Should Religion Be Exempt From Ethical Standards?

by AlanF 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  A few comments for minimus:

  : "As long as they behave themselves:".....That can get sticky. Do you want the government to determine this?

  Yes, because it is evident that religions cannot police themselves. Look at the recent scandals in the Catholic, Mormon and JW churches over child molestation. When a religious group's self-interest is at stake, they always come down on the side of self-interest at the expense of individual rights.

  : What boundaries will be exercised?

  Whatever boundaries ethicists working with lawmakers and the courts decide, that will prevent the evident abuses we see today from continuing to occur.

  : Will we invite a police state?

  No.

  : I'm very uncomfortable with the government keeping check over religion.

  I am not, as long as it is kept within proper bounds. Religion cannot do it, and no one else has the power.

  : Who is so ethical that they can be the guardians over others?......

  Humans do the best they can. Religion has failed miserably to protect people from religious abuse. Secular states such as most western democracies have proved far better at doing this than religions have. No human organization is perfect, but in this case I'm saying that we need to choose the lesser of two evils.

  Let me ask you specifically, minimus: What do you think ought to be done to prevent a particular religion from practicing child sacrifice? Do you think government should get involved? Should it get involved only to the extent that, after children are killed, it will prosecute the murderers? Or do you think government ought to prevent the teaching of such beliefs up front so as to prevent children from being killed in the first place? Explain your reasoning and elaborate on the ethical principles you invoke.

  : Obviously, we all should practice good ethics.

  That's the whole point, isn't it? And what does human society do with people who habitually do not?

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Stephanus,

  :: Individuals may not ethically group together and conspire to alienate the affections of family members one from another.

  : You will find that the courts are reluctant to enforce (or negate) what they call "social" or "family" agreements. And they're right to do so. How would it be if the courts could intervene in a dispute between you and your son, where he hasn't cleaned his room?

  You've completely missed my point, stephanus. I am not talking about individuals or small family groups deciding what to do on a personal basis. I am talking about institutions issuing mandates that result in alienation of affection that force all members of the institution to follow the mandate against people they do not even know, on pain of further punishment by alienating the affections of the family members of the persons who do not go along with the institutional mandate.

  My point is that the courts should get involved in such things -- not in private family disputes.

  There is also the aspect of religious freedom when the institution that issues such mandates is a religious organization. How does a free society draw the line between the religious freedom of a group -- the institution -- to practice alienation of affection as a religious belief, and the religious freedom of an individual to retain good family relations despite religious differences?

  Let's get specific with the JWs and their shunning practices. Which is greater? The right of the Watchtower to issue shunning orders, or the right of individuals to practice their religious beliefs without threat of punishment? I have no gripe with a family that decides on its own and without outside influence to shun a family member. I have a huge gripe with a religious organization that forces the family on pain of further punishment to shun a family member.

  Do you now understand my points?

  AlanF
• 

  Stephanus

  Oh, I understand the point, alright. And agree. The problem is that religions that practice this kind of behaviour are displaying more and more rat cunning. Eg. you mention the WT issuing orders, but as we all know, many of those orders are issued in the manner of "As true Christians we..." In a court, this would appear to be advice, not the issuing of commandments on Mt Sinai. Those of us here know that they are one and the same. But would this discussion board be admissable as evidence? As more pressure is brought to bear on the WT, we will see more of these commandments disguised as helpful advice. When someone is determined to make money by claiming he is the voice of God, there is very little the secular courts can do. After all, the courts are bound by the very ethical rules that the WT and its ilk thumbs its nose at!
• 

  onacruse

  Aristotle said (Politics):

  Nor was civil society founded merely to preserve the lives of its members...whosoever endeavors to establish wholesome laws in a state, attends to the virtues and vices of each individual who composes it; from whence it is evident, that the first care of him who would found a city, truly deserving that name, and not nominally so, must be to have his citizens virtuous.

  No Greek philosopher (please correct me if I'm wrong) every intimated that religious practice was immune to the ethics of the State. Greek culture, and indeed, virtually all cultures throughout history have included religious practices under the regulatory umbrella of the State, and vice versa. The concept of "separation of church and state" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Johnson and Yost (Separation of Church and State in the United States, 1948) say (bold added):

  The separation of church and state has become one of the fundamental principles of government in the United States. By many it is considered to be the greatest contribution to civilization the people of the United States have made. This important principle has experienced a life span of only one hundred and fifty years in the United States. In many parts of the world it is still not an accepted principle, much less an assured fact. Separation of church and state is a minority view for a majority of the earth's population. It has indeed always been a minority view, and it took centuries for the development of the basic religious liberty until they took permanent root in American soil.

  Religion and State are a sociological symbiosis. Always have been, always will be. The great American experiment to separate them was flawed from the start, because it proceeds from the false premise that religion and state are different entities. They are, in fact, just two aspects of the same entity: the society from which they spring.

