aboveusonlysky what you are referring too in bullying requires an action not the lack of action. The action is the actual bullying of someone which requires direct and systematic harassment of an individual. Shunning is different it is the lack of action on a person. And the announcement that is made at a meeting that someone is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a true statement that is also why it is not a libel statement. If they claimed that someone was an adulterer and that is why they were disfellowshipped and they never committed the act then that would be a libel statement.
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
Am I right in saying that in Bulgaria it's illegal for someone to be disfellowshipped for having a blood transfusion? So if that happens the disfellowshipped victim could successfully sue the organization and so could anyone who was disfellowshipped for associating with them, sure loads of people would still shun out of choice but the law would make the org think twice about announcing that person was no longer a JW.
What if the same law was applied to anyone who spoke out against the org? after all it's part of the human rights agenda to have freeness of speech and choice of belief without negative consequence, so dfing an 'apostate' could lead to the org being sued.
Am I right in saying that in Bulgaria it's illegal for someone to be disfellowshipped for having a blood transfusion?
You aren't disfellowshipped anymore for accepting a blood transfusion. They say that you have disassociated yourself.
We all know that's the same thing. But it's worded differently so is a loophole.
When you sue anyone you have to show damages that were caused by the person actions. It is only under very narrow circumstances can someone be sued for not acting. It is the difference between malfeasance and nonfeasance, malfeasance you have done an act that is against the law whereas nonfeasance is you didn't do something that you are required to do.
Richard Oliver: When any entity Organises the shunning of someone, it is clear and obvious actions. It is one thing to dissfellowship someone (I agree with this right) and another to ORDER its members not to talk to xMembers.
Jehovah's Witnesses published articles, talks and even videos instructing their members to shun xJWs. The Elders have clear instruction to disfellowship people who show a lack of respect for (aka: disagreement with) the practice of shunning.
They are taking plenty of actions. I believe these actions should be considered criminal,
The congregation is not engaging in the activity of shunning, it can be said that they are encouraging individual members to engage in the activity but the organization is not doing that. In fact, their official agents are encouraged to communicate with disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals when elders go and speak with those individuals. And again even though the statement of shunning indicates an action what it really is doing is not engaging in activity that of speech and association with someone else.
Richard Oliver once again you could not be more wrong. Consider the following statement -
You might think bullying is worse than ostracism, but recent research suggests that being frozen out is actually more painful. From social exclusion on the playground to being ignored in the workplace, ostracism is among the most devastating experiences we can endure, deeply connected to our most fundamental human need to be recognized and accepted. Ostracism can reshape the human brain, and in extreme cases, even make a person want to go on a killing spree. Isn’t it time we knew more about it?
Even at my child's primary school they teach that ignoring someone is a cruel form of bullying, can I ask, do you think scientology's disconnection policy is cruel or fair?
Regarding the announcement it's obvious it means shun or be shunned, there are loads of former jdubs that aren't shunned, but try having a friendship with someone who's been announced and you'll quickly be on the end of congregation discipline. The statement 'let him have it' could mean pass him the ball or stab him to death, one is innocent and the other is not. To say the announcement that someone is no longer a JW is merely a true statement is intellectually dishonest.
From your own words "You might think bullying is worse than ostracism" so clearly there is a distinction between bullying and ostracism. What you indicated in previous posts is that if bullying leads to suicide that the person who did the bullying can be prosecuted but if bullying and ostracism is different things that would be a different circumstance.
Simon you make a great point but I think we're talking about different things. There's nothing I can do about those that have chose to shun me purely because I no longer hold the same beliefs I had in the past, on the other hand when I want to associate with df'd friends I have to do so I'm secret for fear of being subject to a judicial committee myself, all of this is printed organization procedure.
You voluntarily chose to either meet with them or not and to subject yourself to their authority or not.
The can make their rules for membership as long as they do not violate any secular laws which they don't.
It really comes down to you wanting to belong, for some reason, to a group who's rules you don't want to adhere to. I say "for some reason" because the only valid reason to persist with it is if you think they do represent god and it's really him setting the rules. In which case, why not obey them? If you think the rules are invalid and should not be obeyed then why do you want to go?
If it's a social club, find a better one with rules you find more suitable.
At no point is an reasonable democratic government going to step in and decide what the rules of membership of a religion should be. If that were the case then it would be an authoritarian dictatorship that would be a bigger problem than anything the WTS does.
There are already religions doing things far more worthy of government intervention, and yet the government doesn't act. A fringe group with family fallouts and refusal to invite people round for supper is way down on most people's list of issues.
It sucks for those of us unfortunate to be born to parents dumb enough to have been convinced that it was the truth.
Q: a relative join weight watchers and doesn't come round anymore because you always have donuts. Should the government force them to? How many donuts should they be forced to eat?
@simon....weight watchers...you could still invite your friend round and invite them to have a go on your exercise bike while you eat a donut ! No government needs to be involved ! Lol