The right to shun - wrong? (page 7)

Saintbertholdt

Oubliette,

...teaching them how to think critically and logically in a number of different subjects and disciplines...atheists.

What help do young atheists need? I'm not being snarky.

enigma1863

You could always rub this article in their faces.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201306/the-silent-treatment/#?insight[search_id]=2b09d1c3-8c5d-4b72-b035-70d5c0e4b095&insight[search_result_index]=0

Scully

We all shun people.

The crazy neighbour that makes shooting gestures at your dog? Shunned. Avoided.

Your spouse's ex? The one that still gives him grief even though you've been together for years? Shunned.

Telling people that they cannot shun anyone for any reason would be completely unhealthy. We have the instinct to shun and avoid people - even if we cannot rationally say why we feel we should - as a safety measure. We should be allowed and encouraged to set up healthy boundaries in all relationships we have, whether they are superficial, deep or somewhere in between. People have to learn to respect healthy boundaries.

What groups like the WTS does is remove the right of its members to exercise healthy boundaries, and interfere with the natural boundary setting mechanism in order to create artificial boundaries that are implemented to protect the survival of the group, not the individual.

Why else would parents ignore the natural desire to save their child's life by all means necessary? Why else would people put their financial best interests aside, and instead donate their inheritance to the WTS? Why else would someone ignore their Spidey-sense about someone else, only to later learn that they've trusted their children to the care of a molester?

Frankly, there are people who deserve to be shunned and people I don't want in my life. I certainly would not want the government or a court to tell me that I have to associate with these people and damn well like it.

Oh, and as far as child molesters go, I don't think they should be shunned. Rather, they should have the words "CHILD MOLESTER" tattooed on their forehead, and then be allowed to circulate freely among a prison's general population. Survival of the fittest and all that.

diamondiiz

People have it wrong. There is nothing wrong with you choosing to shun someone out of your own free will.

Problem here is that there is a third party causing the shunning and IMO that aspect could be legislated to be illegal and those organizations causing members to shun should be classified as cults, banned or at least lose their tax-free status.

If you belong to an organization and leave or get kicked out, sure you may not be allowed into the building but what you and other members do outside of that particular meeting/building should be non of the group's leaders business nor should they stop the active members from associating with you.

There is a difference between me choosing to shun someone because they did me wrong and me shunning someone because I have been taught or told to do so by organization/third party of influence.

Oubliette

Saintbertholdt: What help do young atheists need? I'm not being snarky.

Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they know how to think.

Island Man

It's not about the right to shun. It's about the wrong of teaching others to shun a particular group of people.

To see what I'm getting at, replace shuning with hating. Do you have the right to hate an individual? Yes. Do you have the right to publish information to instruct the public to hate a particular group of people? In many countries that's a crime called hate speech.

By instructing their members to shun those who disassociate from the JW religion - on the threat of being shunned themselves if they fail to comply - Watchtower is engaging in immoral behavior that is, in my opinion, not much less criminal than hate speech.

berrygerry

Simon, at first I almost thought that you were trolling your own site.

Institutional shunning is spiritual abuse, which has become recognized as being as harmful as other forms of abuse.

( See http://www.gov.nl.ca/VPI/types/#5 )

IMO, one of the absolutely most insane court decisions of all time was when the US Supreme Court decided that corporations are persons (and therefore have some rights ??? ).

Although WT exploits the insanity of this US view, as well as the other US "freedom of religion" (which they interpret as freedom BY THE RELIGION), the rest of the world, and esp. CommonWealth countries [Oz, UK, Canada, etc.], are not bound by such nonsense.)

The ONLY way that WT has managed to even make it to 2015 is because of income and property tax exemptions (as well as tax deductions for for member donations) (and, in Canada, GST credit refunds [a sick, largely unknown teat-suck, told to the congos by the Branch] ). (Rutherford saw the writing on the wall when he decided that "TRUE" religion was not a snare and a racket.)

CRA charity eligibility states ( http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/ftwp-eng.html ):

Activities that are illegal or contrary to Canadian public policy

Organizations that undertake illegal activities (e.g., fraud, or money laundering) will not qualify for registration.

Organizations with activities contrary to Canadian public policy will not qualify for registration. A public policy is a definite and officially declared and implemented policy (i.e., found in an act of Parliament, or a regulation).

Elucidate your position, which I see as, that WT is not violating Canadian public policy by instructing its members to selectively spiritually abuse certain individuals, as so deemed exclusively by WT or its reps.

Simon

Simon, at first I almost thought that you were trolling your own site.

Stone him! LOL

Yes, it's probably 'controversial' but some of the older topics people brought up made me start thinking about my past and how I currently view it.

Institutional shunning is spiritual abuse, which has become recognized as being as harmful as other forms of abuse.

I don't disagree. But spiritual abuse is not a crime. In fact, all religion is really spiritual abuse of one form or another.

But who ya gonna call? ("ghost-busters!" is the answer for anyone my age)

I agree that treating corporations as "people" is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed and basically pisses all over so many people's rights. It is an absolute abomination and the US should be ashamed, ashamed that it calls itself a democracy with that nonsense in place.

Elucidate your position, which I see as, that WT is not violating Canadian public policy by instructing its members to selectively spiritually abuse certain individuals, as so deemed exclusively by WT or its reps.

My position, if I were a lawyer, is "what law has been broken"?

Yes, "spiritual abuse" is a bad thing ... but is it defined and enshrined in law?

What actual regulation has been broken?

Yes - people have done cruel things ... because they chose to. And the people they did it to chose to subject themselves to the rules they now find cruel.

Which court would spend time on this? Which law has been broken?

No one has yet offered any simple legislation that could be enacted that would ever be likely to gain any support and doesn't rely on specific claims against a specific group which legislation never contains.

Saintbertholdt

Oubliette5 hours ago
Saintbertholdt: What help do young atheists need? I'm not being snarky.
Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they know how to think.

I do not understand what you mean.

poopie

Shunning is evil

The right to shun - wrong?

Activities that are illegal or contrary to Canadian public policy

Oubliette5 hours ago

Share this