by AndersonsInfo 183 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The institutions that Marvin pointed out are not shunning. They made a choice whether to avail themselves of a person's services or not. It is not shunning, and calling it that is misleading. Perhaps Marvin should go back to his dictionary to see the definition of "shun," instead of digging up multi-syllable words to impress people with.
zed
Thanks for the reply, Marvin.
Marvin said-
I don’t have a rough draft. I have an idea based on the historicity of secular law influencing religious practice toward less harmful outcomes to citizenry. When/if that idea grows I’ll put it to paper and submit it to my legislative representative. Until then I'll keep talking of the idea until it’s refuted as meritless.
Well, you've seemingly overlooked the many responses from those with extensive experience in the legal/military/medical/reporting profession who've taken the time to point out why it's 'refuted as meritless', based on sound reasoning: the idea goes against firmly-established and well-known principles of Constitutional Law, something that anyone who's taken an 'Intro to Political Sci' course could see as being completely impractical and impossible to accomplish.
Someone (sorry, I can't remember who) even provided the CORRECT answer a few pages back, saying that laws won't pass SCOTUS scrutiny if they target specific religious practices, since that would violate the principle of 'free exercise of religious worship'. Instead, only laws that apply to ALL citizens and are in the public interest (such as anti-polygamy laws, which obviously effect Mormons, as well) will withstand SCOTUS scrutiny. You simply cannot target a practice without compelling public interest, and 'freedom of association' protects shunning/ignoring of others, whether it's done for religious or secular reasons. You cannot legislate manners.
I was hoping to see exactly what kind of language you had in mind that might "outlaw extreme shunning" WITHOUT trampling on EVERY CITIZEN'S Constitutionally-protected right to 'free association', but you admit it's only "an idea". I hoped that you might've had some specific slickly-worded legislation as a rough draft up your sleeve that accomplishes what the lawyers here are telling you is quite impossible to do, hoping that maybe we've all just missing something that you and Richard had in mind but only had failed to properly convey?
So, are you waiting for the legal equivalent of a Messiah to show up and reveal the true path to achieve the prohibition of "extreme shunning"? Or, are you simply looking for reinforcement of your confirmation bias and seeking mindless cheer-leaders, or trying to create a tempest in a teapot that only allows the venting of spleens? Don't get me wrong: those are fine by me, but let's just call a spade a spade, and not build up false hopes.
I dare say many here have extensive first-hand experience in wasting time and energy on fantasies and pipe-dreams (New System™ ring a bell with anyone?), but if you're content to waste time and energy on an approach which has a snowball's chance in Gehenna of actually effecting change, then by all means, carry on!
Just realize that you're also diverting attention away from a sound, reasoned approach that likely WOULD open minds, and actually effect the change you CLAIM to be seeking (which would be worth it, if it was only one person recognized the significant psychological/emotional damage they are inflicting on THEMSELVES, the lost relationships and missed opportunities at experiencing REAL LOVE which is self-inflicted, as a result of being forced to shun ones they "claim" to love).
Adamah
I'm trying to follow along this discussion, but have to admit I got heated up because shunning is something that I really hate.
I'm kind of trying to understand Marvin's expalnation or wavelength on the matter of extreme shunning and comparing the employers relationship with employess. Here are my questions.
What happens when a Lawyer is disbarred? or, What happens when a Dr loses his medical license? Is this a form of shunning?
That's just business accreditation. Not shunning.
One of the problems 'we' have is that we want to sell shunning as the ultimate evil but at the same time are quick to devalue it by equating it to anything we don't like
Broke some site rules and had an account restricted? "I've been disfellowshipped, you're just like the elders, wah wah"
You get the point.
Do we really treat it seriously or is it a punchline?
Do we sell it as something that damages family or use it to win arguments?
I think we need to seriously consider the claims we make and whether what we say truly hurts or really helps the WTS.
If they can point to ex-JWs regularly equating shunning with trivial spats then I think someone needs a slap.
