Our daughter was free to make her own choice.

by StephaneLaliberte 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Simon

  As I personally have ostracized toxic people out of my life, I sincerely do believe that we should uphold the right to shun.

  There is no such right, it's more a right not to have the government force association on you.

  However, religions/sects, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, take it to another level. They organize and enforce it, in the deliberate desire to torment the victim.

  It's part of their belief system, like others. There are other situations where people who don't abide by a groups rules are expelled (school) or rejected (fired from work) but only the devout tend to abide by it over personal connection.

  In Canada, organized shunning is considered "bullying" and within the workplace, companies can be held responsible for tolerating such behaviour. Why should this not be extended to religions who enforce the shunning of young adults who leave their religion?

  Can you point us to the law / legal definition where this is defined?

  It is one thing to preach about it and it is entirely another to severe against those who choose to ignore the counsel. Religions should clearly inform their members that such matter is left to their conscience and is their personal decision to make.

  Which is exactly what they do. They make all these things into a 'personal choice' both to cover themselves and to convince people to follow the rules.

  "A good Christian wouldn't want to do XYZ" <- their belief about desired behavior

  "You want to be a good Christian don't you?" <- the suggestion that you should follow the belief

  ... and we're back to the fundamental issue: people have a choice to a) believe this and b) stick to their beliefs

  The fact that many don't continue to believe or don't stick to them even if they do shows it's a personal choice whether to do so. There's simply no escaping that.
• 

  Simon

  This comes up time and time again and I really think this is a fundamental issue for the exJW community they we need to hammer out:

  Exactly what is the WTS responsible for and what are individual JWs within it responsible for?

  How deep is the level of control by the WTS vs how deep is the level of belief and devotion by the members?
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  There are several points to address and I would like to focus on the following one for now:

  The practice of shunning, as enforced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a form a harassment.

  To be assured of this, one can look up the definition of harassment in the workplace on the Canada.ca website at the following page: here.

  You will find the following items:

  • Preventing a person from expressing himself or herself: yelling at the person; threatening; constantly interrupting that person; prohibiting the person from speaking to others.
  • Isolating the person by no longer talking to him or her, denying or ignoring his or her presence, distancing him or her from others.
  • Destabilizing the person by making fun of his or her beliefs, values, political and/or religious choices, and mocking his or her weak points.

  Such harassment in the workspace is growing in awareness and courts have stated that it can be recognized as a health and safety issue in the workspace. Source.

  Hence, again: can we agree on this point:
  

  The practice of shunning, as enforced by Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a form a harassment.
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  I see their comment as more of a reflection of Christianity's (and JWs) basic message:

  "Serve God or be annihilated (tortured?) forever, it's your choice."

  They imagine that's giving you a choice.

  Legally she had a choice, and legally Watchtower could have it's tax exempt status revoked, etc.

  Like the girl that egged on her boyfriend to commit suicide, I believe any person/institution whose words or actions lead directly to death should have their day in court. At the minimum, they shouldn't be state sponsored, which is what charity status is.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  All we can do as intellectually honest persons is to call attention to dishonest individuals or groups who are intentionally withholding important facts with the intent of misleading other individuals or groups into making decisions with insufficient information which serves the interests of the dishonest parties.

  What else can we do??

  We all made choices as Dubs, but they weren’t free, informed choices because we were deliberately spoon fed information to ensure we reached the WTBTS’s decision. Forced conformity through propaganda, masquerading as unity and free choice.

  All we can do is get the facts out and then it’s up the Dubs. They have to be honest and want the truth, even if it destroys their current views and alters their life.

  DD
• 

  2+2=5

  Independent thinking is discouraged, it’s promoted as dangerous. The idea of God directing everything that happens inside the org runs strong in the mind of a JW, just like the idea of everlasting life on paradise earth. Having freedom of expression and idea puts every relationship you have at risk, Angus Stewart highlighted at the Royal Commission in Australia, the JWs are a captive organisation and the cost of leaving, or even staying for that matter can be high.

  The fact the group is encouraged to be extremely insular is beyond denial, it is the main reason why child sex abuse has flourished and always does in groups like this. It’s like big warning siren that screams cult.
• 

  Diogenesister

  Morph Those organizations know they cannot make an abused woman leave a situation, that only through empowerment and letting her know she has options can she (the abused woman) really be free.

