The right to shun - wrong?

by Simon 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  freemindfade

  To some degree I agree. If you don't want to have anything to do with someone you have the right.

  A few things to consider though. It's institutional for one. It's not just getting in a fight with someone and they stop taking to you. It's announced. To friends. Family. And strangers.

  Shunning often has delved into people's privacy to get to that point, then exposed it to many others in what is a slanderous way.

  Another thing is to consider is children. Most born ins are baptized before being considered an adult. They are making a choice of member ship into an organized religion/business before they can drink, drive, go to war, get married, etc. And now they are pushing for younger baptize and focused on kids. What happens when more minors are getting not only baptized but also reproved and even df'd? It could make for a sticky situation.

  What I am getting at is personal reason to cut ties with someone happen often. A systematic approach from a group claiming charity etc could be a problem though. When they, a third party, are dictating your choices that if you don't uphold you could be threatened with the same punishment.

  I do agree Simon but I think something will give somewhere. It's religious intolerance, and as isis and other maniacs make more headlines the Prarie of religious hatred and intolerance is going to get less and less popular and by extension jw shunning could get lumped in with that at some point. Laws made to protect Muslims or others could be used for jws in the future.

  Also I gave often thought of this:

  Would it mean the government would force people to talk to others they didn't want to?

  And here is what I think would happen. Watchtower would have to change policy and preaching of the practice. I deep down believe they would continue it though. They have a way. For instance it doesn't say anywhere you can't have a beard. But grow one and watch the fireworks. They are good at enforcing unwritten rules that would just seem crazy in writing. But if the law forced them to at least remove the policy. I would call that a small win
• 

  The Rebel

  Interesting O.P.

  My name is Rebel i am a .......?

  I am sure we all have our.........that we would shun a person for?

  The Rebel.

  p.s I wish Viviane would shun my "new topics"
• 

  punkofnice

  I don't shun people but if I did it would be because I had a good reason....not because some lard buckets in Brooklyn told me to.
• 

  The Rebel

  Well said Punk.

  Personal choice. No fear or intimidation, nor an immediate superior should make us shun another.

  The Rebel.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  We all shun others. We choose whom to associate with and whom to avoid. I think the real issue is the lies of the WTBTS, the information control, the "Code Red" that has been issued.

  The WTBT's reasons for DF'ing are valid in some instances if ( BIG IF ) you believe in the Bible. As such fiascos like "The Walsh Trial" have shown, shunning as practiced by the WTBTS has gone beyond the Bible's counsel to cease association with a bad Xian. Legalism has morphed shunning into a weapon to silence "rebellious Korah's" who disagree with God's chosen ones.

  I would be shocked if anything was ever done about it. As mentioned before, the most that can be expected is that the WTBTS be ordered not overtly advocate shunning.

  DD
• 

  Simon

  Furthermore the threat of being shunned if you don't shun another individual should also be outlawed.

  it is entirely possible to introduce legislation that prevents organisations from directing its members to shun people.

  What would the legislation look like? How would it be worded to only apply to religious shunning? Would it be of any value if people were still shunned? What would the penalties be? Would it mean people who should be shunned couldn't be? (e.g. child molesters)

  Can you see the difficulties - you would have to get into so much detail ... no wonder there is no movement to enact such a law.

  I do agree Simon but I think something will give somewhere. It's religious intolerance, and as isis and other maniacs make more headlines the Prarie of religious hatred and intolerance is going to get less and less popular and by extension jw shunning could get lumped in with that at some point. Laws made to protect Muslims or others could be used for jws in the future.

  That brings up important issues that illustrate the difficulties. No one is going to pass a law just for exJWs. So what about some extremist who wants to spread the word of Jihad in his local mosque. Can they exclude him or not?

  I think it's important to look closely at the practicalities of what we're campaigning for in order to decide if such things are really really viable or not. Maybe we need to be more specific.

  Legalism has morphed shunning into a weapon to silence "rebellious Korah's" who disagree with God's chosen ones.

  Would it be better if the WTS could not announce a ban without a reason as well? That way they couldn't just make something up without giving someone cause to make a claim (possibly for violating privacy or for libel) and also the people in the cong. could possibly decide "eh what? you are kicking them out for that?!?"
• 

  millie210

  Simon
  Everyone has to have the right to shun people. There is simply no way on earth that the opposite can be legislated for.

  You are right Simon.
  

  Shunning is a behavioral response normal to humans.

  Anthropologically speaking, shunning happens for heinous actions that threaten group well being. This would result in the shunned ones immediate survival being at risk and thus a return to conforming to group behavior.

  What is wrong is the Org took this basic human behavior and harnessed it in to a weapon of their own. THEY tell you who to shun and not shun based not on things people would naturally exclude someone over but based instead on warped concepts and ideals they have come up with.

  It is clever group manipulation and JWs are certainly not the only ones who have utilized it.

  As man evolves and adapts to a modern world, hopefully this behavior will be recognized as

  what it is and will be shunned itself! Imagine that. A world where people shun the concept of shunning.

  Then it would fall out of vogue and new tools that work better would be employed by high control groups.

  But people on their own? They are always going to shun various individuals based on their own ideas. That is the part that is hard wired in to us.

  Which is what makes it the very reason any attempts to legislate it will be relatively ineffective.
• 

  freemindfade

  I suppose the only way they could get away with it is some sort of recategorizing.

  Like if you preach any kind of hate

  If you promote intolerance

  Discrimination

  shunning etc.

  Through written policies and published material

  You lose certain religious privileges, such as tax exemption. yes there is freedom of religion and speech, but still why can't these groups be subject to not violating certain protected categories like you would in a work place?

  In the end it would probably just result in a changing of language in literature, but the witnesses can twist it for days and still do it, they would just change the name of it and continue
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  I just wanted to say that I think the JW idea of love has the largest part of it invested in discipline. They shun and are ok with beating children because severe discipline is a more important physical way in which they demonstrate "love" - Compassion takes the back seat. Of course this makes sense to me since the entire cult is orientated around unquestioning loyalty and discipline - even if the discipline itself is as hollow as the "love" is. They have always relied on discipline rather than demonstrating compassion or empathy to keep people in the cult.
• 

  freemindfade

  While it may not yet cross the street to legal issue, it is safe to call it an ethical issue. For instance, and I am speaking from experience, choosing not to associate with someone who has spiraled to a point of absolute danger to them selves and others. having to take somewhat of a "intervention" approach and not enable them through self destruction (which doesn't mean shunning either). Just not supporting it.

  But when you consider the worst part of witness shunning its not really someone who breaks a witness law like fornications and gets DF'd but still believes fully in their membership to the cult, but rather the worst part would be anyone who simply says, I don't want to be a member any longer. This is where you see the true intentions of this cult practice. Censorship and vilification/demonization of anyone brazen enough to leave. You are saying you become a jehovah's witness you have forfeited freedom of religion in their eyes.

  The damages cause to someone simply wanting to leave, should start to push the line from ethics to legality someday I hope.