Vid,
If the enemy is arrogant exploit it force him to show it for other to see and get new alliance of defectors against him.
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo 183 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
144001
“Can you provide some specific examples of the institutions and employers you referred to?”
<<<<An employer (any employer) can reject someone as an employee yet treat them just like anyone else socially.>>>.
That is not shunning of any kind. That is simply a refusal by the employer to enter into an employment agreement or a refusal by the employer to continue an at-will employment contract.
I still fail to grasp the difference between shunning and "extreme shunning."
-
Band on the Run
A Bible Student,
Your are absolutely correct about James Madison in theory. Your statement is completely accurate so let me explain why while accurate, it is not work in real life. James Madison was never the father of the Const'n as being the sole sperm donor. My decades of reading biographies and histories of the Founding taught me some concepts I never learned in lectures or in law school.
This is the ideal time to illustrate a larger poiint. I don't have time to explain everything. Every person at the Const'l Convention, even Jefferson representing Confederation interests in Paris, and others who stayed home were Fathers of the Const'n. Madison just happened to believe in the cause more than others. Also, he kept meticulous notes of very boring stuff on a daily basis. He did not enjoy doing the worst job in the lot. Everyone owed him because he was dedicated combined with they all knew from local politics that someone had to take notes. They were conscious that they had a very rare moment.
Every single time any American student is taught that a bunch of powerful men from 13 very different colonies enjoyed perfect camaraderie. It is a - monstrous lie. They hated each other. Some were the closest friends and became so triggered someone went home and never returned. Don't ever think there was massive name calling. Let me cite the legendary ones that other countries citizens might know" Adams v. Jefferson, who later became closer than twin brothers. Franklin v. Adams. (never could like each other even under pressure. Both reported the others conduct in Paris just the way kindergarten kids do. Well, it only cause all the Continental Congress members to think less of both of them by a large measure. Yet when it came to vital American interests, Franklin and Adams were a formidable pair in isolation from their peers.
Alexander Hamilton was the way I am. It scares me how much I am Hamiltonian. What a coincidence! Even at twelve back in the West Indies, Hamilton was the epitome of a brash New Yorker. No one ever doubted his intellect but he never failed to anger people. Yet he was the toast of the town in New York, esp. Manhattan. He went to Kings College which became Columbia College partly because he dropped all this studies at Kings College to fight the British. Hamilton had the best job in the entire Continental Army. He wrote so quickly that Washington needed him to write letters. Alexander did not ever compose a letter. No, he just could jot what Washington said faster than anyone else. Because he had that talent, the one person who insisted on patrician behavior and hated all the other Hamiltons fell in bromance with Alexander Hamilton.
Hamilton is so bright he was bored by Kings College and now he is bored hearing and writing every little juicy top confidential item Washington dictates. Everyone is walking on eggshells b/c Washington maintained discipline at all costs. Why you may ask? While he was in what only Americans call the French and INdian War and about 18 or20, he lost control of some Indians and of all French officers to massacre-yes, the very cream of French aristocracy. So the King, Prime Minister, and Parliament don't blame the Indians. Washington first appears on a large scale in English politics. He is a war criminal! He does something out of character and weasls his way.
Everyone outside of the room and inside the room played crucial roles at certain points. The only idea they agreed upon was that something had to change in the relationship between the American colonies and the Great Mother Country. When the started, the very idea of independence would have sent them running away. Abe Lincoln hated black people yet against all odds he freed the slaves under Confederate control while still keep the ones in Union control as slaves.
Of all the particpants and I now know them most of them well b/c I've been reading for so long, Washington came the closest to being the Father of the United States of America. He was doing stupid things. Congress was ready to recall him and replace him with the near military person who walked by countless times. Washington used Indian tactics but Yorkville only happened b/c of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin in Paris. Notions of free speech and religion were debated endlessly all day and all night and no consensus was ever reached. The only reason there is a Const'n is because Spain and another menancing country starting sending warships very close to the important harbors you need to invade a country. Nice colonial bodies with no experience and they hate each other-pig heaven. Despite the hatred, though, back then everyone read the Latin and Greek histories every day for many years until death. Many were lawyers. The single most dangerous thing in Greek and Roman democracies is a standing army. Washington won the the war at Yorkville. Everyone is passing out b/c no one thought Washington could ever do it! They were lawyers, mostly, they deliberately never paid any money to Washington to stop a coup d'etat. Yet not paying officers caused a coup d'etat. Washington was packing to go to Mount Vernon. Some conspirator at the last moment freaked out and told Washington, which now meant that the rat might be executed.
Washington stopped the ultimate coup d'etat not by ordering men or being his patrician self. He identified with their anger and cried for them. They all swore they would never cave in to Geo. Washington. They are crying harder than Washington. ....Fast fwd. Only Washington and Washington alone could have ushered in the United States of America b/c only he could mediate the massive fighting. Well, we could still have dictators b/c Washington did the unthinkable. His greatest act was not the Revolutionary War or being the first president. No, when his term was up he retired to Mt. Vernon and stayed there. He volutarily played plantation owner when he well could have been King. Despite the greatest stresses and personal triggers, Washington never says anything that favors Hamilton or Jefferson, to name the worst two kindergarten kids.
