The right to shun - wrong? (page 11)

The Rebel

I honestly believe the Governing body do not force anyone to shun. People shun because they are shunners, many a witness in good standing I have known to ignore thiis commandment from the G.B, and I believe it's because it's simply impossible for them to shun, it's against their nature, and they don't do it.

That's not to let the G.B off the hook,trying to inforce the evil policy.( the reason it is done is to control information, and keep the community away from worldly association, hence celebrating birthdays and Christmas is a shunning offense) Its also not a blanket condemnation on shunners, some do it simply because they believe it's the right thing to do. But my observation congregations were like a pack of wolves, made up of people who enjoyed hurting the weak.

To clarify those that have shunned me, must take individual responsibility for shunning me, blaming an organization doesn't give them a free ticket.

Rainbow_Troll

Some JWs do use shunning as pretext for cruelty, but there are plenty of exceptions.

When I was being shunned by my best friend there was an instance when we accidentally met face to face (not in the KH) in a narrow hallway. Since the only way we could get away from each other was by turning around and going in the opposite direction, it was a very heavy, awkward moment for both of us.

She stared at me. I stared at her... I saw that her eyes were beginning to tear up. I was going to say something when she suddenly turned her back on me and briskly walked away; probably so I wouldn't see her cry.

She definitely did not want to shun me, but she had to. She wasn't an independent adult who could go anywhere she wanted. She was a 15 year old girl whose dad was an elder. When her half-sister was DFed, both of her parents resolutely shunned her, so my friend could have no doubt over what would happen to her if she did not shun me.

I want to remind you that this person was my BEST friend. I had known her since she was seven and I was eight. We were like siblings. I can't just shrug my shoulders and dismiss her as a fair-weather-friend who was forced to show her true colors because of the GB's shunning policy.

And my story isn't unique. So many ex-jws have had same experience. Shunning destroys friendships and families every day. Good people get hurt on both sides. It needs to stop.

The Rebel

Rainbow -Troll . Great observation and post thank you.

Vidiot

When shunning becomes directly responsible for injuries and/or death, then legal attempts might bear some fruit.

Until then, though...

ToesUp

Try reverse shunning, it feels great. I don't want to associate with anyone who has the audacity to shun someone else. They don't deserve to be in our lives.

LongHairGal

SIMON:

I agree with the poster who said the JW religion goes beyond what shunning is. While there may be somebody who we don't want to associate with, we may still look at them and/or be polite. The JWs take it to an unnatural level of trying to ignore that person as if they didn't exist. It takes a lot of effort to do this.

They practice enforced shunning so that everybody "must" ignore a person they decide. It is because this nonconforming person is a threat to the leadership or status quo of the religion and they are afraid others will either find out what this person knows OR others will imitate their "bad" example.

Technically, it is the right of a person to be able to shun somebody, but the Witnesses take it too far.

I might also add that the Witnesses use forced ASSOCIATION as well, in order to compel other JWs to bother with those there who are distasteful (such as people brought in in recent years who are "off"; prison witnessing studies; and even those suspected of being pedophiles.) Even though I am "inactive", I have told my few JW friends that they are NEVER to introduce me to anybody like this should they see me in public. I refuse to associate with people like this and it's just as well that I'm out of the JW religion.

These idiots think they can decree who is fit or unfit to associate with and they have usurped people's free will and sensibilities. Unless, of course, the JWs in the hall are thinking and awake!

LoveUniHateExams

The right to shun - wrong? - good question.

I think an organisation or religion shouldn't have the right to shun, and agree with what LHG said above.

But I think with individuals it's a different matter.

Example: my dad inherited money from my maternal grandmother's estate, despite not attending her funeral or helping my aunt deal with the solicitor to sell the estate. He has since disinherited me and will be giving his half of my gran's estate to his fiancée, a woman who only met my gran once. Legally, he's entitled to do this.

I tried contacting my dad with a view to discussing my issues with his actions but he refused to discuss this.

So, I've written a letter instructing him to remove my name from his and fiancée's mirror wills.

I'll also be moving on with the rest of my life, not visiting my dad anymore and not attending his funeral (I haven't told him this but he'll realise it eventually).

I'm exercising my right to shun because of my father's behaviour. I believe I have good reason to do this and therefore think shunning, in this case, isn't wrong.

OUTLAW

The right to shun - wrong?

Imposed shunning with the threat of a penalty,from a group/organization is criminal..

On the other hand

There`s more than a few people I want nothing to do with..

....................

They Can All Walk West..

UNTIL THEIR HAT FLOATS..
Image result for hat floating on water

The Rebel

LoveUnHateExams :- I haven't got my head around your post to contemplate on what you wrote yet, but I wanted to give an instant reply to say, wow. Because being so open on a thread, having the guts to post stuff like that in hyperspace, wow...I guess that's why I came back to visit the board, i was interested in how individuals were doing and if they still posted.

Take care.

Finkelstein

The Rebel says ....

I honestly believe the Governing body do not force anyone to shun.

But they certainly are the underlining instigators to this social behavior.

Its just another part their self imposed power and control over people, created for themselves to protect that assumed power and control.

J Rutherford and his following cronies made up this policy to rid of questioning problematic dissenters when the organization grew out of close engaging reach.

When it was realized that a good portion of the IBSA broke apart from the organization when he took over, he instinctively knew he had to watch carefully upon ones who were deemed as a possible threat to him and the remaining devoted followers.

Where I think the WTS shunning policy infringes unlawfully on the rights of the individual to choose their own religion without prejudice, condemnation and hatred toward someone freely making that individual choice .

ie. if a baptized JWS decides they don't want to continue in participation in this religious faith anymore but they rather move to another , the WTS shouldn't be allowed to publicly Disfellowship these ones, even making it so their own family wont talk and socialize with them.

In essence that's instigating and inciting hatred toward someone who is freely making a individual personal religoius choice on their own accord, is it not ?

Supposedly freedom of religion works for a group of associated people, as well for the single individual in their their expressive rights of religious choice.

The right to shun - wrong?

Share this