are there personality disorders that find the watchtower an appealing fit?
i have read it before that people with personality issues are attracted to extreme religions, and that extreme religions can make a "normal" person mentallly ill. .
to start off with, i was reading about obsessive-compulsive disorders and this "profile" seemed like the "normal" jws i know:.
-
Skeeter,
You might find the 1983 article by MacDonald and Luckett helpful. It’s pretty extensive in its evaluation. I highlight a few key elements in an article on my blog.
See Jehovah’s Witnesses and psychiatric diagnoses? available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/02/jehovahs-witnesses-and-psychiatric.html
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“…a family member that chooses not to associate with you…”
Watchtower policy does not present this as a choice.
Watchtower enforces this disassociation under pain of the same treatment.
If Watchtower wants Christians men and women to shun based on choice then its whole judicial policy needs revamping so rather than congregants being instructed to disfellowship an individual they would, instead, be informed of the sin committed so the Christian men and women could decide naturally based on their own Christian conscience.
Oh. I forgot. That’s how the Bible presents the case. We’re talking about Watchtower.
Never mind.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“For strictly emotional appeal using the term "extreme shunning" may have some benefit…”
I think discussing whether “extreme” is a proper adverb for “shunning” is somewhat a waste of time. How we characterize something does not change facts. In this case, as a fact either Watchtower’s shunning program harms people or it does not harm people. If it harms people then addressing a means to lessen that harm is the relevant discussion; not how we characterize a verb.
The legitimate reason I see for using “extreme” to speak of Watchtower’s brand of shunning is to get people to look at facts of that brand of shunning. I’ve used the language many times in relation to Watchtower’s shunning and until this discussion the only individuals who objected to it were Watchtower apologists.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“…I'm concerned to see you potentially sacrificing your hard-earned credibility by "grabbing the wrong end of the stick" on this issue.”
adamah,
I’m not the topic. My credibility is irrelevant for a host of reasons.
When a person is discussing an idea no end of the stick is wrong. Discussion is a tool. People should be able to talk freely about ideas so long as they are not inflicting harm with the speech. One thing discussion does is help everyone flesh out subjects for improvement. If you think my idea(s) wrong then continue the discussion to that end, but don’t waste time thinking about anyone’s credibility.
“Remember: the title of the article is "Outlaw extreme shunning". OUTLAW, ie pass legislation to criminalize shunning (that's how MOST readers would interpret it, as most aren't going to see it as drafting legislation that allows filing civil suits against churches, based on claims of IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress), etc.”
Perhaps that paragraph explains something important from my perspective. I’m not discussing the article you cite. I’m discussing what I think is the underlying concern of the article. I’m discussing an idea of how to lessen the harm caused by Watchtower’s brand of shunning. I think Watchtower can have a theology of shunning free of the harm resulting from it’s current theological construct on shunning. In other words, I think Watchtower can retain a shunning program yet do so without inflicting harm as it does now.
In current social climate I think opportunity exists to have this addressed under the concept of hate speech because society at large is beginning to see a need to curb speech that stirs hate because it’s bad for people and, importantly, it’s bad for sovereign states.
“I see you're moving goal-posts, back to advocating for passing "hate speech" laws (eg as was done in Denmark, was it)?”
What? Moving the goal post? The idea I’ve been discussing and continue discussing is the notion of lessening harm caused by Watchtower’s shunning program on the basis of hate speech and potential broad form legislation to that end.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“If you go off the dictionary definition of shun as 'to reject' then yes, technically, employers 'shun' the applicants that they do not select.
“But I know of no one on the planet that uses the word 'shun' in this way so using it to excuse the 'extreme' is a little weak. But then it seems no bridge is too far and nothing can't be streteched far enough when it comes to marvins 'unbiased and impartial commentary' on any matters BBXB.”
Simon,
If this discussion is not about me then I recommend that you stop invoking my person as a topic when it’s not. (See your own criterion on page 6)
Back to the topic, I agree with you 100 percent that it’s futile to address the topic of harmful practices within the context of a little movement like Watchtower. Anything a subset of citizens would have legislators do must be based on behavior the general citizenry can recognize and see the need of addressing. Hence the concept of addressing the harm caused by Watchtower on grounds of hate speech.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“I don't believe your statement is correct that no religion can induce its members to refuse conscription during a time of war.”
Chaserious,
I appreciate your observations.
