Posts by MeanMrMustard

224

How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf in

this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.

a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.

MeanMrMustard

Please explain how preventing the JWs from ENFORCING the shunning practice (that is, excommunicate people who do not practice it) would undermine their freedom of association.

People have the right to form groups, with the rules they see fit. Others can join and agree, or leave. If the group is forced to behave, not in the way the members agree upon, but rather the way YOU think they should behave, and they have no recourse ... because accoring to you they can’t enforce the rules, then there are a myriad of rights being trampled on, one of which is freedom of association. (They can’t kick out people associating with other people they see as “bad”).

Again, I am not saying they are moral for doing this. They could be ass holes. But you can’t legislate away ass holes.

Then compare this to the freedom of association of the people being shunned by their entire social circle all at once.

Yes, the person that left the group has great freedom. He/she left!! Even if they were kicked out, they had the freedom to break the rules and the group exercised its freedom not to associate.

224

How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf in

this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.

a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.

MeanMrMustard

People have the right to shun whoever they want.

Progress!

The issue with JWs, is that only a minority would actually put it in practice if it was considered a conscience matter. We all know that “left to the conscience” is synonymous with “Yes! You can do that!” to most JWs.

So? This is irrelevant. The fact is this has been the policy, and still is. And it is no secret. In just about any position a religion takes, we could imagine what it would be like if the religion actually didn’t hold that position. But this has nothing to do with thinking it’s a good idea to force groups to behave the way you think they should behave.

When the WT presents the shunning practice to the courts and tell them that it is a personal religious practice that must be protected, they are lying.

It’s an official rule of the group, and they haven’t been shy spelling that out. When the rubber meets the road, the members have to inforce it. For that to occur, each member has to choose to go along with it. They have the choice to leave too.

People who do not comply with the rule or simply talk against it can be excommunicated and become victims of shunning.

Yes. Those are the rules.

If JWs want to prove that this is indeed what individual JWs want, they will need to make it a conscience matter.

This is illogical. For example, I can assert that most JWs would love to be swingers, and IF ONLY the WT would change their position on this, most would find some other couples to hook up with, and in order to prove otherwise, the WT has no choice but to make it a conscience matter. Nonsense. They don’t have to do anything. The rules were set out before hand. There is no bait and switch here.

Sadly, the only way for this to happen is likely government intervention.

No. They may change their mind in the future. But you should not force it because it sets an incredible legal presedent.

224

How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf in

this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.

a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.

MeanMrMustard

@poopie:

The Constitution binds government, not private institutions or individuals - “Congress shall make no law....”

That is, you are allowed to purposefully shut someone out of your life. That might make you a jerk, or it might not (maybe you consider the person a jerk). But in any case, people have that right.

In the end, this boils down to your family. The rules of the group were set out long before they joined. They have the right to speak with you, to invite you over, to eat with you. They just choose not to because they are convinced their religion is right and you are wrong. They chose the religion over family. They are convinced God wants it that way. Don’t take away their agency in this.

Also, we should minimize OUR own agency in this matter. We made our choices. At one point we all got baptized. If you were a minor and made that choice, can you honestly say that you didn’t see and understand what disfellowshipping really was? Can you honestly say you didn’t witness first hand the consequences of leaving?

And more importantly, don’t run to the government, feeling hurt, looking for blood, and advocate for a legal precedent that undermines freedom of association.

224

How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf in

this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.

a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.

MeanMrMustard

JWs coerce their members to shun by threatening them of loosing contact with their entire social and family circle if they don't. This practice is clearly cruel and infringes on the right to freedom of association.

You are undermining freedom of association by appealing to freedom of association.

If you value you freedom of association, then you must allow people to freely join any group they wish - along with the clearly stated rules of the group. They can also leave the group, if they wish.

31

The downfall of the Governing Body

by john.prestor in

in a book i read a while back by the sociologist randall collins he says truly powerful people don't get angry because they get what they want in other ways, and he shows a picture of two runners where the one who's losing looks at the girl that passes her rather than ahead at the finish line, guess she doesn't wanna win the race after all.

i want to apply these to the governing body and their actions, the pattern of their actions, in printing all the hateful rhetoric against people like us and why l'm pretty sure, pretty damn confident in fact, it's all downhill from here... thanks to them and them alone.. the moment you let somebody get in your head and let them stay there they beat you, they win, they establish power, we got in their heads, they know we present a threat to them, we won't shut up, we're more brazen than we used to be, we're in the news, we're on tv, we're online we're at conventions we're in the kingdom halls, hell we're just about everywhere.

yeah, we don't have this completely down yet, sometimes we come on too strong or do something stupid, and i'm pointing the finger at myself here too, but for the most part we know how to fight this battle: we drag them into the light when they wanna hide in the dark like jackals lurking in the woods sneaking up on weak and wounded deer.

