How is " emotional cruelty" defined? Seems very subjective, and could be abused quite easily.
MMM
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
6
Emotional cruelty law considered in the UK.
by nicolaou in"the (uk) government is considering whether to introduce a new offence of emotional cruelty to children, it has been confirmed.
the proposed change to neglect laws in england and wales would see parents who deny their children affection face prosecution for the first time.. mr williams's bill would add a further category of harm for which the perpetrator could be punished: impairment of "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development".
i'd like to hear from mr paul gillies or any other watchtower representative in the uk as to how they'd square this proposed new legislation with their doctrine of disfellowshipping minors.
-
-
-
55
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose inhey everyone!
i haven't posted here in a while, over a year i think.
just goes to show where i'm at in the recovery stage.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@listBObeesa:
Correct. An announcement is made that a person’s status has changed doesn’t mean the announcement is the discipline itself.
But it also doesn’t mean the announcement is NOT the discipline itself.
Every JW and exJW knows that the discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning. One does not occur without the other. We all also understand that discipline for a "DA" is exactlythe same as for "DF."
Only a nonJW who doesn't understand the process would mistakenly think the announcment was nothing but a membership announcement.
I think I see several differences between your thinking and my thinking. First, I wouldn't say that "discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning". The "=" sign imples an equality, as if they are the same thing. They are not in practice, and I wouldn't think so legally. The announcement lets everyone know the membeship status of the individual. From there, the congregation members actually impliment the discipline.
When you said, "The same way the kiss on the cheek from a mafia boss can amount to an assassination order." The kiss isn't the discipline, it is when one of the mafia goons sits you down and puts a bullet through your head. To me, there is a distinct difference. Let me put it this way, what if the signal wasn't a kiss, but a hand shake? You would most likely view the hand shake the same way. I asked the same question in relation to a membership list hanging on the board. Let's say you got your way and the courts step in and say, "Hey, that announcement is over the line." The next step would be to simply maintain a congregation membeship list on the board (as all churches do), and the congregational members would take their cues from there.
In other words, if you had your way, nothing would really change; also, the courts would have set new precedent for overreach.
But this might all be irrelavant. Question: why don't you view the announcement as part of the separation process? It seems you are saying that the separation comes sometime before. When the separation comes - there are processes that both sides can go through as part of the entire separation process. After the entire process is complete - announcement, documentation to headquarters, etc - clearly, then any "discipline" by the WTB&TS directly would be innapropriate.
As I understand it, by saying the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, the first amendment is implicitly stating that the people have the right of free exercise of religion.
From The National Constitution Center website:
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
You have the right to participate in any religion you wish. And, you have the right to be a non member of any religion you wish.
Churches can only discipline their members. If I stop attending and tell the elders I am no longer a member, they have no legal right to discipline me. Disciplining a non member is not covered under the church's freedom of religion.
The bill of rights was constructed to put limits on the governement. If a private organization is interferring with your choice to be free of said organization, then I don't see that as a first ammendment issue at all - rather is is just an issue of harassment. Notice, on the link you posted, if you read the full text, it continually talks about freedom of and from religion in relation to goverment activities: "The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join."
I would be interested in knowing why it would be viewed as a first ammendment issue.
Glad midterms went OK for you. What are you studying?
MMM
-
55
Don't miss the health care sign up deadline.
by FlyingHighNow insign up deadline is the 31st, in a couple of days.
if you have problems with the website and youve been there before, try cleaning out your cookies and cache, then restart your computer.
that worked for me.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@FlyingHighNow:
"MeanMM, I don't think you asked me that for the reason of not knowing the answer."
Most likely true. But, I don't see anything inherently wrong with being "big". How one becomes "big", on the other hand, does matter. I am not sure if you are picking on being "big" in general. Not all companies get "big" through government favors. If you get there through the free market, then I don't see anything wrong with it.