  No they cant, but they can and do prosecute the abuser.
  
  

  Watchtower is a corporation.

  A corporation is a legal person, and can be prosecuted as such.

  Corercive control is illegal. A common use of coercive control in abusive behaviours is to seperate the victim from family and friends (their support system)in order to further control the victim.

  Watchtower uses coercive control to mandate their members to shun family
• 

  Diogenesister

  Simon This comes up time and time again and I really think this is a fundamental issue for the exJW community they we need to hammer out:

  Exactly what is the WTS responsible for and what are individual JWs within it responsible for?

  How deep is the level of control by the WTS vs how deep is the level of belief and devotion by the members?

  Absolutely and not just us as exjws need to hammer it out. I believe the courts in the UK and elsewhere now have the tools at their disposal to at the very least revoke watchtower's charitable status until Watchtower revokes its mandated shunning policy.
• 

  Nevuela

  "You are suggesting that individuals freedom should be stripped and people forced in your mold... in the name of freedom."
  
  Okay, you need to seriously stop this BS. You are embarrassing yourself. The WT are the ones stripping people of freedom and forcing people into their mold, and you KNOW this. Stop spinning things around to suit your twisted logic. Victims of abuse will say and do anything out of fear of retaliation from their abusers. Don't you EVER blame victims for this. We have talked on this very site about how people have taken their own lives due to the fear and guilt placed on them as victims of the WT cult. What happened to Eloise is no different.
  
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  _Morpheus: I do not have a problem with someone who sincerely believes that God expects them to die rather than taking a blood transfusion. It is sad, yes, but ultimately, it is their lives. No one should try to control the thoughts of others.

  However, JWs, do just that, and shun people in order to attain this objective. As stated above, shunning is abusive. It inflicts silences and causes pain to the dissident while scaring other members into absolute obedience.
  

  It is possible that Eloise made her choice entirely free. However, we don’t know if:
  

  1. She stopped talking to people who could have changed her mind for fear of being shunned.
  2. She had doubts about various core teachings, but deliberately ignore them for fear of ultimately being shunned.
  3. She wanted to take a blood transfusion but was afraid others would find out and shun her as a result.

  If you have difficulty understanding the above, read the statements above, replacing shunning with “tortured for several weeks”.
  

  I am not suggesting that individual’s freedom should be stripped. Quite the opposite. I want to help these individuals reach that freedom. Without shunning, many would leave the group and be vocal about why. This would foster an environment were people would test their own ideas. That’s what freedom is. If, under such freedom, someone decides to die on religious grounds, so be it. It’s a free country.
  

  _Morpheus: And now you have exposed your real problem. You are laying the organizations blood policy at the feet of “abusive elders”.

  If an elder does something illegal, he should face justice. If an elder does something illegal as instructed by his church, both him and the church should face justice. They don’t make the policy, however, if the policy is illegal, they are to be held accountable as well.
  

  My point is that inflicting consequences on someone solely based on who he choses to talk to should be views as criminal harassment.
  

  Simon: It's part of their belief system, like others.

  What if their belief goes against the law? Harassment (shunning) is not a valid belief that should be accepted in our society. Freedom of religion must not violate the freedom of others. That’s what shunning does.
  

  SIMON: There are other situations where people who don't abide by a groups rules are expelled (school) or rejected (fired from work)

  However, the school would not expel someone who associated with a former student. Similarly, you won’t be fired if you associate with someone that was previously fired. Those would not hold up in court and both the school and the employer would be charged for damages.
  

  SIMON: They make all these things into a 'personal choice' both to cover themselves and to convince people to follow the rules. "A good Christian wouldn't want to do XYZ" <- their belief about desired behavior

  I don’t have a problem with this. They have the right to say this. However, they should not have the right to disfellowship someone because he did not maintain that order. They should be very clear: It’s a personal choice. If they are not clear enough on the matter, they should be forced to publish it.
  

  Simon: The fact that many don't continue to believe or don't stick to them even if they do shows it's a personal choice whether to do so. There's simply no escaping that.

  Should that give the green light to their religion to enforce shunning against them? This abuse needs to stop.