Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky 115 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aboveusonlysky

  '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?'

  So are you saying that those that don't believe but still go to meetings or try to fade quietly purely to keep their family together or buy some time in trying to wake up family members are wrong to do so? If so that's extremely judgemental.

  You also argue all your points as if everything is a choice, haven't you heard of undue influence? If inciting a person or a crowd to commit an act of violence is a crime then what about inciting bullying by means of organizationally mandated shunning? It's nothing to do with forcing people to eat donuts or whatever your illustration meant.

  Richard Oliver - you still haven't answered my question as to whether you think scientology's disconnection policy is fair or not, you are free to express your pro-JW opinions on this forum (and rightly so) so do you think it's right that one of us would be immediately booted off JWtalk for saying anything negative about the org?
• 

  Finkelstein

  "hate inspired" ... can you prove that?

  I think when you encourage people to not even talk or socialize with a person that constitutes or equates a deliberate instigation toward hate in relative terms.
  

  For example... if a parent intentionally tries to push a son or daughter out the house, simply based upon their non willing involvement of this " religion " that social behavior constitutes an act of hate and psychological abuse onto that person.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  In Bates v Kingdom Hall of the Congregation the court wrote this:

  Indeed, it is the essence of religious faith that ecclesiastical decisions are reached and are to be accepted as matters of faith whether or not rational or measurable by objective criteria. Constitutional concepts of due process, involving secular notions of “fundamental fairness” or impermissible objectives, are therefore hardly relevant to such matters of ecclesiastical cognizance.
  
• 

  aboveusonlysky

  'So what do they care then?
  A club they don't want to belong to doesn't want them as a member ...
  That's where this always ends up. "I want to leave - but how dare they say I can't be a member!".'

  Again harsh, it's often nothing to do with being a member and everything to do with losing your family because of shunning, COERCED shunning, get some empathy dude!
• 

  Simon

  So are you saying that those that don't believe but still go to meetings or try to fade quietly purely to keep their family together or buy some time in trying to wake up family members are wrong to do so? If so that's extremely judgemental.

  No, I'm saying those people wouldn't be going for genuine reasons which would be true. I don't blame them for choosing to do this, but at the same time it has to be acknowledged that in doing this they can become part of the problem - it's a little like East Germany where everyone is so afraid that someone else will turn them in that everyone becomes a watching informer or at least provides cover for those who are.

  You also argue all your points as if everything is a choice, haven't you heard of undue influence? If inciting a person or a crowd to commit an act of violence is a crime then what about inciting bullying by means of organizationally mandated shunning? It's nothing to do with forcing people to eat donuts or whatever your illustration meant.

  Well ultimately everything is a choice. The influence that they have is because people choose to listen to it, not bother to research, whatever. Yes, people can have undue influence - that's the basis of all religious systems and institutions (and lots of sales and marketing - should we ban Apple for making shiny things?). But do they kidnap people at gunpoint and torture them to become JWs? No - it's a choice. When you're a child, your parents make that idiotic choice for you.

  Inciting bullying or committing acts of violence are very different things to shunning IMO and it's a big leap to try and claim shunning is any form of assault.

  The illustrations are intended to show the difficulty anyone would have coming up with any reasonable legislation. So far, no one has suggested anything that's remotely workable and I doubt anyone will be able to do so - you can't legislate against something such as this without putting in place something far worse.
• 

  Simon

  Here's the simplified version:

  I want them to be able to decide who they associate with (or not) ...

  ... because I want to be able to decide who I associate with (or not).

  If someone can force them to do something they don't want to, then those same laws can be used to force me to do something I don't want to. And all they don't want to do is talk to me, so I'm fine with that.
• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  If there is any good that comes of the shunning policy is that the Society will continue to receive bad press. That bad press is now everywhere.

  Anyone studying with Jehovah's Witnesses​ with an inkling of curiosity and a smart phone will learn that this policy is part and parcel of this organisation.

  Many of us who came into this religion before the days of the internet had no idea such a cruel policy existed. I certainly didn't.

  Keep up the good work Watchtower leadership. That's the kind of publicity YOU really need going forward as an organisation!!
• 

  Richard Oliver

  The closest argument that I can find in the US is Title 42 Title 21 subsection 1985(3) it basically says that two or more people cannot conspire to deprive someone of a constitutionally protected right such as speech, association or voting. But the courts have ruled that the person who is claiming this violation must pass a 4 part test:

  (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.

  In Tauvar v Bar Harbour Congregation of Jehovah's Witensses the court ruled:

  In his deposition, plaintiff does variously refer to “disfellowshipped” members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, members of the general public, and individuals generally with religious beliefs different than those of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as the “class” of which he is a member. Tauvar Deposition, at 123–124. Plaintiff also states that his religious views reflect doctrinal differences *746 with the religious views advocated by the Jehovah's Witnesses.12 Id. at 181–183. Yet beyond these general statements it is unclear precisely what is the composition of the “class.” Plaintiff simply refers to people who have been thrown out of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Tauvar Deposition, at 142, and states that because of certain doctrinal differences Watchtower has prevented “our” attendance at the organization's public meetings, id. at 145. However, plaintiff also states that the Congregation welcomes members of all faiths, including “disfellowshipped” members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that individuals who share plaintiff's particular views, see note 12 supra, attend public meetings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Tauvar Deposition, at 158, 160, 161–162.13

  Even assuming that plaintiff can establish a class of similarly situated “disfellowshipped” members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, plaintiff's section 1985(3) claim must fail.14 “The requirement that the discrimination be ‘class-based’ is not satisfied by an allegation that there was a conspiracy which affected the interests of the class of persons similarly situated with the plaintiff[ ].” Harrison v. Brooks, 519 F.2d at 1359–1360. Since plaintiff himself asserts that the Congregation welcomes “disfellowshipped” members to its public meetings, as well as individuals who share plaintiff's particular religious views, plaintiff has neither alleged nor presented facts to show either a conspiracy directed at the plaintiff because of his membership in a class of “disfellowshipped” Jehovah's Witnesses or that the criteria defining this class were invidious. Opprobrious epithets do not satisfy the requirements of section 1985(3). Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate's recommendation GRANTING the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1985 claim.

  
  

  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  I think the point of contention is what can a religious organization do or enact when a person willingly wants to stop any engaging involvement with that organization.
  

  In the JWS religion and some others if a person wants to leave and does, they are publicly marked as evil and all other participants are regulated to stop any social relationship, including any family members.

  This action is injurious and in opposition to person's legal rights and freedom of choice.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  But if you think that a legislative action can work you should try and get the requisite number of citizens to sign a legally defined petition and see if a member of your legislature can craft a law based on it.