I suggest reading this book:
Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business--and Bad Medicine
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Condition-America-Business-Medicine-ebook/dp/B000FC2IQM
Here is part of the Prologue:
Agreed - the system is rigged, but the problem is not with the market. The type of shenanigans described in this open paragraph isn't produced by a true market. The very fact that the author claims patients 'do not have a choice' should clue you in that something is wrong - after all, the very definition of a market is competition among a multitude of vendors. Now if that is what you mean by "big business", then I can stand with you. What you really mean, then, is business that has a competitive edge through lobbying, legislation, and state intervention into the market. ACA is more the same.
MMM
-
55
Don't miss the health care sign up deadline.
by FlyingHighNow insign up deadline is the 31st, in a couple of days.
if you have problems with the website and youve been there before, try cleaning out your cookies and cache, then restart your computer.
that worked for me.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
FlyingHightNow: Since I am an american that just doesn't "get it", can you define "big business"?
MMM
-
55
Don't miss the health care sign up deadline.
by FlyingHighNow insign up deadline is the 31st, in a couple of days.
if you have problems with the website and youve been there before, try cleaning out your cookies and cache, then restart your computer.
that worked for me.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Too many people ask "How do we pay for health care?", but the real question should be "Why is it so expensive in the first place?"
MMM
-
26
What if I am a disfellowshipped public school teacher?
by bsand20 incould a parent put in a complaint to the school district and request that their child be transferred out of my classroom because i am exjw?
if they give me the jw school brochure (do they still do that?
sorry its been 16years since i've been out) can i just tell them i'm familiar with their teachings or should i just pretend i'm new to their teachings?....i'm a freshman in college so i have still a long ways before this situation is presented, however i"m trying to get prepared for it.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
That doesn't sound like your problem. If a parent has a problem, let the problem stay right there. Sometimes parents might request that students be excused for holiday or birthday celebrations, etc. You would have to honor these requests like any other teacher, but that's about it. If a parent wants their student out of your class, let them make the request. Let the administration handle it, don't worry. Really not your problem.
MMM
-
55
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose inhey everyone!
i haven't posted here in a while, over a year i think.
just goes to show where i'm at in the recovery stage.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Why should the WT have the power to bully people into having or not having association with anybody?
Because the current members have agreed to be bound by the tenants of the religion. Any one of them is well within their rights to leave.
The WT acts as if they owned its members and that is a Human Rights violation.
What human right are you referring to here? Can you articulate it?
They wouldn't be where they are today without the help of America's government. In America the rights of Corporations are above the rights of citizens. That leaves the individual at the mercy of these organizations pretty much in the same way that people was at the mercy of the government in communist countries.
I would be among the first to argue that the goverment should NOT be in bed with corporations. I would be all for getting the goverment out of the market. But, the 1st amendment is not part of the government being in bed with corporations. Quite the opposite.
The WT has 7 million drones in every country of the world for whatever purpose they want to use them.
This is true.
It is not a coincidence that America is the first exporter of sects to the world.
This, perhaps, could be true too... not sure.
The announcement so and so is no longer one of JW is figuratively a public execution and achieves the same thing: social control.
Let's go further with this. Do you think that everyone should be free of all sorts of "social control"? That is, no entity should ever be able to legally control another "socially"?
MMM
-
55
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose inhey everyone!
i haven't posted here in a while, over a year i think.
just goes to show where i'm at in the recovery stage.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@DOC:
The difference is that when a member leaves the Congregation to move to another Congreagation, there is no announcement made that "Bro Has Moved" is no longer a member of the "Yada yada yada Congregation".
Clearly the announcement that one is ". . . . no longer one of JWs" is NOT a membership issue. It is a covert message to say that everyone here must now take punitive action against this person to punish them.
WTS would say that the announcement simply states that one is not longer a "member of the World Wide Congregation", however they only make announcements of new LOCAL members when a person gets baptized -- NOT of the World Wide membership Newbies. Thus, if they announce that a member leaves (via DF/DA) they should announce when a local member leaves via re-location. Or, they should announce when ANY MEMBER WORLDWIDE leaves and NOT just the LOCAL member. If the announcement differs in content, then one is punitive and punishment.
