http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
Marvin,
Aren't shunning and "hate speech" separate issues, even if there might be some overlap? Many, if not most of those shunned at the direction of the WTS are thrown out for sexual matters and alcohol and drug issues. However, the statements that I have seen characterized by some as hate speech are directed at "apostates," which as defined by the WTS does not include those shunned for moral vices. Shunning, by its very definition, contains no speech at all.
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
Freedom of religion is not absolute if it can be proved harmful to an indiviual and or society (which this can) than it can be banned so say the supreme court.
This is not the correct test that the Supreme Court uses. The test is whether the law that infringes upon religious practice is a neutral law of general applicability that is not specifically targeted at a particular religion. So to use your analogies, cannibalism and polygamy are illegal regardless of whether they are practiced for a religious reason or not, and the laws were not enacted to target religion - they are generally applicable. On the other hand, cutting off contact with a relative is not generally unlawful, and if a new law were enacted prohibiting shunning, it would arguably be targeted at religion in particular, and not general behavior in society. That's why shunning is legal under the current U.S. legal framework and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
Pistoff, I don't think anyone questions Barb's intentions, but to be fair, the title of the thread does call to "outlaw" shunning. That seems clearly to state a belief that it should be illegal, not just calling for the end of the practice or bringing it into the open. I don't think you can blame those who value the freedoms of association and religion to find a call to "outlaw" it offensive.
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
Finally, I don't see that the 1st Amendment forever protects tax exemptions
Interestingly, the First Amendment does not protect tax exemption at all. Congress or any state legislature (at least in any state where the state constitution does not prohibit it) could enact new tax laws tomorrow taxing religion and it would without question be constitutional. It would just be political suicide, so it's not happening in the U.S. anytime soon. Taxing some religions and not others based on the content of the beliefs could present a problem however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yldwe_6jsu.
.
cedars.
He sounds a little like Kermit the Frog. I love how he does the mocking idiot voice for coworkers who can't believe JWs shun their kids. As if the coworkers are the ones deserving of ridicule for being shocked that someone would shun their own family.
it's a well known phenomenon i've observed from jwn, my own cos. a new co we had once who was fresh from being a normal elder and after a couple of visits he said, "well i've finally become a true co...i now have food intolerances.".
i mean, only once did my husband and i ever have a co around for dinner and they couldn't eat this, he couldn't eat that, she couldn't eat this...it was so hard to cook something with none of the zillions of things they were 'allergic' to.. and then after all that the wife couldn't come anyway because she had a naturopath appointment or something.. why do all co's seem to have weird dietary problems?.
.
When I was a kid we had a CO whose wife apparently had a phobia of aluminum foil. When they sent word ahead of time of their visits, the elders were made to go around and make a big point of telling everyone who had the privilege of feeding them that no aluminum foil could be used in any way so that it touched the food.
I understand that people read articles that scare them about certain products but it seemed unnecessarily pompous and rude to make demands like that on people who are feeding you for free. You wouldn't go into a restaurant and demand to know what methods they use to cook and cover their food (or maybe they did?)
notice these two attorneys opining on this case.. http://watchtowerleaks.com/tagged/child-molestation.
The appointment of an elder is “approved” by the Watchtower Society, registered with the Watchtower Society as a legal entity, but the appointment of an elder or removal is still done by the local congregation.
That is like saying that when Microsoft buys out another company, the person in the finance department who writes the check is responsible for the acquisition, instead of the executives. The congregation announces whatever appointments and deletions the WTS approves and tells them to announce. They only make recommendations and announce them after they are approved. WTS has the final word.
excuse tyoos.
i am breaking in a new smart phone keyp.
yesterday or today s mobile breaking news summary included a piece that ranked with the syrian civil war, the zimmemsn trial aftermath, business newd , etc.
Here's a link. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?hp&_r=0
"Mr. Givens and his wife, Fiona, recently presented what they called “Crucible of Doubt” sessions for questioning Mormons in England, Scotland and Ireland. Hundreds attended each event. . . . The church is not sponsoring the sessions, Mr. Givens said, but local bishops give their permission.
Eric Hawkins, a church spokesman, said that “every church faces this challenge,” adding, “The answer is not to try to silence critics, but to provide as much information and as much support as possible to those who may be affected.”
Contrast that with JW leadership's position that a group of members and former members meeting on their own to discuss their doubts would be mentally diseased human apostates...
has anyone here approached the jw's at the carts and what has come of it?
did u say ur ex-jw or did u try to poke holes in the doctrines?
were u able to embarrass them in front of any bystanders with issues such as child abuse cover-up, false prophecy, etc?
I have passed by the stands many times in the NY subways, but I never have stopped to talk to them. They don't approach anyone and just rely on people coming over. As a result, 90% of the time they are just standing there talking among themselves, and the other 10% of the time the person talking to them has crazy eyes or just doesn't seem to be all there. I would be shocked if they get anyone in possession of most of their mental faculties to a meeting from these stands.
.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/dog_attack_victim_recovering_back_to_jehovahs_witness/20130629_11_a1_cutlin782235?subj=1.
.
Was that dog doing anything besides protecting its owner from a cult member spewing her false religious propaganda to the public on someones private property... Too bad it didn't have enough time to finish the job.
What an absolutely awful and insensitve comment. I'm sure the dog was able to determine the beliefs of the people coming up the path and judge the correctness or falsity of the message. Any dog that attacks so viciously needs to be put down. Anyone who would want their dog to ever viciously attack someone who is not being physically threatening is beyond wrong, not to mention liable to a lawsuit and possibly criminal charges.