My comment is an overstatement because it makes assertion of current law when I am not sufficiently familiar with current conscription law to know if my comment is precisely true as stated. My point is that religious speech has limitations under law, and the US Constitution in particular.
The law is whatever legislators choose to make it, even if it means a constitutional amendment. Crime is crime whether it’s done under a banner of religion or anything else. Said another way, if a legislative body criminalizes a certain behavior then it does not matter whether the behavior is performed by a religious leader as a theological construct; it’s still a crime.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
Adamah,
I appreciate you freely sharing your views, and respect that you disagree with what you understand of my remarks. But from what you write I’m unconvinced there is a meeting of the minds between us two regarding what I’ve said.
You comment very well about legal concepts, constructions and concerns, and I agree with those. Yet an important feature of what I’ve repeated goes unaccounted for in your review of my remarks.
Everything I’ve suggested that can be dealt with legislatively is precisely to avoid the targeting of any particular religion and for sake of a sovereign state’s citizenry at large.
In particular, you write, “Instead, only laws that apply to ALL citizens and are in the public interest (such as anti-polygamy laws, which obviously effect Mormons, as well) will withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.” This is another way of saying precisely what I’ve said, which is why I conclude our minds have yet to meet in this discussion. But then, that’s what discussion is useful for; a meeting of minds; if not sooner then later.
Because I have an idea rather than a rough draft of legislation does not mean I’m unable to articulate the idea with words. It only means the idea I can convey in words is not something I’ve attempted to construct into legislative language.
Contemporary western governments can and have delved into harms caused by religious speech when that religious speech presented a danger to a nation’s sovereign status. This is why no religion in the United States can openly induce its members to refuse conscription during war. This legal construction did not occur because all religions were engaged in the practice. It was formed because one or more were engaged in the practice and it was in conflict with state sovereignty. Hence laws were passed that made it illegal for anyone—including any and all religions—to engage the practice.
Religious speech has limits. The limit is the point at which a particular piece of speech is demonstrably a threat to a state’s sovereignty, and a state’s sovereignty begins with citizenry. Hence protecting the citizenry from harm ranks religious speech, no matter the particular religion.
If the only thing that changes is how Watchtower is able to spew its religious rhetoric about associating with “unrepentant sinners” there is opportunity for improvement because I don’t see how the circumstance could be worse than it already is.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“Let's see a rough draft of the specific legislation that you are advocating.
“Put something into writing, and let's see what you come up with to translate this idea of outlawing "extreme shunning" into specific, concrete language that you believe will pass legislative scrutiny. I'm all ears (heck, we can make this a community effort).”
I don’t have a rough draft. I have an idea based on the historicity of secular law influencing religious practice toward less harmful outcomes to citizenry. When/if that idea grows I’ll put it to paper and submit it to my legislative representative. Until then I'll keep talking of the idea until it’s refuted as meritless. Given contemporary and growing sensitivities to hate speech, it seems to me this is a potential approach to demonstrating how Watchtower’s brand of shunning harms citizens in a way detrimental to a sovereign state’s interests.
I’ll also keep listening to and helping develop ideas of others as time and circumstance allows.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“The example you cited of WT policy change was VOLUNTARILY made by the WTBTS; the gov't didn't FORCE them to change their policies.”
Strictly speaking that’s not true.
The change I alluded to earlier was, as it was told to me, compelled by common law findings related to the point at which a person became a member of Watchtower’s religion, given that membership is the point at which an individual is subject to the religion’s governing. Membership occurs at the point of baptism and not before. Watchtower had to decide, and this decision was compelled by common law findings.
Otherwise, if anything has influenced Watchtower policies it’s been secular law, both statutory and common. Watchtower changing how disfellowshipping was announced? Secular law influenced this over and over again. Watchtower changing the “no blood” cards? Secular law influenced this over and over again. Watchtower changing when and under what circumstance parents can let physicians treat their child without active resistance regarding blood? Secular law influenced this over and over again.
I see no reason to think secular law will not or cannot make further inroad into Watchtower’s world by reducing the real harm to citizens caused by the sort of shunning Watchtower currently imposes.
Marvin Shilmer
http://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
“There are no gradations of ignoring.”
Adam,
Ignoring is ignoring, but all ignoring is not the same. More importantly, we can ignore and not ignore the same person at the same time.
I can ignore you as a vendor yet not ignore you as a friend.
I can ignore you as a financial advisor yet not ignore you as a family member.
Marvin Shilmer