  They must be, and are by their very nature, mutually regulatory.

  Craig

  Edited by - onacruse on 19 January 2003 18:0:44
• 

  AlanF

  : The problem is that religions that practice this kind of behaviour are displaying more and more rat cunning. Eg. you mention the WT issuing orders, but as we all know, many of those orders are issued in the manner of "As true Christians we..." In a court, this would appear to be advice, not the issuing of commandments on Mt Sinai...

  You're absolutely right, Stephanus. However, the courts also look at the results of such "advice". A good lawyer can show the courts in absolutely clear terms just what kind of social pressure is involved in such "advice". When such "advice" results in monetary damages, the courts become especially interested.

  More important, if courts allowed complainants to win massive lawsuits against institutions like the Watchtower for abusing the religious freedom of individuals and for alienating their families, you would see a very quick turnaround in the "advice" given and in policies regarding religious disputes. It would be the death of vile practices like institutionalized disfellowshipping or other shunning for religious disputes.

  Let me give you an example. I know a woman who left the JWs nearly 20 years ago. She divorced an abusive JW husband and made a new life for herself, remarrying a few years later. Her brother remained a JW and inquired of the Watchtower Society as to how he should view her, given that she had remarried before her now-ex-JW ex-husband, and whether the congregation she had once attended should form a judicial committee against her. The Society wrote back and said not to form a judicial committee, as she was not bothering any JWs and was not trying to influence anyone, but simply living a new life. They also told him that the JW family should shun her privately, without going through formal disfellowshipping or disassociating procedures. Eventually the woman found out that the brother not only shunned her himself, but was actively trying to influence other family members to do the same, using the Watchtower letter to show them what "God's organization" had ruled. She attempted to get him to show her the letter, but he refused. Given the fact that this brother -- an elder -- did not have the mental wherewithal to decide to shun his sister on his own, but only did so when advised to by a religious institution, it is unlikely that he would have done so without such advice. In similar situations we know very well that many, many JWs would not shun their relatives if the Society's disfellowshipping policy did not have the teeth of further shunning to force them into it. This forcing is an explicitly stated policy and can be found in Watchtower articles on disfellowshipping.

  It is this sort of gross abuse of human rights and ethical norms that I am talking about.

  AlanF
• 

  Pistoff

  Alan F:

  Let's get specific with the JWs and their shunning practices. Which is greater? The right of the Watchtower to issue shunning orders, or the right of individuals to practice their religious beliefs without threat of punishment? I have no gripe with a family that decides on its own and without outside influence to shun a family member. I have a huge gripe with a religious organization that forces the family on pain of further punishment to shun a family member.

  I agree, and my gripe is the immoral and wrong df'ing policy. Two of my sons are df'ed, one happily and one working for reinstatement. They BOTH were df'ed while in serious depression, one suicidal and one with serious burns on his arm from self mutilation. They are healthy now emotionally, no thanks to the window washers in the hall. When I asked the JC if they had considered his depression when deciding to boot him, they said "well, he himself says that when he gets to the hall he feels better." So much for "caring deeply" and "understanding" depression. Depressed, suicidal, no matter; if your behavior does not fit our standards, you are OUT.

  The bitter irony has been touched on: this organizational behavior is tolerated in this country due to the strength of the constitutional guarantees, which the WT has used to it's benefit, but DOES NOT SUPPORT. Free speech? Please. Freedom of information? That might lead the brothers to independent thinking!! Can't have that.

  I am with you Alan; all religious groups must conform to and support the freedoms that this country and other free countries is based upon. And OUT with the privelege of confession.(In the WT it is especially irritating, since they harp on the catholics and state that the elders are NOT confessors, but hide beneath clerical/confessional privelege when it suits them) it is being used now as a means to clear the conscience and defraud justice.

  Think of how pathetic this whole thing is: the government, of all things, has taken the ethical and moral high ground from the churches, WT included, on the issue of child abuse, and of course, blood transfusions in minors; the very government that the WT says is controlled by the Devil.

  THAT is a paradigm shift for you.

  Edited by - Pistoff on 19 January 2003 18:23:11
• 

  Stephanus

  After my last post I remembered the principle of causation in tort cases - the "but for" rule. Such is easy to prove where there is physical damage or injury - when someone lights a match, there's a fire and someone is hurt trying to escape from it, causation is easy to prove. In the example you cite, sure, causation can definitely be proved. But was the lady able to do anything about it legally? One question you've got to ask re: negligence cases (and that's what tort law is all about, and the area within which this stuff falls), "What's the damage?" To successfully sue someone for negligence, there must be some damage caused by them. The damage that the Tower causes is rarely physical, and the non-physical side of tort law is a minefield.

