EasyPrompt

  The JWBorg also does not have a public trial. In Bible times, justice was handled in the "city gate" where others could observe and make sure things weren't done in a sketchy way.

  
  

  When the JWBorg elders announce "so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" the elders make themselves into slanderers. Only God can say whether or not a person is one of His witnesses. There are many who have been "disfellowshipped" by a JW judicial committee where the person still considered themself a witness of Jehovah.

  
  

  For the elders to attempt to enforce shunning of a person based on an illegal verdict and then for them to claim it is scriptural is fraudulent and a bold lie. When the elders or WTBT$ Legal Department guys tell the courts that their "disfellowshipping doctrine is scriptural" the elders/WTBT$ are lying to the courts. They are committing perjury and are liable to the consequences that come from misrepresenting God while under oath.
• 

  jhine

  I fully understand that Lee . I was confused by NotFormer's post indicating that the campaign is called " shunning is a crime " and talking about sloppy wording . I was pointing out that actually the campaign is against mandated shunning, as in people being FORCED to shun . Which l thought was clear from the wording of your OP .

  Jan from Tam.
• 

  Lee Marsh

  I have another thread going asking for images. It is for a piece I am writing on JWs and Human Rights violations.

  They hit almost every one of them. In some way shunning is involved in a lot of them
• 

  NotFormer

  Lee makes it very clear that "mandated" shunning is what is being argued against. The trouble with the slogan "Shunning is a Crime" is that it can sound like "avoidance is a crime", which can sound like "freedom of association is a crime". If you run with "Shunning is a Crime", then you'll get NAMBLA coming out and agreeing, saying "So stop shunning us!"

  Mandated shunning is a very big problem. And for every complicated problem, there is a simple solution; and it is always wrong. There is no simple solution, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it. Starting with the shunning of minor children by their families is a sensible approach. Norway has had a crack at it. Even then, it's not perfect, but they did hit the WT where it hurts, in their wallet. If more governments did this, tying the shunning of minors to religious funding and charitable status, then it might cause the WT to back down on the shunning of minors.

  But even then, we know that at the top, the WT is a pack of liars. They could well introduce a policy that looks like they are complying with the letter of "not shunning", while continuing to effectively do it in spirit. We are not dealing with normal, kind , rational people here. At the top, they are a bunch of cold-hearted killers, who happily condemn minors to death by encouraging them to refuse life-saving blood transfusions.

  Another problem I see with this campaign is the lumping together of very different groups. The Amish are a harder nut to crack because they give minors the choice when they reach adulthood. They also don't tend to get government funding the way the WT does. So what works for the WT isn't going to work for the Amish.

  So what is the answer? Certainly not one big, simple answer. What it will take is a lot of small answers, applied over time. The problem is big and complex, and will have to be chipped away at.
• 

  NotFormer

  Petrw: "I think the command form of the verb "to love" => could only be used by God. If the governments of this world do it too, it usually leads to the death of a large number of people or in other words: more people always die in the process than should hypothetically have been saved if nothing had been done..."

  Spike Jones and the City Slickers: "Not to love der Fuhrer is a great disgrace, So we Heil! (raspberry!) Heil! (raspberry!) Right in der Fuhrer's face!"

  (Just agreeing with the point that Government mandated "love" is often worse than whatever it was supposedly addressing. I'm not trying to trivialise an otherwise very serious topic)