Dilemma of Shunning Policy

by Drearyweather 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  Of course dropping shunning would change the organisation dramatically - for the better. The crazier ideas would need to be dropped because they would be exposed to scrutiny. That’s not a threat, it benefits everyone, including the leaders who are probably embarrassed by some of these teachings themselves.

  But I think you’re wrong to say it would take a long time to change the shunning culture. Shunning is simply not natural and many JWs would drop it instantly if sanctioned to do so. On the other hand many JWs would continue to have strained family relations inside and outside the religion - as is human nature. They just wouldn’t have the “cover” of disfellowshipping to explain their nasty behaviour any more. Plus there’s also the issue of people who have been shunned for years or decades. Would they forgive JW relatives who now resume contact? That’s a choice individuals would need to make in these complicated situations.
  
• 

  sir82

  So we would allow organisations to practice shunning but remove charitable status or tax exemption and

  other privileges from these organisations.

  LOL.

  If that were implemented on, say, a June 30, on July 1 there would be frantic letters sent immediately to all congregations informing of the "new light" and "loving arrangement" of the stopping of the DF practice effective this very minute.

  The WTS would sooner blow up their shiny new HQ in Warwick with 1000 tons of TNT than pay even one cent in taxes.
  
• 

  Simon

  I agree with the OP. Many groups have membership rules - current members make the choice of whether to follow the rules or not and many times there are really zero consequence for someone who choses not to shun family who have left.

  We have JW family that shun us, we have JW family that don't. It's a personal choice whether to follow it or not and the way to fight it is not to give people the excuse that they "have to because the WTS tells them to". It's BS and a get out excuse for them to just be mean, bad people.

  The WTS is a corporation and can't shun you, only your friends and family can and whatever the impetus behind their choice, it is their choice to do it and them who should be held to account for it if you want them to stop.

  Tell them: YOU are doing this and YOU are unloving and cruel because of it.

  The court is never going to get involved with cases of not being invited to family events etc... and no one should want to live under such government control if they have any sense.

  The calls for government intervention over religious shunning is a narrow, blinkered view that simply doesn't look at the bigger picture enough to see that it's foolish and unworkable.
• 

  redvip2000

  2. JW Shunning is not a dark secret policy. In the Anderson case, the court stated that people who become JW's voluntarily subject themselves to the shunning policy.

  This is true, but I want to point out a caveat in this notion that was likely never addressed by a court, because a case was never brought up under those circumstances.

  Those JWs who were baptized as minors, some in the early teens were not in a position to voluntarily "subject themselves to the shunning policy". I suspect that if a court was to evaluate one of such cases, they would not support the position of the Org.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Simon: We have JW family that shun us, we have JW family that don't. It's a personal choice whether to follow it or not and the way to fight it is not to give people the excuse that they "have to because the WTS tells them to". It's BS and a get out excuse for them to just be mean, bad people.

  You are somewhat correct. I personally know JWs that ignore the shunning policy with their own family. However, it is somewhat of a grey area; it is possible to be disfellowship if talking to an ex-jw family member causes problems in the congregation.

  As for non family, x-jws, the WT policy is clear: They will disfellowship you if you do not respect it.
  
  
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  I made the following comment in another thread, but I believe it is relevant to this thread as well:

  Religions have the right to enforce their rules through discipline and they also have the right to expel members. That being said, the rules of the church can be denied by the state. For instance, polygamy.
  

  Considering that freedom of association is recognize as a basic human right, religions should not enforce rules that would deny or limit that right.

  So far, the courts have not been able to act against religions due to the way the shunning policies were presented to them. People have the individual right to shun whoever they want and religions have the right to admonish people not to associate with bad people.

  However, I don’t believe that the courts ever dealt with a scenario in which it was demonstrated that shunning was enforced/organized by the church. That is, the courts need to be presented a case where someone has suffered consequences due to his/her personal choice regarding his/her association.

  For instance, someone associates with an ex-member of the JW and is excommunicated for it. In that scenario, both the ex-member and the excommunicated one could bring the local congregation and the WT to court for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” as the action taken by the church was solely meant to limit the right of association. As such a right is a “basic human right”, the action taken against it is illegal.

  The WT would easily be held accountable as its instructions on the matter are found in their “Shepard the flock of God” book.

  About freedom of association: The United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
• 

  john.prestor

  I don't agree with the court in the Anderson case, Jehovah's Witnesses don't tell you that they're going to shun you until you're already an unbaptized publisher, that's when they give you the Organized book, and the Organized book explains that they shun people. By the time you're an unbaptized publisher they can already shame you, they can take that status away, they'll announce it publicly, and if you leave Jehovah's Witnesses will (often, most likely) shun you whether that's official policy or not. Jehovah's Witnesses don't sign up to be shunned. They throw that in right at the end once it's much harder for you to say No thanks.
• 

  JC323

  It is actually funny. From a legal standpoint, the California Supreme Court ruled that because a member of the Church of Scientology was so far up in their organization and knew what the church would do if he left, that allowed him to sue. The court ruled that if a new member or someone lower in the structure sued they would have found the opposite.
• 

  Simon

  Those JWs who were baptized as minors, some in the early teens were not in a position to voluntarily "subject themselves to the shunning policy". I suspect that if a court was to evaluate one of such cases, they would not support the position of the Org.

  From a legal perspective, their parents were really the ones responsible for their choices and for what they inculcate in them so the complaint would be with them.

  The legal standard for being a good parent is quite low. If you have good ones, you're lucky.
• 

  Simon

  You are somewhat correct. I personally know JWs that ignore the shunning policy with their own family. However, it is somewhat of a grey area; it is possible to be disfellowship if talking to an ex-jw family member causes problems in the congregation.

  It's easy to show that it isn't a policy - people may have the fear of it, but there is no clear rule that people will be disfellowshipped. It really is up to the family involved to do what is right. Many times it seems like an excuse rather than a burden. JWs aren't the only ones with family fallouts but JWs are one of the only groups that has the excuse to exclude people provided to them.

  As for non family, x-jws, the WT policy is clear: They will disfellowship you if you do not respect it.

  Except it isn't clear. Like most rules, it's really voluntary and doesn't require much more than a polite "sod off" if questioned about it to end the matter.

  It really comes down to whether people, on both sides, chose to voluntarily follow the ruleset or not.