The right to shun - wrong?

by Simon 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Iown Mylife

  @Giordano...after reading your mention of Ray's unjust treatment this morning, I went and re-read the account in CoC. His story with all its meticulous detail would hold up in any court - that's my opinion. I was floored, as I read how people in the GB that had known Ray all his life would stoop to lies and abusive disregard of facts in their frenzy to dispose of him. I experienced that sensation of a bomb exploding in my mind. I think it rewired my brain. After reading what happened to Ray Franz I could no more set foot in a WT "hall" than I could touch a poisonous spider.

  After detailing the whole unbelievable mess, Ray cautions ones to think before jumping out of WT, and to make certain they don't simply trade one questionable religion for another. I couldn't wait though - I was OUT completely by the time I finished the book.

  The bosses ordering a contract killing could learn a thing or two from the WT org-ordered shunnings.

  Marina
• 

  username

  Logistically (especially the US) removing the tax exempt status would be pretty much impossible, nor would the oligarchs want to. We are talking about a multi billion dollar corporation that invests in such companies as Lockheed Martin and Grumman Northrop, two of the biggest companies to supply weapons to the US, UK, Israel, Syria (anti Assad rebels via the CIA) and many more.

  Personally I think this is why the watchtower are dealt with in a pretty lenient way in the US. It invests in such things as the military industrial complex which gives them a certain amount of immunity.
• 

  Simon

  Unless they set some sort of promotion of intolerance and hate threshold and if crossed you are no longer recognized as a religion.

  Many of the major religions teach a fundamental belief of "death to non believers". It's hard to imaging that if *that* isn't sufficient to take action that anything else much milder ("don't talk to so and so") will be.

  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.

  Let's be honest. The WTS is a US religion and right now the US is not super high on the "enlightened" scale when it comes to race & religion - sometimes I feel it's bordering on being an extremist state. For all their talk, the have a pittance of members outside the US even in the major western countries (UK, Australia, Canada, Germany). Nothing major will happen to the WTS unless it happens in the US.

  Also, racial or other intolerances are easier to address than individual ones because they are far more clear-cut - you're talking about what someone is, not their degree of adherence to any in-house rules. They have a set of rules, people chose to join. They have the right to enforce their rules ... don't they?

  That seem to be the case in the US: even with discrimination on what someone is, courts seem unwilling to take action. Just look at Kim Davis. The religious right see nothing wrong with openly discriminating against gays and the only battle is whether they should be allowed to do that everywhere or not. No mention of stopping them doing it within their own churches.

  Where I think there is a legitimate complaint is when they change the rules after someone has joined ... but again, which politician is going to get involved trying to legislate religious belief?
• 

  Simon

  Personally I think this is why the watchtower are dealt with in a pretty lenient way in the US. It invests in such things as the military industrial complex which gives them a certain amount of immunity.

  Even without their investments. They are a religion and in the US that means practically untouchable. Legislation rarely singles out individuals - it has to apply to all, which politician in Jesusland is going to touch it?

  Heck, they can't even say "let's ban guns" after a classroom of kids is shot and religion is even more protected than gun ownership.
• 

  JeffT

  Here's a good example of what can go wrong with well-intentioned efforts to legislate a requirement that groups can't enforce limiting association.

  A number of years ago the LGBT group at a university here took offense at the exclusivity of the campus Christian association. They got the student senate to pass a regulation that every campus group had to be open to every student. They then packed the next campus christian meeting and disrupted it. A few days later the Christians packed the LGBT meeting and passed a resolution declaring homosexuality an abomination. I think there was then some talk among the Democratic and Republican groups about talking over the other side's meetings. A couple of days after that some smart people in the student senate rescinded the rule and said campus groups could put reasonable limits on their members.

  To bring this closer to home, if you form a local support group for XJW's do you want to be unable to close the door when the local elders decide to come in and tell you what to think?
• 

  Simon

  Yes, people are often keen to pass legislation but forget about the unintended consequences.

  They forgot how people's behaviour can change when new rules are applied and it's not always for the better.
• 

  TD

  Let's be honest. The WTS is a US religion and right now the US is not super high on the "enlightened" scale when it comes to race & religion - sometimes I feel it's bordering on being an extremist state. For all their talk, the have a pittance of members outside the US even in the major western countries (UK, Australia, Canada, Germany). Nothing major will happen to the WTS unless it happens in the US.

