If Disfellowshipping Were Forcibly Banned (page 3)

integ

I hope they don't change it, because I don't want the Government telling private institutions what to do. I t could have far reaching implications, giving the government more power than I wish them to have. I do wish the Gb would change their policy though. I still think the df'ing thing stinks.

IslandWoman

This is no mere theoretical possibility.
AlanF

Alan,

How do you envision this could come about?

Linda

ThiChi

Besides the Freedom of Religion aspect, how can the Government ban stupidity? If you join and agree to the treatment, then you have no one but yourself to blame.....

hillary_step

AlanF,

There is no doubt that this would have an effect on the WTS, who might be perceived as relinquishing its most powerful expression of theocratic power to its enemy - 'Caesar'.

The WTS has vigorously and successfully defended its right to exercise its shunning discipline in the courts over the years, that is why the policy is even more aggressively adhered to today than it was in the past. As Reborn has so accurately mentioned, the WTS are masters of spin and sensationalism, but it must be remembered that the disfellowhipping process is the WTS most powerful institutionalized method of maintaining its firm grip on its adherents. There is no doubt that a law against the process would be a major blow. It would certainly lead to a string of embarrassing court-cases fought by those who might still try to apply a new type of shunning that the WTS would undoubtedly introduce as a substitute for its previous methodology.

What the courts would need to have clearly established to them is that while the WTS claim that shunning is its religious right of discipline, it actuality is used as a method of control rather than discipline. They would also need to see the negative effects of shunning, such as suicide and parents divesting children of their birthright, divorces etc. etc.

An interesting scenario, though fraught with legal difficulties as in forcibly banning disfellowshipping, the Law-makers would also need to attend to a number of other religions and perhaps non-religious groups who use a similar, though often not so aggressive form of the same discipline.

TchChi,

Yes, and as you know the defense that a person knew the rules when he was baptized, has been the basis that the WTS has successfully used in defending itself in court where shunning is concerned. Of course, you and I know that this is in actuality a dishonest and malevolent defense, as in pre-supposes that a person made an emotionally unencumbered decision to join the JW’s. How the courts would deal with that aspect is another mountain to climb.

Best regards - HS

Francois

Larc, et al., the separation of church and state applies only in the United States.

And if the politicians wanted to ban disfellowshipping, they'd FIND a way. Such is my faith in their sleazeness.

Regardless of church/state separation, the state of Georgia has found a way to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday. What a gigantic pain in the ass.

francois

metatron

as I've posted elsewhere, suppose a court proves that they are liable IF they use df'ing to conceal a crime?

("How to Defeat the Watchtower")

metatron

unique1

I don't think a Law will ever be passed as such, but I do believe if enough people sued for defamation of character, it would cause a stir. Then again, they would probably just make an announcement that so and so are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses instead of saying disfellowshipped.

unique1

Taichi: Some of us were born into it and strongly encouraged to get baptized at a tender age. I was not in possesion of full mental capability at age 13 of distinguishing the effect baptisim would have on my adult life.

DJ

wolfgirl made an excellent point.

ThiChi

""I know that this is in actuality a dishonest and malevolent defense, as in pre-supposes that a person made an emotionally unencumbered decision to join the JW’’s""

HS:

Good points. However, consider this: Did you, as an ex Dub, ever participate in the shunning process personally? Not as the one shunned but as the shunner? Did you shun Friends, Family?

No one here can claim that they have not shunned at one time or another.

Your statement then begs the question: How can one claim "Emotionally Unencumbered" defense when it was Family and friends you helped shunned?

If Disfellowshipping Were Forcibly Banned

Share this