Extreme shunning? This is simply a matter of choosing to associate with someone or not. Any person has the civil right to choose their associates. Whether a person chooses their associates through some formal or informal arrangement is immaterial to the principle involved. If a person doesn't share your core values, they could be nothing more than a bad associate.
http://www.atlassociety.org/family-relationships-objectivism-objectivist-ayn-rand
Many people are indoctrinated with the belief that we must automatically love family members simply because they are family. This is the view expressed in bromides like "They're still family" or "Blood is thicker than water." This view is not compatible with the trader principle, since we may not gain any values from certain family members, and hence may not love—or even like—them.
I heard a rumor there are family member(s) that don't associate with you. If this is true, the reason involved goes beyond "not gaining any values." You're a slanderer. There are two types of slander;
1. Concocting false stories, spreading outright lies about others.
2. Exploiting the mistakes of another because of ulterior motives, malicious intent.
You do both. Even people on this forum have acknowledged this fact.
I have been given permission by Barbara Anderson to relay some interesting correspondence related to the Society's negligent approach to child abuse.
As I said, it's impossible to verify the correspondence - but if authentic, it is disturbing."
Cedars
If a person will deliberately concoct false information or knowingly feed off the lies of others, they do not find stories of abuse, "disturbing." Anyone with a shred of common decency can see through the "but if authentic, it is disturbing" crapola and Mr. Ceder's and Mrs. Anderson's rotten underwear. They find such stories salacious, savory, satisfying, delightful, ear-tickling and host of other words that can be used, but "disturbing" is not one of them.
These are undoubtedly persons that are jaded and desensitized to the abuse of children and will exploit these and other crimes to psychologically assault innocent persons. Your attack on the Watchtower Society is a lost cause.
No person in the Watchtower Society forces accountability on local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's not their purpose. There's no point in such a thing from a scriptural or secular standpoint.
For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting. Hebrews 4:12, 13
There's three things a person can expect from others.
1. Appropriately respond to others in immediate harm.
g85 1/22 p. 8 Child Molesting—You Can Protect Your Child
First, the child—and other children too—must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost.
2. Obey the law.
http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm
We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime. Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws. (Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1) We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities.
3. Set reasonable boundaries that prevent a potential criminal from acting on impulse.
http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm
“For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses] or serve in any other special, full-time service.”
This common sense approach to crime in general is enforced at the local level in congregations. There are many non-profit organizations that host activities where parents are expected to supervise their children. Organizations with this social structure that exists with Jehovah's Witnesses generally don't have a child abuse policy aside from what may be required by law.
Nothing you've said has ever had any merit in a court of law.
Vicki Boer vs. Watchtower Society
The second witness proposed by the plaintiff is Barbara Anderson, who was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York from 1954 until her recent disfellowship (ejection from the faith). The plaintiff proposed to elicit evidence from Ms. Anderson as to her knowledge of how sexual abuse of children is dealt with within that religion and of cover-ups of abuse within that society. Most of Ms. Anderson’s proposed testimony would be hearsay. The plaintiff argued it would be admissible as similar fact evidence that the actions of the defendants in this case was part of a design, rather than negligence.
The proposed evidence from Ms. Anderson fails this test on every front. First, it is not logically probative of any issue before me. Whatever may have been Ms. Anderson’s personal experience with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and whatever information she may have gleaned about how child abuse cases were dealt with elsewhere, she has no evidence whatsoever about the Toronto or Shelburne congregations or any of the individuals in this case. Further, even her information about Watch Tower generally relates to that organization in the United States. There is nothing about her evidence that would assist in the very specific findings of fact I am required to make about what happened in the case before me.
What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred.
