“The Right to Shun: Ghent’s Misguided Jehovah’s Witness Decision“ Matthew P. Cavedon

by AndersonsInfo 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AndersonsInfo

  https://canopyforum.org/2021/04/19/the-right-to-shun-ghents-misguided-jehovahs-witness-decision/

  In March, the criminal court of Ghent, Belgium fined the congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) for “inciting discrimination and hatred or violence against former members.” The case centered on the JW practice of “disfellowshipping.” While the court’s sensitivity to the individual impact of shunning is laudable, its decision regrettably assaults the freedoms of religion and association.

  First, some background on JW beliefs and disfellowshipping. JW was founded in the United States over a century ago and is headquartered in New York state. This Christian movement proclaims that the end times began in 1914. Given the impending end of the world, JW teaches followers to hold themselves apart from churches and politics, instead ordering their lives pursuant to JW biblical interpretations. JW disciplines its eight million members accordingly. The congregation shuns, or disfellowships, those deemed insufficiently obedient. Once this happens, “no one is allowed to talk to you, not even your own family. They declare that this person must be avoided because they have a mental illness that is contagious.” JWs “physically turn away” from the shunned.

  While the court’s sensitivity to the individual impact of shunning is laudable, its decision regrettably assaults the freedoms of religion and association.

  This practice seriously impacts those subjected to it. One advocate for disfellowshipped former JWs told the BBC that she never met a shunned believer “who has not experienced depression, alcoholism, suicidal feelings or self-harm.” One such man, a Belgian named Patrick Haeck, responded to his pain by turning to a secular criminal court. Mr. Haeck had been a JW for 35 years and served as an elder. He was disfellowshipped after exposing sexual abuse. Following his judicial complaint, the court conducted a five-year investigation. The inquiry gathered other former JWs and brought criminal charges against the entire JW congregation for inciting discrimination, hatred, and violence.

  Read More: https://canopyforum.org/2021/04/19/the-right-to-shun-ghents-misguided-jehovahs-witness-decision/
• 

  Simon

  Everyone has the right to shun whoever they want. This is a fundamental freedom and it would be impossible and unwanted to have the government try to change that.

  Think it through, how would it work? How could it be misused?

  Be careful what you wish for - one day you find yourself unable to refuse a visit from your JW relatives because hey, YOU can't shun THEM.

  Previous writings on this issue:

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/505320005/right-shun-wrong

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5544787176325120/doing-right-thing-making-choice-shunning
• 

  Diogenesister

  An excerpt from the piece:

  None of this comes without a cost, one with which Mr. Introvigne is personally familiar: “I am a Roman Catholic, and one who is divorced and remarried. . . Some of [my friends] are conservative Catholics and, no matter what the Popes might have said [about merciful inclusion], have decided to cease any association with me.” Despite this, he believes liberty in structuring personal relationships and communal commitments to be important. “The end of these friendships was certainly painful. Yet, I respected their free decision not to associate with me any longer, and certainly did not ask a court of law to compel them to continue our friendship, nor did I sue the conservative theologians who support this behavior asking for damages or fines. This was not generosity. It was simply common sense . . .” Common sense, that is, borne of a healthy appreciation for freedom.

  More clap trap from that notorious cult apologist Maximo Introvigne.

  Note he states that *despite* the pope's statements on merciful inclusion - (I'm guessing forgiveness....after all we are supposed to be Christians right ...RIGHT??) - his friends *decided* to cease associating with him. Of their own free will.

  This lawyer seems not to be aware that there's a great deal of difference between a religious body *mandating* the shunning of family, and the free choice of friends not to associate with one any longer.
  
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  Simon....Jehovah's witnesses do not have a choice.

  You won't convince me otherwise.
• 

  Island Man

  Simon: Everyone has the right to shun whoever they want.

  The operative word here is want. How many JWs are shunning their relatives because they truly want to and not because they feel pressured and coerced to? You seem to be oblivious to the difference between an individual choosing of his own free will to shun someone they view as toxic; and an organization mandating and stirring up its members to shun others with the threat of consequences if they fail to comply. Everyone is free to have sex with anyone of legal age that they wish to. So would it be ok for an organization to mandate its members to make sexual advances to a certain segment of society, with the threat of consequences if the members don't comply? Surely you see the difference between an individual's free choice and them being coerced by an authority into taking an unpleasant action they likely would not do on their own?
  
  
• 

  Island Man

  Simon: Think it through, how would it work?

  Simple. Make it illegal for any organization to incite - and especially coerce - its members to shun former members. If members of such an organization are punished or in any way treated differently or negatively by the organization, for failing to shun former members, then those responsible are subject to prosecution.

  Individuals still have the freedom to shun if they want. But they can't be instructed to do so by the org and they can't be punished by the org if they don't.
  
  
• 

  Corney

  The last time I checked this, they didn't live in closed settlement and weren't deprived of modern means of communication.

  Which means those feeling coerced to shun can pretty easily have regular contacts with their disfellowshipped friends and relatives - and still avoid being caught and punished. If they don't use - don't even try to use - this opportunity, are they really coerced?
• 

  Diogenesister

  Which means those feeling coerced to shun can pretty easily have regular contacts with their disfellowshipped friends and relatives - and still avoid being caught and punished. If they don't use - don't even try to use - this opportunity, are they really coerced?

  Remember Jehovah is always watching. You can't sneak a telephone conversation Jehovah doesn't see

  I think sometimes if we've been out a while we forget what it's like to actually believe in (Watchtower's)Jehovah and believe it's not just wrong but actually wicked to communicate with DF ones that holy spirit has deemed unrepentant and therefore wicked too.
  
  
• 

  Corney

  To the best of my knowledge, a threat of divine punishment doesn't constitute coercion.
• 

  jhine

  Yes Diogenesister every human being has the right to shun someone.

  No one has the right to make / coerce some one else to shun anyone else, especially a family member .

  That is taking away the rights of the person being coerced.

  That is what should be outlawed .

  Jan