Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky 115 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hybridous

  This is a fascinating discussion.
  
  I am trying to think of any activity, (or IN-activity) that a free person is legally entitled to engage in, but which otherwise may not be encouraged/endorsed for a group.
  
  I am thinking that conspiracies to commit crimes are punishable offenses, but because then the crimes themselves are punishable offences.
  
  I am having a hard time imagining how to justify punishing conspiracy to encourage/endorse perfectly legal choices.
  
  The belief in WT is what gives shunning it's teeth. That's how the policy is carried out. Not some armed force that bodily compels adherence to the commands. That makes it more difficult to fathom, IMO, that our friends and family who might shun us are so thoroughly duped (or scared of being shunned themselves) that the internal calculus yields an answer that the continuance of the relationship isn't worth it.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Also as a reminder most constitutions only bar the state from encroaching into a person's constitutionally protected rights, there is very little that stops a private individual or institution from doing that unless otherwise prescribed by law. That is why the KKK and other hate groups still operate in free countries like the USA. You can spout out hate speech all you want you can't induce a person to assault or kill someone but you can preach hate. Even in France one of the major candidates for President is accused as being a hate monger.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  In Guinn v Church of Christ the Oklahoma Supreme Court used Paul v Watchtower to show the difference between active punishment of a former member and passive punishment of a former member. In Guinn the parishioner had removed herself from the association of the church and then sued the church and the elders for the invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. In Guinn the court said:

  In Paul a former member deliberately rejected the faith and beliefs of the Jehovah's Witness Church and was thus shunned. The Elders admonished the members of the church not to speak to Ms. Paul, and they obeyed. While Ms. Paul had withdrawn her membership and thus her consent to submit to the authority of the Jehovah's Witness Church, the act of discipline which it carried out against her was-unlike that in the instant case-a form of rejection and exclusion which did not call for her consent:

  “The members of the Church Paul decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice.”57

  The Elders' postresignation conduct in Paul was passive. Their disassociation from Ms. Paul through shunning was merely a reiteration of her prior rejection, not an active attempt to involve her in the religious practices of a church whose precepts she no longer followed. The church's *781 decision to turn away from her was protected under the First Amendment as a passive exercise of religious freedom, the legitimacy of which was not grounded in her prior acquiescence.

  For purposes of First Amendment protection, religiously-motivated disciplinary measures that merely exclude a person from communion are vastly different from those which are designed to control and involve. A church clearly is constitutionally free to exclude people without first obtaining their consent. But the First Amendment will not shield a church from civil liability for imposing its will, as manifested through a disciplinary scheme, upon an individual who has not consented to undergo ecclesiastical discipline. The court in Paul stated that “[c]ourts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members ) ...,” and that “[c]hurches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members,”58[emphasis added] but it provided no support for this view. Regardless of our disagreement with the court's refusal in Paul to distinguish between “former” and “present” church members when assessing a church's freedom to visit religious discipline, it is apparent that the stated rationale did not form the basis of the court's holding. We believe that the conclusion reached in Paul and our holding today are entirely consistent and easily reconcilable.
• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  Also as a reminder most constitutions only bar the state from encroaching into a person's constitutionally protected rights, there is very little that stops a private individual or institution from doing that unless otherwise prescribed by law. That is why the KKK and other hate groups still operate in free countries like the USA. You can spout out hate speech all you want you can't induce a person to assault or kill someone but you can preach hate. Even in France one of the major candidates for President is accused as being a hate monger.

  
  

  Yep that may be true Richard Oliver.. Yet, though they have the freedom of speech, how do most people view the KKK? How do most people view scientologists? What comes to the average person's mind when they think of Jehovah's Witnesses?

  The biggest detriment any organisation can have on individuals is when 'their' name causes alarm bells to ring in a person's minds.

  A name means a lot to people. Any organisations name that conjures up thoughts or feelings such as 'extremist', 'high control', 'cult' is far far more damaging than any legal processes.

  Such thoughts create barrier's in people's minds and therefore can act as a barrier in preventing individuals getting involved in such organisations.

  The Watchtower Society do a fantastic job of portraying themselves as a very extreme high control religious group.

  So I take my hat of to the GB who portray the organisation in this manner. The result....People are less likely and 'wary' of getting involved.

  Keep up the good work Mark, Geoff, Garret, Stevie, Sam, Tight pants Tony iii; and the overlapping generation's presenter guy (re jw broadcasting) 😋.

  Btw.....Thanks to aboveusonlysky for asking this really important question.

  To be honest.....Any pressure put on the WTB&TS to bring about change/reform has my blessing.
• 

  sparrowdown

  The borg induce people to refuse lifesaving blood treatment for themselves and for their children and people die because of it.
• 

  Simon

  >> people to refuse <<

  So who is more guilty, the people who do it or the people who suggest they should do it?

  Which would hold up in court under the fictitious "you have to speak to me" laws?

  However you want to slice it, you end up with those most responsible being those who actually commit the "crime" and those are the friends and family.

  You cannot have a situation where shunning someone is OK but telling a person that they should shun someone is a crime. I cannot think of any legal precedent where that could be the case (that isn't really contrived).

  So - are people truly advocating that now the parents / children / relatives of those who leave the religion be prosecuted / fined / imprisoned for any shunning and do you think that will help?