You were disfellowshipped because you're a slanderer. Your campaign constitutes stalking and harassment. Stalking is closely related to crimes punishable by law. This mindset is typically associated with some bitter person that lives a bleak existence. The fact that you seek intervention, contact with your former brethren (who have informed you they want nothing to do with you) through unscrupulous means, starting with the lawsuit you filed (that was rejected) for your disfellowshipment is evidence of this. In the United States, a person can sue for practically anything. There are no statutes or filters set up to protect others as with criminal law. Civil liability is rife with fraud and abuse in the United States and inasmuch, the higher courts generally don't sympathize with judgments that are a result of negligence or discrimination.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/nvaa99/chap21-2.htm
Stalkers, by their very nature, want more. They want contact. They want a relationship with their victims. They want to be part of their victims' lives. And, if they cannot be a positive part of their victims' lives, they will settle for a negative connection to their victims.
If you do believe shunning should be “outlawed” (something that will never happen), this is even more evidence you're a textbook stalker. You can't force a person's friendship. If any of Jehovah's Witnesses (including your family) were to communicate with you, this is all they'll tell you.
On another planet, sometime in the future, there will be a Prime vs. Marvin Shilmer debate. I will not watch it on pay per view; I would rather watch paint drying.
zed
BOTR: It is understand how many people understand what I am purposefully doing.
What the ... ?!?
Simon: An organization cannot shun you.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but obviously the leaders of the WTBTS--the organization under discussion--has a policy of institutionalized shunning which it coerces it's members to obey without discretion.
This is why I said in my comment on the first page of this thread, " instead of the expression 'extreme shunning,' he [ Richard E. Kelly ] should use institutional shunning and/or coerced shunning . "
-
Adamah,
I appreciate you freely sharing your views, and respect that you disagree with what you understand of my remarks. But from what you write I’m unconvinced there is a meeting of the minds between us two regarding what I’ve said.
You comment very well about legal concepts, constructions and concerns, and I agree with those. Yet an important feature of what I’ve repeated goes unaccounted for in your review of my remarks.
Everything I’ve suggested that can be dealt with legislatively is precisely to avoid the targeting of any particular religion and for sake of a sovereign state’s citizenry at large.
In particular, you write, “Instead, only laws that apply to ALL citizens and are in the public interest (such as anti-polygamy laws, which obviously effect Mormons, as well) will withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.” This is another way of saying precisely what I’ve said, which is why I conclude our minds have yet to meet in this discussion. But then, that’s what discussion is useful for; a meeting of minds; if not sooner then later.
Because I have an idea rather than a rough draft of legislation does not mean I’m unable to articulate the idea with words. It only means the idea I can convey in words is not something I’ve attempted to construct into legislative language.
Contemporary western governments can and have delved into harms caused by religious speech when that religious speech presented a danger to a nation’s sovereign status. This is why no religion in the United States can openly induce its members to refuse conscription during war. This legal construction did not occur because all religions were engaged in the practice. It was formed because one or more were engaged in the practice and it was in conflict with state sovereignty. Hence laws were passed that made it illegal for anyone—including any and all religions—to engage the practice.
Religious speech has limits. The limit is the point at which a particular piece of speech is demonstrably a threat to a state’s sovereignty, and a state’s sovereignty begins with citizenry. Hence protecting the citizenry from harm ranks religious speech, no matter the particular religion.
If the only thing that changes is how Watchtower is able to spew its religious rhetoric about associating with “unrepentant sinners” there is opportunity for improvement because I don’t see how the circumstance could be worse than it already is.
Marvin Shilmer
I agree that shunning should be banned - it directly causes psychological stress or worse. My wife was dfd and was miserable, withdrawn and easy to get angry until she was reinstated (now I am the miserable one). Her sister commited suicide when faced with the choice of returning to live with her JW husband and his family, because she realised within days of getting married was a horrible mistake, or be df'd.
Why do governments allow such abusive practices by so called religions when they would not allow it in other walks of life. Suppose a school had a disciplinary measure that none of the children could speak or interact with one of the pupils who had commited a particular type of misbehaviour. I don't think it would matter whether it was a government or private school, the government would move very quickly to ban such a practice as soon as the parents started complaining. The problem here is that it is often the parents who are the prepetrators.
