Love is as love does. No more to it than that.
If you tell yourself you love someone, yet treat them abusively such as by shunning, then you're lying to yourself.
You can tell yourself all you want that you love someone, but if you don't show love for that someone, you don't love them.
If you murder someone, you don't love them.
If you shun someone on command, you don't love them. A JW always has the choice to obey the WT organization or not. If someone in his family is DF'd, he always has the choice to speak to the person and find out the true situation. If he does, and finds out that the person did something wrong, he can make an individual decision to shun. But simply following the Society's orders is as unloving as anyone can get.
Bradley said:
: The use of a reductio ad absurdum is useful only to the extent that it is a correct analogy and is realistic. Your analogy (so-called protecting child molesters is the same as shunning out of misplaced love) is an incorrect analogy since any "protection" of the molesters is for the sake of the organization, whereas shunning is, ostensibly, for the benefit of the shunnee.
You're quite wrong about this. Shunning is done only "to keep the congregation clean". If the DF'd person "repents" and returns to the cult, that's all well and good, but DF'ing is not done to punish the person. It's done to separate him from other JWs. So the analogy is correct.
: (I don't believe that it is proper to really say the organization "protects" molesters, only that in certain instances they are more concerned about organizational reputation than any possible future act of molestation).
The latter half of your statement is correct, but the first half isn't. The goal of the Watchtower organization isn't to protect molesters, but to protect itself. But when in the process of protecting itself it also protects molestors, then obviously the WT organization is protecting molesters. To say that the organization doesn't protect molesters when it demonstrably does borders on the criminal.
AlanF