  It's fun to speculate. We've seen policy changes driven by countries you probably wouldn't put at the very top of a list based on size and influence. Bulgaria threatened to (indirectly) revoke the legal status of JW's because the medical autonomy of individual members was restricted by sanctions (i.e. shunning) for noncompliance. The end result may not have been a big change in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that it became an issue at all seems to indicate (To me, anyway.) that the climate is slowly changing.
  

  
  
  

  Also, racial or other intolerances are easier to address than individual ones because they are far more clear-cut - you're talking about what someone is, not their degree of adherence to any in-house rules. They have a set of rules, people chose to join. They have the right to enforce their rules ... don't they?

  I would say that the JW faith has the right to enforce their rules within the confines of basic human rights and that like medical autonomy, freedom of religion is one of those rights.

  JW's and kindred groups promote a very self serving concept of religious freedom via the notion that it entitles religious organizations to do whatever the hell they want in the name of their beliefs, but the concept of religious freedom is actually a coin with two sides where the right of the individual to associate (Or disassociate) with the religion of their choice is also important. .

  When the decision is to disassociate, it's one thing if that alienates friends and family as individuals. It's quite another for a religious organization to teach that alienation is the only acceptable response and threaten friends and family with similar sanctions if they don't toe that line.

  That is an abridgement of religious freedom just as surely as sanctions for noncompliance to predetermined medical choices is an abridgement of medical autonomy.
  

  I don't have any hope at all that lawmakers and politicians in the U.S. will ever grasp that distinction, but my impression (Just speculating...) is that European countries are starting to lose patience. It's also hard not to notice that JW writers have been bending over backwards to create the false impression that shunning is a matter of individual choice rather than organizational policy, which to me, says loud and clear that they are aware of it.
  

  
  
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  Interesting psychology today about shunning and bullying ..evolution

  JWshunning considered "Social shunning" vs." Mental rejection"

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201302/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201303/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection-part-ii

  I have a thought and perhaps it will be acknowledged...

  Shunning as loving arrangement is done to bring someone back to the flock, let us look on the evolutionary reasons.
  
  
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  JW shunning considered "Social shunning" vs. Mental shunning"of individuals.... the world knows it!

  Part 2

  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201303/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection-part-ii

  The loving arrangement under fire,

  At the moment i think that any form of shunning is a lack of love, what means that we are not always able to be good 100 percent, its lately our mistake too out fear or because the group wants to show who is the dominat bull and we play the game or because a person or a group doesnt really want to approach a person, other culture, boring person, problematic person, dangerous person,, better be cautious and withdraw the love.

  What are the rules for the congregation?

  Jesus said in cases 12/10, the paragraph of the human rights, that some persons in the congregation will be difficult cases, but love has no limit, its only your fear that limits you, to approach others 77 times.

  Did you ever visit a former bro in a jail? Must be difficult. He wouldnt be your best friend, but not shunning him that would be nearly 99/100 love level.I think that only a pope would do such a thing. An average christian would not be so good. It would say.. i warned him..now i wash my hands in innocence...shall others help him, try to chance him.. for me this guy is ultimately lost.

  Now I think of jws who go to jails and have bible studies......then they dont judge these criminals..speaking about love and repentance ...

  ...but why are the same elders judges in J/Cs and withdrawing love in minor cases that dont end in jail....and make ultimative shunning decisions .and avoiding ultimate devisions if abuse is obviously ? Okay thats another subject
  
• 

  LisaRose

  You cannot legislate to force people to talk to one another, it violates the basic rights of individuals.

  I don't think any attempt by government to restrict a religion from teaching their members to shun will work either, but itwould be nice to see an educational campaign that would shine a light on this hateful practice. How many people would join a religion if they knew that they would be expected to shun their own child in some circumstances? It's not something they talk about much before baptism, if at all, they pretend it's only in cases of very willful sin, and only if someone is completely unrepentant. It's one of the biggest lies they tell.

  Broken families, suicide, and great personal anguish are the end result of this hateful practice, yet most people know nothing about it.