Sorry if I gave the impression of doing this for the sake of argument.
My point is, in my humble opinion, shunning is obviously wrong and an example of religious fanaticism. It is indeed a violation of your human rights. It is but one of many other examples of religious fanaticism. It is not the most extreme of them all, but it is what it is, anyways.
This is a forum for Jehovah's witnesses and former Jehovah's witnesses, many of whom are or were shunned by their former brothers and sisters. Sometimes biological brothers and sisters. Sebastian Ramos is a former Jehovah's witness, and therefore this is could be an issue of interest to the people who post here. But in my mind, as a worldly and an atheist, it is way more interesting. I can easily see that religious fanaticism might some day reach me. I want my right NOT TO BELIEVE to be recognized, and not just by the members of the Catholic Church, my former church, who don't shun me anyways. I want my right not to believe to be respected by those who claim they could or should "send me to my Maker" just because I happen not to be one of them.
A secular government was the way for India, for example, to be able to exist as a country. I think the same is true of the United States. So, I want a secular government, with secular demands on religious people, so that we all, religious and non-religious alike, can live together.
Mr. Ramos is doing this on behalf of the Jehovah's witnesses and I think it's a good thing. I have a reason to be interested in Jehovah's witnesses, and therefore I like his idea. I do not restrict the moral value of his idea to a small community of seven million members.
Do we have a right not to believe? yes, we do. Do they have a right to shun us if we don't believe? Yes, in ther individual capacity. Do they have a right to make others shun you, or else? Absolutely no.
I like the way this debate is being held, because it could be useful for Mr Ramos to polish and better direct his campaign.