Our daughter was free to make her own choice.

by StephaneLaliberte 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Simon
    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.

    Except it's not harassment. People have the right to associate or not associate with whoever they want. You can't force people to be your friend. It's sad and unfortunate that some chose to put their beliefs before their family and friends but that is their choice to make.

    Freedom of religion violating the freedom of others would be forced marriages, FGM, keeping people locked up, forcing them to wear certain clothing etc... The JWs don't do those things.

    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.

    No, but those are not religions. Religion tends to go deeper into people's lives and behaviors and isn't something that just applies during work hours. But there are companies that will take action against people for what happens outside of work time and if it's something against their "religion". Someone working at a local sports team who is seen wearing a competitors shirt for instance could be deemed to be acting against the company and fired. Kind of similar eh?

    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.

    They have the right to control membership of their group based on their religious rules. This has been tested in the supreme court. It's the law.

    Disfellowshipping is usually them saying they don't want to have as a member someone who doesn't want to be a member.

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

    Except it's not really abuse. It's unkind, it's unpleasant, it can cause pain, but it's not up there on the spectrum of things that government needs to step in to prevent because it's not abuse on that scale.

    What you can't see because you are looking too hard is what would happen if you made this into a codified offence under the law - how many other situations could you apply it to? That's why it is unrealistic to claim that it's so wrong that it needs to be stopped.

    All we can do is highlight the unloving nature and the fact that they are misled and that the beliefs are invented to serve a purpose for the organization to limit information members receive. Attempts to paint it as a crime of the century are destined to fail because it just isn't.

Share this