Coercion at its worst: religious mandated shunning

by Yomama 15 Replies latest jw friends

  • Yomama

    By patrick haeck any comments on article?

  • tenyearsafter

    Is there a link or article copy to go with this topic?

  • MeanMrMustard
  • MeanMrMustard


    There is a confusion between "rights" and government granted "entitlements".

  • vienne

    They appealed this, I think. What was the result?

  • smiddy3

    I too would like a follow up on this outcome

    Religion gets too many "free" out of jail cards for my liking simply because they are a religion.

  • Yomama

    I do not know how to post article but that is title.

  • MeanMrMustard
  • MeanMrMustard

    From the article, concerning his decision to leave JWs:

    Because we made this decision, JWs were mandated to shun us. Parents, siblings and long-time friends could no longer talk to or associate with us.
    No. They could talk to him at any time, but chose not to. Each person that shuns is either believes the WT's stance or not.

    If they do, then each person agrees with the WT's edict, and enforces it through their own choice.

    If they do not agree, then each person, although understanding the moral assholery afoot, give in and go along with the assholery, and enforce the edict through their cowardice.

    But, look, I get what he's trying to do. I just disagree with couching his goals in the moral high ground of "human rights". He wants a world in which the WT no longer engages in the assholery. And since the WT had basically told him (and us all) to go pound sand, he seeks to hand the government a giant hammer to beat them down until they are no longer assholes. If successful (and it may turn out that way in Belgium), he would have associated the idea of "prohibiting assholery" with "human rights".

    I'm sure that precident would never, ever backfire later on.
  • Corney

    The article is interesting as it helps to understand a party's perspective. But besides this, it doesn't offer a single argument why shunning constitutes coercion. Not to mention the flawed claims like this one:

    Freedom of worship is a part of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ and is not ‘an organizational right’.

    (c'mon, it's the ABC's of human rights law that these rights can be exercised both individually and collectively, through groups, communities and organizations)

Share this