MeanMrMustard

I agree that this incarnation of the GB is nowhere as creative as, say, Fred Franz. But just to note: the WT has been printing negative rhetoric about non witnesses and apostates since it’s inception. This is nothing new.

I don’t think it is their downfall... The religion will continue, but slowly decline. That is the only way it can happen, painfully, dragging out over decades as more and more people come in contact with good information.

I think the decline will have more to do with the Information Age than apostates driving the GB crazy.

(note: the GB may crazy regardless of any apostate action)

26

Was disfellowshipping really sanctioned by God? Please share your honest views according to your Bible views

by Strugglingrsa in

what were the writers of the bible telling christians when they wrote : “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 corinthians 5:11) regarding everyone who “does not remain in the teaching of the christ,” we read: “do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.

for the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 john 9-11.

MeanMrMustard

There is a difference between shunning and disfellowshipping. Re-read the scriptures in the OP and ask if they demand organizational action or if this is advise given to individuals, to be applied by individuals?

The former is disfellowshipping, the latter is shunning. And there is a world of difference between them.

58

Library now cleared out

by UnshackleTheChains in

well, it looks like the axe has finally fallen on our kh library.

during a deep clean of the local kh, a brother suddenly informed everyone 'whikst cleaning' that all the old books including bound volumes of the watchtower etc was to be chucked in the skip.. from what i heard, some were taken aback by this and quite annoyed that no announcement was made; that no one was given the choice of taking some of these books home to keep.

i mean the entire collection of studies in the scriptures and others that go back an entire century.

MeanMrMustard

During a deep clean of the local KH, a brother suddenly informed everyone 'whikst cleaning' that all the old books including bound volumes of the watchtower etc was to be chucked in the skip.

*sigh* ... all that wasted toilette paper...

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

When Professor Runciman states the obvious, namely that in fifty years time old people will be dead by then and so care more about the present ... <snip>... It is not hate, it is stating the obvious.

Woe, woe, woe... is that really obvious? Are you saying that the older generations necessarily care only about themselves? Are you saying that parents don’t love and think beyond their own lives, and into their children’s futures?

Did it ever occur to the professor that maybe the older generation actually see a problem with centralized authoritarian power and loss of national sovereignty? You don’t think that perhaps those people actually ARE thinking ahead in a way the pro-EU younger generation are not?

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

What Professor Runciman has done with some success is that he has got people to talk about the subject. I doubt that if he had simply said our democracies have become structurally unbalanced there would be any discussion of it on this board or elsewhere. Hyperbole was often used in the Bible to get people to think.

@Earnest, he is not using hyperbole. It’s not like he is exaggerating the claim that youth are underrepresented (as in, “The youth are not represented at all in this country”). This is a policy suggestion - a proposed course of action. He says it is to draw attention to a problem. It is not. He wants to shift the voter base to younger, less responsible, more pro-government voters. He wants to get the political result he believes in. And if the stupid, dumb old people can’t get with it and vote for what is clearly the best policy, then maybe we aught to get the six year olds to do it.

And really, what useful discussion has this spurred? The only discussion this seems to have started is on the topic of his apparent mental retardation.

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

So what was the reason for Professor Runciman's suggestion?
It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous because it's never going to happen in a million years. But as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not?

This doesn’t make any sense.

As a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our alcohol consumption has become, why not allow 5 year old children to buy and consume? I mean, it wouldn’t happen in a million years, of course. But just as a way of illustrating that we have a completely underrepresented population when it comes to alcohol consumption, why not?

We don’t need that illustrated in any way. We don’t need to “capiture” that fact in any way. We know it’s the case, and that is the way it should be ( in both voting any alcohol consumption parody ). They are kids. They don’t vote... they don’t drink.

Just come clean - we can see through the bull shirt. The younger the person, the less able that person is to make responsible decisions for the future - which is why kids don’t vote. It also happens to be the reason the left wants them to vote.

This is another permutation of the same crap that followed the Hillary loss: “But But But if we just had a popular vote, she would have won. That’s what we should do!” Except this is: “But But But ... kids are misrepresented and if we give the vote to kids, THEN we get the result we want. That’s what we should do.”