by Simon 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Of course the right to withdraw from social contact from whomever you choose is a personal right unless you are legally/morally/ethically responsible for that person, as in the case of underage children and a spouse.
But the point is, it should be an individual decision to do that NOT mandated by a religion that YOU MUST SHUN any and all who no longer wish to remain in your religion including your family, otherwise YOU will be "shunned" yourself.
If they were a tax paying organization they should have a wide range of options in terms of what they teach - or don't.
Once an organization is sanctioned as a tax-free entity they must abide by specified social norms. As a tax payer, I have no interested in subsidizing bad behavior.
Sparrowdown
Is not a Christian religion of love morally ethically responsible for its members too? As grouo... or is it propaganda, a chimera.. are the innocent only catched and trapped to be socially abused?
If an instituition is a legal institution according to country law the ministers are to a certain extent of course responsible for the welfare of the members and not allowed to destroy the social integrity of a person or use social shunning rituals that harm the local community. Good shrepard.....Like the teachers for the pupils are responsible
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.
Adding to DD's thoughts I'd like to say that maybe shunning, particularly when practised on someone who DA's or is DF'd due to no longer believing JW doctrine, hence called 'mentally diseased'or 'demonised'could become illegal as either slander and/or come under the hate crime laws. I don't know what others think?
I certainly agree with Datadog that muslim extremism is pushing it more to the forefront politically and it's bound to get caught up in any legislation against religous extremism.
I am only referring to the personal right of individuals to decide for themselves who they do or don't talk to.
Not the responsibility of religions to care for their members. That's a whole other debate.
At the end of the day Simon is right. Each indivudual has a right to choose who they are friends with.
But don't get me wrong, religious leaders DO NOT have the right to decide that for individuals.
Enforced shunning is wrong !!!
Are elders in the congregation in the same duty as teachers...do they have the office of a supervisory agency?
If we think that they try to receive the status as pastoral care privilege (pastoral confidentiality) like catolic priests have. Does the "shepherd the flock" book give advice comparable to a supervisory agency according to the law? A supervisory agency over christians?
Can you imagine the procedure of in a judicial committee?
1. the pastoral care with confidential talks- legally privilege
2. the social shunning - legally privilege?
The perfect world.
Then: If social shunning or discrimination is not a state law ...than a "law-abiding" religion should not have such things in its constitution.
Any "power" JW elders have is only a percieved power.
The elders manual is not a legitimate law book.
The GB is not a legitimate agency with any legitimate power to do anything.
Giordano to coerce : to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition
Boy if threatening someone will be hated by his God and loose his life everlasting (after being df'd for associating with a df'd)is not intimidation, I don't know what is!
Each time a religious leader (or anyone else) says "don't talk to that person" then the listeners have a choice. If the leaders then say not to listen to the first ones then those people have the same choice and so on.
The only power they have is the power that people give to them. They can ask, but they can't compel (and if they are using force to do so they have broken other laws).
Yes, they use coercive and manipulative techniques ... are we going to ban advertisements next?
if threatening someone will be hated by his God and loose his life everlasting (after being df'd for associating with a df'd)is not intimidation, I don't know what is!
It is only intimidating to someone if they choose to believe it.
That's why it's very different to the kind of discrimination and intolerance shown to groups based on what they are.
It's all about choice and you can't legislate to have people make good ones.