Of course, with his own family, he might have said a few words. He truly favored Hamilton even when he knew Hamilton was wrong The remarkable thing is that Hamilton was almost always right but when he was wrong. Also, you never ever want to tell Hamilton he was right, ever, b/c of his personality. Washington knew he tended to favor Hamilton. Indeed, everyone at the time who saw the interactions, swore Hamilton was an illegitimate son. Finally, a later generation traced Hamilton and Washington's lives at every single second. He was not Hamilton's favor. Despite adoring Hamilton too much, he restrained a let Jefferson excel at all the things that are truly Jeffersonian in the best way.
The current trend is that only economics matters. Indivduals do not matter. I was raised with normal people don't count. Only three men count. Perhaps the truth is the middle. Never were such disparate people forced to behave for a greater good. No one back then knew it would work. Even the two most men most identiifed with the Const'n because of the Federalist Papers wrote to their closest friends that perhaps the United States would last four years. While they were writing the Federalist Papers, they are telling their closest relatives that maybe it will last four years. The Federalist Papers, when first published in New York and some other city, were not the Federalist Papers. They were only essays among tons of other essays in regular newspapers people read everyday. Boring. Why NY? Because Hamilton could only get his letters published in New York because of his personal NY ties. It had nothing to do with NY itself.
This is a rich lesson for apostates. So many episodes of great history that people around the world still study started with call outs, walk outs, fist fights, and in America, one Congressman beating another Congressman senseless on the floor of the House. They were only following the great example of Great Britain, their home mindset. Britain executes, beheads, tortures, etc. Americans believe the British are alway so proper and polite. No way.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
And meanwhile, back at the Bat Cave...(!!!)
-
Prime
I agree with those who say that you cannot pass a law to force someone to talk to another, or even to force the Watchtower to not practice shunning. I think what would be more effective is a public education campaign on the negative effects of shunning. I do not think most people realize what is being done by the Watchtower in the name of religion. I don't think even many dubs know the full extent of the damage caused by shunning, the nature of the shunning means those in the religion do not know how hurtful it is or even what caused the person to be shunned in the first place. The Watchtower pretends that only unrepentant sinners are disfellowshipped, when the reality is far more sinister. You can be pulled before a committee for any number of offences, or even no offence, if you get a bad elder. And what constitutes repentance is left up to interpretation.
The Watchtower is sensitive to their public image, so if this evil practice were to become widely known, it might cause them to back off enough for the individual witnesses to be given a bit more latitude. I don't know how this could be accomplished, but maybe someone here on JWN has experience with the media, or marketing. I would love to see a Sixty Minutes type expose of the practice of disfellowshipping.
No one here can honestly say that the disfellowshipping arrangement is damaging. It's common for certain persons to voluntarily disassociate themselves from the organization.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disassociate
To remove from association; dissociate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissociate
To sever the association of (oneself); separate: He tried to dissociate himself from the bigotry in his past.
Such a person puts a higher priority on what they believe than their association. You can't blame anyone else for doing the same thing.
-
Tylinbrando
Prime, if disfellowshipping is not a damaging practice, then why do some individuals make reference to it in their suicide letters?
-
jgnat
Prime, my daughter still talks to me even though we disagree quite strongly on some issues. What is it about a divorce of belief that prompts Witness parents to sever all contact with their own children?
-
Frazzled UBM
Prime - are you serious? 'no one honestly believes that disfellowshipping is damaging' ...maybe not if you have already decided The Truth is not that and you are better off without close family contact and fake friends (but even then I find it hard to believe some damage is not caused) but if you continue to believe the psychological impact is horrendous as you are expecting that Armageddon will happen any day and you will be wiped out in it and then there is the shame...I saw how my wife was completely unaffected for the five years she was df'd (NOT) such that she couldn't run back fast enough once she could show repentence and so ended up even tighter in the bosom of the Borg...no not in the least bit damaging...
-
Prime
Prime, if disfellowshipping is not a damaging practice, then why do some individuals make reference to it in their suicide letters?
If someone is suicidal or commits suicide, it's not because of expulsion from a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are persons I know/knew that were disfellowshipped and quite frankly, they really didn't care. Those that did care were often reinstated.
If it is a family member that chooses not to associate with you and you believe they're wrong because of their decision, there's nothing to feel bad about. If a person believes they're not in the wrong, they also have a support group. Namely, anyone that isn't a JW. If a person believes they are in the wrong, they can be reinstated. Anyway you look at it, there's an open door.
Personal rejection is a fact of life in modern society. A fact most people experience early on. Some people are rejected at birth. If someone lives at home, they won't be rejected because they're disfellowshipped. Not because of any official tenet or protocol employed by Jehovah's Witnesses anyway. People don't commit suicide because of rejection in itself. Nobody has to take the blame for such a thing.
-
