by Simon 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yes, shunning is clearly morally and ethically wrong but trying to convert that into a legal crime would be very difficult without it impinging on normal relationship dynamics as well.
Any politician putting this forward would heard howls of protest against "big brother" government which is why I doubt it will ever happen.
What would the legislation look like? How would it be worded to only apply to religious shunning?
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.
The fact that the JW's are coerced into shunning for fear that they in turn will be shunned if they don't is what the legislation should be based on. It falls under civil rights and freedom of religion meaning freedom to join or leave any religion. Here's what coerce means:
You just announce that so and so is no longer a JW.....and you leave it up to the individuals to decide how far you want to take shunning.
You could shun any discussion about your faith, or you could stop socializing, going out for coffee drinks or dinner. You can show displeasure in other ways.
But there is no need to shun innocent children or not extend family business to issues like health education and other related family concerns.
The WT has been out of control on this issue for a long time using shunning as a weapon. They will change their doctrines if they need to get a person shunned.
Case in point...... It used to be that a DA person was not shunned. But to lower the hammer on Ray Franz and further discredit him they rescinded that policy in favor of shunning DAed ones. A week later Ray was having lunch with his good friend who was also his landlord and part time employer and who had DA himself some time back. Ray was reported to the Society by a local Elder for violating this new rule. They finally had the grounds to DF him and they did. Of course that didn't work out that well for the Society.
Ostracism or exclusion may not leave external scars, but it can cause pain that often is deeper and lasts longer than a physical injury, according to a Purdue University expert.
"Being excluded or ostracized is an invisible form of bullying that doesn't leave bruises, and therefore we often underestimate its impact," said Kipling D. Williams, a professor of psychological sciences. "Being excluded by high school friends, office colleagues, or even spouses or family members can be excruciating. And because ostracism is experienced in three stages, the life of those painful feelings can be extended for the long term. People and clinicians need to be aware of this so they can avoid depression or other negative experiences."
When a person is ostracized, the brain's dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which registers physical pain, also feels this social injury, Williams said. The process of ostracism includes three stages: the initial acts of being ignored or excluded, coping and resignation.
Williams' research is reported in the current issue of Current Directions in Psychological Sciences. The article was co-authored by Steve A. Nida, associate provost and dean of The Citadel Graduate College and a professor of psychology.
"Being excluded is painful because it threatens fundamental human needs, such as belonging and self-esteem," Williams said. "Again and again research has found that strong, harmful reactions are possible even when ostracized by a stranger or for a short amount of time."
Some good info about "hurting" others by shunning.
When shunned I should ask my family "Why did you beat me, slap me, hit me the other day when I saw you at the store?" The would say,. "I never did anything like this,.. you must be crazy!"
Then tell them that they did something worse,... they continually ignore you
Maybe we could show some family member that they are doing worse than "hitting us"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110510151216.htm
I agree with freemindfade. Remove tax exempt status for any group who promotes shunning, discrimination or hate.
In fact, why not go one step beyond that? A carrot and stick approach: such an organization would incur tax penalties for promoting shunning. If they change, they can be exempt, maybe even given a carrot of some kind. If a group continues to promote hate, be they the Watchtower, Scientology, or the KKK: tax them into the ground!
One problem is that organizations seem to have more freedoms than individuals do, including the individuals within those same organizations. It's time to recognize the freedoms and rights of individuals over that of soulless organizations.
Religious Hate Tax!! hahahah yes! pay to be an asshole, now we are talking
Duh!
Do you know how many non-Witnesses shunned me when I was a Witness? Now you're going to try and regulate what they can do?
I don't think so. It's silly to even contemplate something like that unless we turn the world into George Orwell's 1984.
Can't put it a law against the people, but against the organization I think it's VERY possible! The organization is the one who tells the members to shun the people, even family, not even emailing them if they leave the religion.
For wanting religious freedom but denying people the RIGHT 'to seek happiness', 'for their OWN religious freedom', by telling their own friends and family they must be shunned should and hopefully soon will be legally forced to stop that. THEN as in all other religions, it's up to people on their own if they shun or not, NOT w/ the organization telling them to do so.
Just think about it ... how would it work?
As you say, Simon, we can't force anyone to associate with the crazy uncle who gets drunk and ruins a family gathering because that is a question of choice at the individual level.
I do think things get a little more complicated when an organization teaches that a group of people should be shunned.
Is it okay, for example, for an organization to teach that people of a certain skin color should be shunned? Obviously not. A religion that openly taught racial intolerance would almost certainly put their legal status at risk in most enlightened countries.
JW's are free to do what they want at an individual level, but at an organizational level, I do think they are teaching a form of intolerance. And public acceptance does seem to be waning.
When it comes to shunning and potential statutory remedies to lessen harm there are two areas to concentrate on.
1. The distinction of personal preference to shun versus organized communal shunning.
2. Whether a particular shunning presents undue influence over something with a State interest.
