Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky 115 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Richard Oliver

  Look at Glass v First United Pentecostal Church of DeRidder. A gentleman sued his church, which is his civil right to do so, but the repercussions that came from that action is something that the government cannot intervene in.

  It is evident to us that this dispute is rooted in an ecclesial tenet of The First United Pentecostal Church which prohibits members from suing fellow church members. Certainly, in civil law the plaintiffs-appellants had a right to pursue their mandamus action. However, we hasten to add that the religious repercussions that were set into motion as a result of the exercise of their civil right is another matter beyond the reach of judicial authority. In that light, anything we might consider in our analysis of the two exceptions to their petition for damages would require us to apply, interpret, and comment upon The First United Pentecostal Church tenet against the institution of suits among church members
  
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Richard Oliver: The congregation is not engaging in the activity of shunning,

  Actually, they are very actively engaging and organising it. They tell people how to shun, in what circumstance and if they do not follow the shunning practice along with the group, they will shun that person as well. Perhaps the decision to shun is indeed a personal one for many Jehovah`s Witnesses. That is their right. But what about those who do not agree with this practice? They will face a discipline judicial committee if they violate the orders of the group.

  This is "Organising and enforcing shunning" and it requires plenty of actions.
• 

  poopie

  Phscology teaches that shunning can be torture. Start there.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  simon: The can make their rules for membership as long as they do not violate any secular laws which they don't.

  Secular laws should be clear that to organise the systematic shunning of someone from his entire social circle is abusive and illegal. This is precisely what JWs are doing to kids born into it. If individual JWs chose, on their own accord, to shun who ever they want, they have that right. However, the group should not have any kind of discipline in regards to who their own members associate with.
• 

  Fairlane

  Yes stephane one of my siblings was shunned by our father for associating with me, she is a jw . Im not dfd i just faded this person does not visit or see me any more. Occasionally we bump into each other and the atmosphere is always strained and tense although i always greet with love and a hug.... so sad
• 

  Simon

  Secular laws should be clear that to organise the systematic shunning of someone from his entire social circle is abusive and illegal.

  That's unworkable. Imagine 10 friends. 1 makes a pass at someone else's wife or does something that the social circle disapproves of. They stop inviting them to meet-ups.

  Should that be a crime? Should the government intervene?

  Governments generally don't make specific targeted laws naming groups - they need to apply equally and to all and if you can come up with examples straight away where things wouldn't work ... well, it shows some things need more work.

  This is precisely what JWs are doing to kids born into it.

  Their parents are making that choice.
  
• 

  Simon

  Perhaps the decision to shun is indeed a personal one for many Jehovah`s Witnesses. That is their right.

  It absolutely IS the choice of every single person to shun or not to shun.

  If a relative shuns you, why let them hide behind some lame "the WTS makes me do it" nonsense? It's THEM who are shunning you. Their choice. Hold them responsible for it.

  The WTS cannot shun people anymore than McDonalds can. It's just a business - all they can do is refuse you service / admission which they typically only do in extreme circumstances due to someone's poor behaviour.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Even if one would agree with the contention that shunning should be illegal it raises a number of questions. Who would enforce no shunning rules? How would you enforce it? How can someone prove that they didn't speak to someone not for religious reasons but for another reason? Would family members be required to communicate with each other a certain amount each day, week, month or year? Would there be jail time for not communicating with someone?
• 

  Doubtfully Yours

  Shunning is not a JW monopoly. So, this is a severe time wasting endeavor.

  DY
• 

  Finkelstein

  Where the critical legality may exist is that the person has made a personal decision on their own to accept the set rules and behavioral guidelines established by a specific religion, when those rules goes against themselves, they are inherently responsible for not upholding those set rules.
  

  When you get baptized as a JWS you are in acceptance and agreement to those rules and your expected to follow them accordingly.

  Not that I'm being supportive to DFing, I think its ass backwards from social psychological perspective but pointing out where it might be a problem in petitioning the unlawfulness of this action to a recognized government..