When a person is disfellowshiped by a religion just because he or she doesn't believe it all is very serious. Some disfellowshiped ones have even taken their own lives because they have been made to feel so bad. It's down in black and white that parents and friends are supposed to shun them, shunning is acting like someone is dead. And why? Because they chose to exercise their freedom of religion, freedom to worhip as they pleased. I think there is grounds for a class-action suit, and the Society needs to be sued for millions of dollars. I'll bet it can be done.
Freedom of Relgion has been taken away.
by Jeannette 15 Replies latest forum announcements
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Unfortunately, religion is treated by many/most governments with kid gloves... and actions that are considered immoral and unacceptable by non-religious organizations and legal culpability via class-action lawsuits are seen as a reasonable outcome, suddenly aren't so bad, or at least are not prosecutable, in a religious context.
I hope the day comes when religions are forced to play on a level field just like everyone else.
-
OneEyedJoe
Yeah, it's something of a catch-22 though. In order to ensure that individuals have freedom of religion, the government would have to infringe upon the freedom of religion of those shunning them.
-
_Morpheus
Understand im not a fan of the WT by any strech..... But I think your wrong.
DF'ing dosent prevent you from practicing the dubbies religion Or believing as you wish. DF'ing is protected by that very freedom. The freedom comes into play when the religion practices its rules and tenants, rules you agree to when you practice it as constitued. They (the org) are protected and allowed to make up whatever rules, including those that get you DF'd, they want. Its their right (freedom) to do so. Its also your right (or freedom) to be a dubbie and play by their rules. Or not.
its also your right to believe anything you wish. You can take every belief of witnessdom you want, strip it of a few odds and ends like the shunning doctrine, and practice that if you want. Your free to do so. But they arnt obligated to reconize you as part their club. There is no inherent right of a person to force an organization to reconize them as member in good standing if the person dosent agree with or works against the precepts of the organization. Imagine a furrier suing PETA because PETA wont let them be a member.
i hate the shunning practice and NEVER, not even when i was a die hard dubbie, shunned anyone, but I cannot see it as denial of freedom of religion.
-
Ajax
Democratic, secular governments can neither promote nor curtail religious belief .
Civil courts cannotrule on interpretation, nor the truthfulness of any religions scripture, doctrines or internal practices (including 'judicial' proceedings)
Do the learned men and women of law feel that ecclesial law is superior to moder secular law? - just the opposite.
In full awareness that religious texts and teaching contains anciet myth, scientific ignorance and is founation of truly ridiculous claims and beliefs. democracies give it a free pass simply because it is cultural, popular and often harmonious with their wider civil and social agendas.
Religion is not supported by, but rather tolerated by modern,secular governments
Individuals are born as free persons, and must consent to come under ecclesial law - hence the cults singl minded goal of baptism.
We were baptised in ignorance but can become free through application of secular law- human rights laws for example.
-
Ajax
One eyed joe-
Religion only has power over those who consent to that power - read it again -
Religion only has power over those who consent to that power.
You and I consented to their authority when we were baptised - they had authority to DF or DA us because we were to stupid and ignorant to REJECT their authority before that happened. We deserved what we got , not because we did wrong , but because we lacked the courage to do what was right and REJECT hypocrisy.
-
Vidiot
Shirley - "I hope the day comes when religions are forced to play on a level field just like everyone else."
I think it's coming.
OneEyedJoe - "Yeah, it's something of a catch-22 though. In order to ensure that individuals have freedom of religion, the government would have to infringe upon the freedom of religion of those shunning them."
People are starting to clue in that certain actions - particularly those that harm or threaten the physical health/safety of others - simply cannot qualify for "religious freedom" protections.
Ajax - "Religion is not supported by, but rather tolerated by modern secular governments."
Agreed.
If it were the other way 'round, the American Religious Right wouldn't have been fighting tooth and nail to impose their agenda for the past three or four decades.
-
The Truth Shall Set Us FREE!
Well, the Watchtower Witnesses are not just a religion. They are also a corporation by their own admittance. When baptizing, new members enter into a contract with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society... A corporation can be class act sued. Maybe it should be impossible to / forbidden for religions to also classify / identify themselves as corporations or ideal organisations. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society sell products like books, magazines, and real estate. They are not an ideal organisation, as then the money and values that are taken into the organisation would all have gone to third party recipients outside of the organisation, outlined as benefactors in the statutes of the organisation. The money that is taken in by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society solely goes to internal recipients of the organisation (those already affiliated with the organisation by contract), and that is not charity, but is clearly corruption if The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is supposedly a charity.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract society is wearing several hats, depending on what is regarded most beneficial to the people at the top in that particular organisation, which again is depending on the rules in the countries in which they operate. They alternate between calling them-self and ideal organisation, a religion and a corporation. This kind of alternation between definitions should not be allowed for a religion to perform. A religion is an organised faith-system (operating outside or within a country’s law), not a charity and not a corporation. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claim that they operate within the laws of every country that they are in, but if they can also be defined as a corporation, you can sue them.
They are sometimes a corporation by their own admittance and behaviour. Just gather evidence of when they refer them-self to be a corporation, whether in interviews or in their own writings (for instance when they brag about their own buildings and other monetary values), and when they buy and sell off real estate, as well as with regards to when they exercise other corporate behaviour, and give the evidence to the authorities or preferably a good class act lawyer that is not already affiliated with the Watchtower.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can be judged in a country NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO CALL THEMSELVES A RELIGION EVER AGAIN if they continue with corporate behaviour. They can also be judged to be officially registered as either a charity or a corporation, and then the road is small to take them down on tax exemption and/or corruption. The clue is, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has to choose what they are, and stick to it, as EVERY ONE ELSE HAS TO, and there is no unfair prosecution in that!!
-
Vidiot
Yeah; good luck labeling the loss of tax-free status as "persecution".
-
Ajax
Morpheus -
You said-
''i hate the shunning practice ...., but I cannot see it as denial of freedom of religion.''
If one remains a consenter Jdub you get whatever hate they hand out, if you reject their authority, you are free as when you were born.
Their freedom of religious rights does not extend to those who do not consent to it.