OPINIONS PLEASE: I propose a new strategy against the Watchtower policy of DISFELLOWSHIP

Terry

I need your opinion and a discussion...
Tell me what you think, both Pros and Cons...

The Governments of Norway and Russia have both targeted Watchtower's severely inhumane policy of Disfellowship separating and isolating members by ostracizing them and labeling them as 'mentally diseased", etc.

DIS FELLOWSHIP.is a mushy concept unfamiliar to non-JW's.

That word doesn't convey brutal, cold, and uncaring shunning and the impact on vulnerable persons cut off from family and friends.
I propose swapping the phrase "Religious Apartheid" for the term "disfellowship" because it is
significantly more impactful, familiar, and gut-wrenching.

JW's teach practice and promote discrimination, opprobrium, and animus in punishing by isolation those who disagree with their doctrines.
Moreover - It is a de facto death sentence both spiritually and (according to the expectation of Armageddon)
literally as well.
What do you think?
Persuasive words and phrases profoundly affect how people think, feel, and behave.
A judge or other government official confronting an accusation of "fellowship" vs. "apartheid" is subjectively and objectively more attuned to the injurious fallout of such a policy.
WHAT SAY YOU - should the entire EXJW community re-label Disfellowship - replacing the terminology
in our public discourse and activism?

iloowy.goowy

You are right, Terry.

From the Australian proceedings, it was obvious the WT wanted to confuse and obfuscate the court, to the point of saying a person disfellowships him or herself and shun the congregation.

Angus Stewart, though, did an excellent job of getting out exactly what the doctrine and practice of the JW/WT is in reality.

Words convey ideas clearly if we understand the connotation and exact meaning. Otherwise, the same words can mean different things in different cultural and societal settings.

Associating the WT doctrine and practice of disfellowshipping with relations in a way others can identify with, calling it religious apartheid, brings a deeper emotionally felt understanding to it.

Kudos! I'll definitely start referring to it and describing it that way.

enoughisenough

As a single word, why not? ...if I want to describe to others what I am now considered, I tell them JWs consider me a "filthy apostate deserving of death". I think I need to change that description to " filthy, mentally diseased, lying God hating apostate deserving of death" because that is what the JW org teaches about those who leave the org. ( they literally teach their members to hate!-we hate God, so God hates us, so it is ok for them to hate us--something like that.)

Terry

To quote Frank Luntz:
"You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.

It’s not enough to be correct or reasonable or even brilliant.
The key to successful communication is to take the imaginative leap of stuffing yourself right into your listener’s shoes to know what they are thinking and feeling in the deepest recesses of their mind and heart. How that person perceives what you say is even more real, at least in a practical sense, than how you perceive yourself."

Words that work, whether fiction or reality, not only explain but also motivate. They cause you to think as well as act. They trigger emotions as well as understanding.

The critical task, as I’ve suggested, is to go beyond your own understanding and to look at the world from your listener’s point of view. In essence, it is listener-centered; their perceptions trump whatever “objective” reality a given word or phrase you use might be presumed to have. Again, what matters isn’t what you say, it’s what people hear.

RELIGIOUS APARTHEID or SPIRITUAL APARTHEID has more impact on the public
than the peculiar-sounding and old-fashioned Disfellowship.

The WT video of a distraught daughter reaching out by phone to her parents as her mother
coldly disregards the call is about as brutal and unnatural as psychotic brainwashing can make it.

smiddy3

Why not be more blunt ,religious hatred of former members or spiritual hatred of former members ,because that`s what it boils down to isn`t it ?

Phizzy

"Religious Apartheid" is a good expression IMHO.

BoogerMan

Maybe we should direct JW's to read this Question Box revelation:

w06 2/15 p. 31 - "Finally, Jesus explained that if a person addresses another, “You despicable fool!” he would be liable to the fiery Gehenna. What, then, did the expression “despicable fool” signify? It designates a person as morally worthless, an apostate and a rebel against God. So the person addressing his fellow as a “despicable fool” is as much as saying that his brother should receive a punishment fit for a rebel against God, everlasting destruction. From God’s standpoint, the one uttering such a condemnation against another could merit that severe sentence—everlasting destruction—himself."

If a JW falsely slanders someone of being an apostate, they're condemning themselves.

Apostasy and heresy are not the same - the cult should educate themselves.

enoughisenough

I have to say I never followed "apartheid" a lot to have a full understanding of it. So I guess it boils down to the audience one hopes to have. I do understand hate and hate speech. I watched a GB member spouting off ( and twisting a scripture ) liking apostates to enemies of God...which is a slanderous statement about most who have left the org.

StoneWall

In today's world you have to realize that the key phrases and terminology that get most peoples attention are related to the terms prejudice and discrimination. This ties in easily with what the disfellowship policy enforces because it discriminates against any family/friends that have a differing opinion or belief.
So you need something that would convey to others the severe harm that results from this horrific practice.
When I looked at synonyms for prejudice a word that stood out to me was detriment.
Imagine a phrase such as detrimental expulsion/exclusion
Instead of the easier public word "disfellowship" that makes it seem like it's just not fellowshipping with someone who no longer wants to be part of an organization. That doesn't show the public the harm that is associated with the practice.

Terry

"Weaponized expulsion"

"Doctrinal decimation"

"Extinction by fiat"

"Brute ostracism"

"Dropkick theocracy"

OPINIONS PLEASE: I propose a new strategy against the Watchtower policy of DISFELLOWSHIP

Share this