mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
how you treat people who don't want to follow your rules or don't agree with them is a whole other story - I agree it's important how people who leave should be treated, and shunning is bad.
But is legislation the best answer?
Isn't there a better way of dealing with the problem?
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
As far as making a minor child leave home because they don’t want the JW religion, I know of two instances that happened years ago.. Surely, this should be illegal - I think it already is. Parents cannot legally throw out their child.
But does this mean we should criminalise mandatory shunning?
And what's the best way to tackle top-down shunning?
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
What's the objective, generic principle applied here that allows you to discriminate based on religion?
The WT has a group rule - no associating with former members. They aren't pulling it out of their ass (even though you think so). They cite scripture. You can object: "They have that scripture wrong!" But that's the point - people believe all sort of interpretations of everything.
Why is this case (shunning) different, IN PRINCIPLE, than, punishing based on, say, thinking abortion is wrong? Why can't your law be used, as precedent, to take away the charitable status of any organization the current culture (which changes constantly!) deems as hurtful? - these are all good points.
There's no objective, generic principle that allows me to single out religions.
But, because religious groups' mandatory shunning causes problems, I believe governments can put pressure on them by saying that they'll only continue charity status if the cults drop mandatory shunning.
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
That kinda thing.
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
Hit them where it hurts , in their pockets - yes, that's the threat if cults don't comply. They would then lose their charity status and stop being funded. But that is different to criminalising mandatory shunning, which is something Lee Marsh has brought up.
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
This has nothing to do with individuals who shun people. Nothing. It has to do with religions, groups and others that practice Mandated Shunning - yes, I realise this now. I didn't read thru your post properly.
Nevertheless, even if governments try to legislate only mandatory shunning, it is still going to be difficult to put it in law and choose the right wording.
If individual shunning is ok, why can't groups have rules on mandatory shunning (written or unwritten) as part of their beliefs?
It also seems to be a poor choice of time for the authorities to run this legislation thru their respective parliaments. And it seems to be a poor choice of time for law enforcement to spend time on investigations into organisations practicing mandatory shunning. Why? - well because their are enough serious crimes for the authorities to legislate against and tackle. The authorities should devote their energies to these first.
I live in the UK. Over here, there have been cases of people reporting crimes such as theft to the police, with the police saying that there is nothing they can do. It would be a bit weird that, while the police said there's nothing they can do about theft, they then spend time and resources questioning cult leaders under oath about whether mandatory shunning is part of their rules. And then taking them to court if the cult leaders refuse to comply (!).
Let's say that this goes ahead and mandatory shunning is made illegal, and high-control groups such as the JWs comply. So now shunning is a conscience matter, i.e. it's now individual shunning. That's what the JWs would do. Have nothing currently in print about it, but the higher-ups would have discreet chats with rank and file as necessary. How could authorities stop this? Because it would happen. Shunning would be similar to how the org goes about practicing theocratic warfare.
There is another way to deal with mandatory shunning, besides falling back on legislation.
How about this: government threatens to take away Watchtower's charity status if they continue with the mandatory shunning.
Don't get me wrong, shunning in general and mandatory shunning cause lots of problems.
mandated shunning is on the rise around the world with devastating effects on millions of people.
shunning that is mandated by organized groups to its members is a form of both physical and psychological violence against those people being shunned and cut off from their family and life-long relationships.
mandated shunning means that the shunning is ordered from the top down.
First, shunning is a serious issue among JWs and other high-control groups.
So, something needs to be done but I'm not sure criminalising shunning is a sensible solution.
Let's go thru this. If shunning is a crime, then what comes out of that is that people must interact with others or else risk being arrested and charged for shunning. That's nuts.
Shunning's not nice and causes problems. But I'm not sure criminalising it is the best way of tackling it.
I think the best way forward is good education in general, and help for people who want to exit high control groups.
Shunning shouldn't be a crime, however unpleasant it is.
certain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
And who elected Biden? - why, sane and wise Democrats, of course.
Didn't you know, Democrats always know what's best for people.
Yes, that's it - Democrats know best and Republicans are dumb racists.
It must be true because the media tell me so ...
certain forces appear to be trying to make sure donald trump never runs for president again.
some republicans are clearly abandoning trump and of course the democratic press has been saying trump is done!
is trump’s goose cooked?
Even so, it had nothing to do with Trump, hence why the lawsuits will fail, there is no evidence Trump told them to go in or coordinated with anyone to organize it - exactly.
Love him or loathe him, Trump isn't finished.
Compare how the political system, justice system and media treat Trump vs how they treat Joe Biden. Gross double standards at play.
Trump has been impeached and indicted over and over again.
Meanwhile, the media has up till now studiously ignored any and all the problems with Joe Biden and his degenerate son, Hunter.
Joe's been given practically a free pass on inappropriate touching and sniffing of girls and women.
Hunter has left laptops lying around with sensitive info and the MSM has called it 'Russian disinformation'.
Joe has insisted he has no business links with his son, Hunter, and soon that will be put to the test.
A judge recently refused a sweetheart deal for Hunter that would have allowed him to plead guilty but walk free. Finally, some common sense prevails.
original reddit post (removed).
LAsM - just reading your last post, Evans calls people 'criminal defendants' before the papers are served and the case actually starts.
Does Kim or anyone else here know if Lloyd should be doing that?
When should someone be called a 'criminal defendant'?
original reddit post (removed).
The thread is about Lloyd Evans - yes, it is.
How many of the posts would he consider harassment or abuse? - all of them, bar yours.
Please stop - er, no.
You're clearly in the wrong place. If you don't like this thread, I suggest you don't read it.
