Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
Richard Oliver: At least in the US it is impossible claim to survive when you sue watchtower.
I believe this would not be the case if Organized Shunning was recognized as a crime.
Stephan apparently you feel like you have a case if you are in the US try and Sue under article 42 of the US code. I can pretty much guarantee you would lose even if there was a law against shunning under eccleastical abstentian principle
Richard, I agree that suing won't work. That is why I believe that this needs to go through the law makers to make Organized shunning criminal.
Once this is considered criminal, than civil cases will follow.
If anyone wants to really understand the various legal issues of shunning here's a site that offers up actual court cases.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Government is thus under dual constraints when it acts in ways that affect religion." Too much accommodation of a particular religion, or of religion in general, may constitute an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion. 3 A widely publicized example of a governmental "establishment" of religion is mandatory school prayer.'4
On the other hand, facially neutral government regulations will often place a burden upon a partic-ular religion's practices, thus interfering with the "free exercise" of religion. For example, state compulsory education laws requiring parents to keep their children in school until the age of sixteen have been held to violate the free exercise rights of members of the Old Order Amish religion, whose beliefs forbid formal education beyond a certain age.
For example, the Mormon polygamy cases sustained territorial regulations that proscribed polygamous marriage,' placed significant burdens upon belonging to a group that advocated polygamous marriage, and even proscribed advocating polygamous marriage. 9 The Court upheld these regulations even though the Mormons asserted that polygamous marriage was an integral part of their religious faith.
again, to me, it is not the practice of shunning that should be illegal. it is the practice of organizing and enforcing it.
If you think that a first world Democratic country will make it illegal than you should certainly try and then see if it is not struck down in the courts so you may see the fruits of your labor in 5 years or so.
Oh you know, I am still young and many years ahead of me. Once my kids are grown up, I will probably become much more involved in this than I am now. One way or another, I believe it will eventually make its way through.
And in about a year you will be able to see how a government handles shunning. It does appear that the ARC is going to add that into their report to the Australian government, so you will be able to see the political will that a democratic government has on this subject.
There are three actual shunning judgements that follow in my post above.
In his famous letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s wrote: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
King wasn't encouraging us to break laws just because they were wrong and unjust. He had a purpose in mind and that purpose was to bring about change.
Similarly, when injustices are allowed under the law, we have a moral responsibility to seek to change those laws.
Our history is replete with many examples of bad laws that were challenged and changed. These have included outdated laws, some which allowed gross injustices such as slavery to exist with the blessing of the state, and others that limited or even prevented basic human rights such as the freedom to marry whomsoever you may choose.
Something may not be "against the law," but if it is wrong it should and must be stopped. For better or worse, in the modern world our only source of redress is generally an appeal to the ultimate authority wherever we are, which is usually the central government of the state or country in which we live.