This is eventually going to come up and bite them in the ass. The courts (society) is already holding religions responsible for the emotional pain resulting from sexual abuse, it is only a matter of time that they are held responsible for the emotional pain resulting from the emotional abuse of shunning. It is a hate crime based on religious intolerance.
Doc
This is all good and fine. But the announcment itself is not punative - whether it is a "covert" message or not. For those leaving the WTB&TS, I don't think a single one has ever thought the announcment itself is the punishment. It is what comes after. Perhaps it is because it is 2 AM, but I don't see why they would have to announce every membership action from the platform in order to claim that this one type of announcement ("so-and-so is no longer one of JWs") is a membership announcement only. After all, members seeking to leave are free to do so, and it is within their right to announce that decision to the congregation. This is not punative. The shunning is, however.
What would you have the courts do? What sort of path does that lead to? We all know that the WTB&TS wants to "push" individuals into "choosing" to stay within the organization through shunning. But the fact remains that this is a long policy, it is applied generally (they don't recommend shunning for some DFed/DAed and not others), and it is based upon their intpretation of scripture. The 1st amendment protects individuals and organizations from government involvment, not individuals from a private company. The courts simply can't get involved purely on the basis of shunning, insisting the WT re-interpret scripture.
Now if it goes futher than that, it could be an issue of harassment. However, that doesn't seem like a 1st amendment issue, just an issue with harassment. When you said this: " The courts (society) is already holding religions responsible for the emotional pain resulting from sexual abuse...", I think this is a different issue. Sexual abuse is a crime. Choosing not to associate with someone is not. Also, what is meant by "emotional pain" in the case of shunning? If someone can choose not to associate with you, and it causes you "emotional pain", should the goverment compel that individual to associate with you simply on the basis that it makes you feel bad? That seems like a slippery slope.
MMM
-
55
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose inhey everyone!
i haven't posted here in a while, over a year i think.
just goes to show where i'm at in the recovery stage.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@lisaBObeesa,
I re-read the previous posts you cited. But I am still confused. The shunning, accourding to the WTB&TS, is the disipline - not the announcment. You said, "The shunning IS the discipline that the elders are applying.". So, I don't see how announcing membership (or lack of membership) can be viewed as the discipline. Just because it "informs" the members as to the status of the DFed or DAed individual doesn't mean that it is the discipline itself. Again, most churches maintain a members list - even on their websites. So would you feel OK with the congregational members list being posted on the annoucnment board instead?
But if you want to say that the shunning is the discipline, then that changes the topic back to what Band On The Run was addressing: the legality of shunning in general. Concerning the 1st amendment: it seems to me that the 1st amendment is more binding on the government ("CONGRESS shall make no law...") than on any religious institution. In other words, JWs shun based upon their intpretation of the biblical text. It seems like a very great infringment upon the 1st amendment rights of the JWs if the courts attempt to tell JWs how to reinterpret that text.
Good luck on your midterms.
MMM
-
55
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose inhey everyone!
i haven't posted here in a while, over a year i think.
just goes to show where i'm at in the recovery stage.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
lisaBObessa,
When you say "the announcement=discipline" - how do you figure? If the annoucement is "So-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", how does that amount to discipline? It would seem to me that the announcment itself can be viewed, from a legal perspective, as a membership maintenence issue. How would this be any different than there being a "membership list" hung on the announcment board for anyone to see?
I took a look at the link you posted: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/184645/1/Lawyer-Letter-copy-to-Judicial-Committee#.UyYlTYU26M0
When the letter from the attorney said, "Any efforts to make a pronouncement or take action regarding Mr. Minette's status as a Christian, his moral character or any other statements which may possibly affect his relationship with others will be viewed as a violation of Mr. Minette's constitutional rights, in fact, violation of his First Amendment rights." How would this violate his first ammendment rights? The first ammendement to applies to congress, and federal, state or local government officials... so I am not sure what this means here.
MMM