  I see these kind of cases becoming more and more the province of Human Rights Commisions and the like, bodies that are not subject to the rules of evidence that the law courts are, and that make all sorts of touchy-feely decisions on an arbitrary basis. Those decisions can occasionally increase liberty for the few, but more often than not decrease that of the many.

  I'd like nothing more than to see dictatorships disguised as religions regulated according to social norms. Actually achieving that goal is not as easy as desiring it.
• 

  AlanF

  Excellent comments, Pistoff. You have every right to be as your handle indicates.

  Hi Stephanus,

  : After my last post I remembered the principle of causation in tort cases - the "but for" rule. Such is easy to prove where there is physical damage or injury - when someone lights a match, there's a fire and someone is hurt trying to escape from it, causation is easy to prove. In the example you cite, sure, causation can definitely be proved. But was the lady able to do anything about it legally?

  She never tried -- it wasn't worth her time and she figured it wasn't worth the effort. Who would want a relationship with someone who allowed a religious dictatorship to kill their relationship?

  : One question you've got to ask re: negligence cases (and that's what tort law is all about, and the area within which this stuff falls), "What's the damage?" To successfully sue someone for negligence, there must be some damage caused by them. The damage that the Tower causes is rarely physical, and the non-physical side of tort law is a minefield.

  This area is far broader than mere "negligence". I agree that the non-physical damage area is a minefield, but plenty of cases have been won anyway. Physical damage is not that hard to document, either. Suppose a man is disowned by his parents because of lies or pressure from an institution? That's damage for sure.

  : I see these kind of cases becoming more and more the province of Human Rights Commisions and the like, bodies that are not subject to the rules of evidence that the law courts are, and that make all sorts of touchy-feely decisions on an arbitrary basis.

  Well, bodies like this have no power of enforcement that I know of. Their power is persuasive, and to the extent that they can persuade governments to pass laws restricting the kind of behavior I've been describing, I'm all for it.

  : Those decisions can occasionally increase liberty for the few, but more often than not decrease that of the many.

  Please give examples.

  : I'd like nothing more than to see dictatorships disguised as religions regulated according to social norms. Actually achieving that goal is not as easy as desiring it.

  True, but you have to start somewhere. Look what happened with the tobacco industry.

  AlanF
• 

  Lady Lee

  I have 2 comments - well a comment and a question really

  First I think that religion should hold to a higher moral code than people or governments - isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

  Second my question but a bit of explanation first.

  It has been by understanding that ecclesiastical privilege refers solely to the confession by a sinner to priest who is then free from compulsion by a court of law to disclose the nature of the confession or to go to the authorities with the confession. While porfessionals have a legal responsibility to report certain crimes to the police and the public has a moral responsibility to report, the clergy is free from this legal and moral responsibility - to the sinner who has confessed.

  What I have a hard time understanding is how any clergy, JW elder's included, would be able to claim this privilege when a victim comes forward asking for help. This is not a case of eccesiastical privilege. The victim is not confessing. And even when the elders go to the accused and ask him "Did you do this?" and he says "No" there is no confession to claim this privilege.

  So my question -- Am I wrong here and totally off base with my understanding of this issue? Any info you can find would be appreciated. I have done a quick search on the net but found nothing of import as yet.

  Edited by - Lady Lee on 19 January 2003 22:17:47
• 

  Stephanus

  Please give examples.

  Not actually a Human Rights Commission thing, but an example of the very sort of arbitrary, emotional making of rules which I am wary of: you mention litigation against the tobacco companies. Some aspect of responsibility should be laid at the companies' feet, but hardly all - no-one was ever forced to light up a cigarette, and contrary to many of the plaintiffs' claims, the negative information was always there - there was no real conspiratorial cover-up. Such litigation is now encouraging some people to sue McDonalds for their obesity. Where does this sort of thing stop making sense and become ridiculous? What is the true line between corporate (or religious) responsibilty and individual responsibility? What about caveat emptor (admittedly now effectively legislated out of existance by consumer protection laws)?

  We're back in minefield territory with the religion thing - can you ever prove that a person ever entirely relinquished their responsibilities as an individual?

  And I'm not trying here to undermine what you are arguing for. This bastard org should be made to confront the very society which has protected and nurtured it, and for its troubles has been snarled and sneered at, and called Great Babylon! It's just I sometimes see past surface issues and see underlying flaws. Case in point:

  Our church had a "reformed" paedophile in the congregation - he wasn't allowed to have a ministry involving kids or youth, but he was given "Faithlift", a monthly service for over 50s. One month, the service coincided with Education Week. Kids from the school next door to the church were invited over to give a performance for the oldies during the service. When I heard this, all I could see was an Illawarra Mercury headline screaming "Schoolchildren Attend Education Week Church Service Presided Over By Convicted Paedophile!"