So, how's it feel, Watchtower -- now that the shoe's on the other foot?

by FatFreek 2005 10 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Yes, your cult has been banned in Russia. What surprises me is that this hasn't happened in more countries. What surprises me is that civil suits in the U.S. haven't flooded the courts -- violation of civil and human rights because of the cruel act of shunning of disfellowshipped ones, even members of one's own family.

  Discrimination is a form of cruelty and civil and human rights define such. And shunning, in my humble opinion, is a very close relative to discrimination.

  It's not just the shunning that individual members practice against their fellow ex-brothers and ex-sisters -- that is merely the result of being ordered by "mother" (the governing body). If they don't shun then they, themselves, will be the subject of scrutiny, possibly brought into a hearing with the local kangaroo court.

  Shame, shame -- Watchtower, JW.ORG, and other appropriate synomyms.
• 

  konceptual99

  Shunning is a horrendously stone age way of trying to control and influence others but the law will never make it illegal. You can't force people to talk to others.
• 

  Drearyweather

  The Russian ban is not a shocker for JW's. They have had their share of confrontation and bans with earlier governments too. The ban was expected and this is what they stated in their tract "Could it happen again? (2009):

  "First- Repression will never succeed. We will not stop speaking tactfully and respectfully about Jehovah God and his word- The Bible. We did not stop when subjected to the horrors of Nazi Germany, we did not stop in the darkest days of our country's repression, and we will not stop now. (Acts 4:18-20).

  http://scribd-download.com/download/watchtower-could-it-happen-again-a-question-for-the-citizens-of-russia-2009_58bdf407e12e89506aadd374_pdf
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  The Russian ban is not a shocker for JW's. They have had their share of confrontation and bans with earlier governments too. The ban was expected and this is what they stated in their tract "Could it happen again? (2009)

  If anyone thinks that they didn't see this coming, just look back at last year's Dist (Reg) Conv and the "Bunker Scene". Remember, while they CLAIM to be prophets, past experience proves they are not. The rank & file JDub will be reminded of that convention video and they will claim the Holy Spirit directed the GB/F&DS in advance to warn the sheeple of what was coming. This dispute in Russia has been in the works a long time and I'm certain that the outcome is no surprise to WT/HQ.

  It will now just be another thing to rally the minions as they proclaim "The End Is Near" and send us your money before you have to throw it in the streets!
  
• 

  The Searcher

  As I've come to discover about the WTBTS since my "awakening," one overwhelming thought becomes evermore credible: that a multi - billion dollar corporation based in the U.S.A. could actually have powerful "influences" watching their backs. Perhaps the org is far more intertwined with the "system" than we give credit for.

  The irony in Russia: the org now faces its own real judicial committee of three genuine judges at the appeal court. Schadenfreude abounds!
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Shunning is a horrendously stone age way of trying to control and influence others but the law will never make it illegal. You can't force people to talk to others.

  I used to think that was a compelling argument. But now I think it misses the point. No law would be drafted to say that shunning another person is illegal. What could conceivably be made illegal is operating an organisation whose policies and documents mandate and regulate shunning. That could technically be made a matter of law, presumably, just as organisations are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, they would not be allowed to formulate and promote and a system that stigmatises former members. So I don't think it's impossible or a ridiculous idea.

  Having said that I don't think it's a good idea to go down the route of banning organisations that employ shunning.

  Removing charitable status on the other hand seems entirely proportionate and would be effective in my view.

  
  
• 

  konceptual99

  That's a fair point SBF. You are right that there are ways of mandating against high control, prejudicial behaviours that run contrary to progressive, inclusive and respectful values. You are right as well that practising such things runs contrary to the idea of charitable works therefore the stick of charitable recognition seems a suitable tool to wield.
• 

  Simon

  What surprises me is that this hasn't happened in more countries. What surprises me is that civil suits in the U.S. haven't flooded the courts -- violation of civil and human rights because of the cruel act of shunning of disfellowshipped ones, even members of one's own family.
  

  Because none of the laws you think apply actually exist.

  You cannot compel people to associate, there will never be such a law in any democracy you'd want to live in and people should really drop this nonsense - it just isn't going to happen. We should stop trying to excuse our own or our own families dumb choices and attempts to make the WTS guilty for anything and everything rather than accepting some personal responsibility.

  Were the WTS responsible for the lost contact with my parents / siblings? They had an influence, but only indirectly - the only ones directly responsible for lack of contact are whose who refuse such contact.
  

  It's far harder for people to shun if you remove the excuse they fall back on - that the WTS makes them do it. Don't accept it, make it clear that it's THEIR choice that THEY chose to make and you hold THEM accountable for that choice.

  For some reason it always reminds me of a quote in a book "Tell Them in Sparta" (annoyingly, out of print). The Spartans, talking about the Persian troops being whipped if they don't advance to fight, know that they just need to make them fear them more than the whips and they will turn and fight the other way.

  Don't just "accept" that the shunning is inevitable and then let them hide behind it. Make it uncomfortable for them. Make it embarrassing. Make them have to say out loud "because I'm loveless turd of a person who choses to do what someone else wants me to rather than what is right". Make it more difficult to shun than it is to not shun and watch them turn and fight the people with the whips.

  Just don't say "oh, you have to do what you're told and I accept that too". That's what the WTS wants. That's their rules and their system. Why live by it?
• 

  just fine

  I couldn't agree more,Simon. Do not excuse the individual JW actions, they are masters at making their bad behavior someone else's fault.

  It's like an abusive husband who says it's his wife's fault he hit her. JWs try to say it's the DF'd persons fault.

  I am never responsible for someone else's bad behavior. But on the other hand I am always responsible for my own bad behavior. I always have a choice in how I act or respond and so do the JWs.
• 

  xjwsrock

  Yeah I get it but the org bullies people into doing it by threatening them with emotional abuse. There is plenty of blame to go around. It's a sick dysfunctional mess.

  If all jw's would just stand up and walk out. The bullies wouldn't have any power. Oh to dream....