mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
jhine11": If the WT were persuaded to change its tune and find new light then shunning could be stopped"
They still claim that they don't punish people for choosing to have blood transfusions. If they lie about that, then they'll lie about shunning. They'll officially "change" the policy so that governments think they have, but they'll have an unofficial "soft shunning" policy that works effectively the same way. The JWs will know who to shun and why, they just won't admit it.
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
I remember an article about 20 years ago where they told adults how to wash their hands. 🙄
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
It's an interesting question, or series of questions: do individuals have the right to be arseholes? Do individuals have the right to belong to a group that tells them to be arseholes? If the individuals willingly decide to be arseholes because the group has told them to, then doesn't the group have the right to continue to tell people to be arseholes?
It's kind of a "consent by the governed" situation. I agree with meanmrmustard: the shunners choose to shun. At the of the day they are responsible for their decision to. Trying to force them through government coercion to do something else is never going to work. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play it. Walk away.
it's an interesting thought.
if you are an ex jw, presumably dfed, and you see a current jw in good standing engaging in behaviour that would concern their elders, would you pass on that information to interested parties?
do accusations from exes and other outsiders carry any weight?
Foolednomore: Did you demand to know who it was so you could report them for bearing false witness?
is oktoberfest one of those holidays that jws can't celebrate?
is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?.
Yes, it was the "harvest festival" aspect that had me wondering if it was JW kosher. Samhain/Halloween is condemned by the WT, but since participants dress up as demons and witches, they present the WT with low hanging fruit.
is oktoberfest one of those holidays that jws can't celebrate?
is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?.
Is Oktoberfest one of those holidays that JWs can't celebrate? Is simply sitting in a beer tent as a tourist and imbibing a matter for the elders?
so, folks, 60 years ago, starting on september 1st, i believe, we, local witnesses in southern california, had the "privilege" of attending the "around the world assembly", at, of all places, the rose bowl, in pasadena.
(i think that it was an 8-day assembly) i was 9 years old then, almost ready to start 4th grade.
so, was anyone else, on this site, at that assembly?
That would have been very much under the shadow of the approach of 1975. What was the atmosphere like? How did 9 year old you feel about the whole experience?
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
Petrw: "I think the command form of the verb "to love" => could only be used by God. If the governments of this world do it too, it usually leads to the death of a large number of people or in other words: more people always die in the process than should hypothetically have been saved if nothing had been done..."
Spike Jones and the City Slickers: "Not to love der Fuhrer is a great disgrace, So we Heil! (raspberry!) Heil! (raspberry!) Right in der Fuhrer's face!"
(Just agreeing with the point that Government mandated "love" is often worse than whatever it was supposedly addressing. I'm not trying to trivialise an otherwise very serious topic)
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
Lee makes it very clear that "mandated" shunning is what is being argued against. The trouble with the slogan "Shunning is a Crime" is that it can sound like "avoidance is a crime", which can sound like "freedom of association is a crime". If you run with "Shunning is a Crime", then you'll get NAMBLA coming out and agreeing, saying "So stop shunning us!"
Mandated shunning is a very big problem. And for every complicated problem, there is a simple solution; and it is always wrong. There is no simple solution, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it. Starting with the shunning of minor children by their families is a sensible approach. Norway has had a crack at it. Even then, it's not perfect, but they did hit the WT where it hurts, in their wallet. If more governments did this, tying the shunning of minors to religious funding and charitable status, then it might cause the WT to back down on the shunning of minors.
But even then, we know that at the top, the WT is a pack of liars. They could well introduce a policy that looks like they are complying with the letter of "not shunning", while continuing to effectively do it in spirit. We are not dealing with normal, kind , rational people here. At the top, they are a bunch of cold-hearted killers, who happily condemn minors to death by encouraging them to refuse life-saving blood transfusions.
Another problem I see with this campaign is the lumping together of very different groups. The Amish are a harder nut to crack because they give minors the choice when they reach adulthood. They also don't tend to get government funding the way the WT does. So what works for the WT isn't going to work for the Amish.
So what is the answer? Certainly not one big, simple answer. What it will take is a lot of small answers, applied over time. The problem is big and complex, and will have to be chipped away at.
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
The terms "forced shunning" and "mandated shunning" are correct. But the campaign is called "Shunning is a Crime". It is not a crime for me or anyone else to shun a member of NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, the other NAMBLA), or the KKK or neo-Nazis. Sloppy wording will not solve anything, especially when there are governments more than willing to deprive us of yet more human rights. The slogan makes me think more of thought crime, rather than real crime.
