The right to shun - wrong? (page 10)

steve2

To shun is to be human.

To be forced to shun is to be in a cult.

Vidiot

Simon - "Many people are understandably upset and angry at the notion that JWs have the right to shun people. It seems such an obvious 'no brainer' cruel and inhuman thing to do."

I've come to suspect that the majority of people don't realize that high-control-group members aren't "forced" to shun... the vast majority of them do it willingly.

Pistoff

Doesn't everyone have the choice of whether to ignore the mandate or not?

That is not what the OP is about; it is about the being required to shun as a condition of membership, and (I would add) on false pretenses (the WT is continuing the ruse that unrepentant wrongdoing is the only reason for df'ing; anyone who has been a witness for more than 5 years probably knows 10 people who were judged 'non-repentant' for any number of reasons; they cried too much, cried too little, went back to the JC with more details on their own, etc).

As people, we individually make choices to avoid someone or not.

A witness, amish person or mormon does not have individual choice if he wants to avoid disfellowshipping or sanction.

Organized, institutional, forced shunning is my issue; it is unethical, wrong, and if unevenly applied, possibly illegal in the US.

Pistoff

To shun is to be human.
To be forced to shun is to be in a cult.

Yes, this.

steve2

Vidiot - in large part I agree with you. I'm sure we all know JWs who seem to relish the sheer drama of shunning - and they do it with a deadly flourish.

Some years ago, I innocently walked past an old JW friend seated at a table as I went to leave a cafe.

I had no intention of speaking to her, but our eyes met.

She immediately turned her eyes to a waiter to my left and in a loud voice said, "Would you please make sure the door's closed when the next customer leaves. People just don't bother closing it"

She then darted her eyes back to me with a smirk, turned quickly back to the person she was having a coffee with and smiling animatedly continued talked to her.

Shunning, disapproval and disgust all wrapped up in one fleeting gesture- utter perfection!

Giordano

when religious groups shun their members, more is at stake than the religious freedom of the group. Each member of the group has free exercise rights at least as compelling as the group that shuns them. The test of Sherbert v. Verner' 75 should be applied with this guiding principle in mind. When courts ignore the free exercise rights of individuals and look only at the religious claims of groups, they elevate the group's religion over the individual's religion. This is a dangerous path to follow. It gives religious groups virtually unfettered coercive power over their members and former members and blocks dissent and doctrinal development.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3827&context=penn_law_review

TheWonderofYou

The institution teaches and traines the members e.g. parents in the correct method how to discipline and execute the "loving arrangement", what we saw on the conventions. The subservient obidience to gods will namely to "hate" apostates and humble acceptance of one's role in this process as well as working togehter with the elders' care is part of the institutional procedere.

This institutional allowence has the effect that many simple suppress the natural feelings in the mind and add indiviudal punishing methods that even exceeds the usual humantiarian tolerant appropriate good behaviour. The institutional' group allowence opens door for heartless cruelty. Therefore the trigger is the organisation, it is its responsiblity to say how far. It does it very good labelling and defining which contacts are allowed, but many go beyond, others not, others even dont stop greating. There are those too, they understand that christian have to show loving or perhaps they experienced the hell in their own family.

Simon: Sometimes the shunning is an excuse for them to be cruel, not the cause of it.

Sometimes in the future ,if the organisation was in danger, they will emphasize the individual responsibility. They will say, "we never said that, it was always an individual decision of each member. We only encouraged them to be better christians...."

stockholm_Syndrome

can we but try and get it changed - may not work -- but I would try

poopie

Amen

Rainbow_Troll

If JWs were free to shun or not shun, I would agree. But the fact is that JWs who don't shun their DFed friends and family risk being disfellowshipped themselves. That's coercion, not a free choice, and if there were a way to prevent the governing body from exerting this coercion on the JWs I would be in favor of it.

As to how it could be enforced, I have to admit that it probably isn't possible.

The right to shun - wrong?

Share this