How Common is Shunning?

[Guest Kurt]

Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?
There is a quote routinely parroted by apostates accusing our organization of "violating" human rights when former members are shunned. Here is the quote they use from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." - Emphasis Ours.
Basically, they claim that somehow shunning violates their freedom of conscience, thought, and religion. Let us briefly examine why shunning in the way Jehovah's Witnesses practice it does not violate human rights, or Article 18.

Understanding Article 18
To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 
Answering these questions honestly should lead you to the proper conclusion.
Diversionary Propaganda
The only time shunning runs afoul of human rights is when a group uses it to have an effect outside of its own membership. For example, if a group uses it to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls, then it can conflict with human rights. However, former Witnesses have the same freedoms and powers as non-members of civil society. They can join another religion, freely express their opposing views with the public at large, and retain or acquire employment. In fact, once they leave, we have no interest in or concern with them whatsoever. (Heb 6:4-6)

Another factor to consider is that if a person makes it officially known verbally or in writing that he or she no longer wants to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are shunning us, rather than us shunning them. We are obligated to honor this official declaration. Since we did not initiate such action, we cannot be accused of violating their human rights. 

But opposers never present that side. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: "it breaks up families", "separates children from parents", and "causes emotional torture". While that may happen on the rare, extreme end, those are unintended consequences. How does shunning one member break up an entire family? It does not unless that member is permitted to poison other members against each other. 

Thus if they stick to shunning, it actually prevents family break-ups, as only an apostate's divisiveness and disregard of the shunning arrangement can cause friction in a family. How does it separate children from parents? Former members try to make it look like we kick under-aged children out of our homes, but that is a lie. Since the 1950's, we have made it clear that parents must take care of their children until they are adults by the law of the land, regardless of shunning. (De 6:6, 7; Pr 19:18; 22:6 ;Eph 6:4) Thus only adults are shunned by their parents. Inversely, children of disfellowshipped parents are expected to remain in subjection to their parents until they come of legal age to leave, so long as they are not asked to violate God's word or endanger their lives or their salvation. (Acts 5;29; Col 3:20)

How does it cause emotional torture? It does not. "Torture" implies intent. The only intent to torture emotionally is by the shunned individual when they keep trying to contact their families, knowing the pain they are causing, not only to their families. but to themselves. If they left their families alone, there would be no torture.

Our beliefs and practices are shared with all members before they join. And just because one finds an experience traumatic, that is not necessarily a violation of human rights. For example, to some people, being kicked off a sports team is traumatic, but that does not mean their human rights have been violated. The team's coach has a right to choose who gets to be part of the team.

If you breach company policy and are fired from your job as a result, and you are no longer allowed onto the property, is that a violation of your human rights? Are you somehow being tortured? Just because it is painful does not make it torture.

A person can file a restraining order against a family member, does that mean the person is torturing the family member? Of course not. Just think about why the person needed to file the restraining order in the first place. It is because the family member was either physically dangerous or was harrassing them. We shun in order to keep ones from posing a spiritual danger and because those who leave often try to harass those who stay. It takes only a single internet search to verify this in the thousands of pages posted by our apostates.

The Courts Have Spoken
Though there is no clear violation of human rights, this did not stop Janice Paul from trying to sue us in the United States over the issue of shunning. In 1987, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District upheld the Witnesses right to shun those who fail to live by the organization's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of the lower court. The court concluded:
 "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . . We find the practice of shunning not to constitute a sufficient threat to the peace, safety, or morality of the community as to warrant state intervention. . . . the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. . . Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion" - Emphasis Ours.
We do not take the difficulties related to shunning lightly, and that is why we offer Witnesses who may be thinking of leaving, or those who break Bible principles, every opportunity to remain in the fold and offer them assistance in dealing with whatever issue they have. But at the end of the day, it is up to them to accept it.

As to the general accusation that Witnesses "break up families", the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) stated:
. . . that non-Witness family members often cause conflict by refusing “to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion.” - Emphasis ours.
Shunning is a free practice of our religious beliefs as well. As the ECHR stated, it is not so much about the belief itself, its more about respecting our rights to practice them, whether you agree with them or not.

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

[Srecko Sostar]

Hehe, Violations of Human Rights is when WT JWorg and their representatives forbid  JW members to exercise their Personal Human Rights and talk, or make social contacts on all levels or to sit and eat and drink if wish, or even say simple "hello" on the street to ex-member. This WT command are with the threat of excommunication, disfellowshiping. If that not be with such extreme consequences many JW members will communicate with ex members. And many of them doing that. I am ex member of JW church and on my glad surprise more JW members find that is all right to speak with me. They "disobey"  WT interpretation on canonic text  but obey their god given Natural conscience instead Artificial "bible learned conscience" that is imposed and runned by WT Corporation.

And as Court say, "their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . ."

Perhaps Court (because of wisdom, ahaha) do not want to involve themselves in endless reasoning about what some bible text mean and how is to be understand. But all other people who want to tell something are Free to tell and comment.  

[Guest Kurt]

On 2017-10-06 at 3:59 PM, Kurt said:

Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?
There is a quote routinely parroted by apostates accusing our organization of "violating" human rights when former members are shunned. Here is the quote they use from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." - Emphasis Ours.
Basically, they claim that somehow shunning violates their freedom of conscience, thought, and religion. Let us briefly examine why shunning in the way Jehovah's Witnesses practice it does not violate human rights, or Article 18.

Understanding Article 18
To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 
Answering these questions honestly should lead you to the proper conclusion.
Diversionary Propaganda
The only time shunning runs afoul of human rights is when a group uses it to have an effect outside of its own membership. For example, if a group uses it to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls, then it can conflict with human rights. However, former Witnesses have the same freedoms and powers as non-members of civil society. They can join another religion, freely express their opposing views with the public at large, and retain or acquire employment. In fact, once they leave, we have no interest in or concern with them whatsoever. (Heb 6:4-6)

Another factor to consider is that if a person makes it officially known verbally or in writing that he or she no longer wants to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are shunning us, rather than us shunning them. We are obligated to honor this official declaration. Since we did not initiate such action, we cannot be accused of violating their human rights. 

But opposers never present that side. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: "it breaks up families", "separates children from parents", and "causes emotional torture". While that may happen on the rare, extreme end, those are unintended consequences. How does shunning one member break up an entire family? It does not unless that member is permitted to poison other members against each other. 

Thus if they stick to shunning, it actually prevents family break-ups, as only an apostate's divisiveness and disregard of the shunning arrangement can cause friction in a family. How does it separate children from parents? Former members try to make it look like we kick under-aged children out of our homes, but that is a lie. Since the 1950's, we have made it clear that parents must take care of their children until they are adults by the law of the land, regardless of shunning. (De 6:6, 7; Pr 19:18; 22:6 ;Eph 6:4) Thus only adults are shunned by their parents. Inversely, children of disfellowshipped parents are expected to remain in subjection to their parents until they come of legal age to leave, so long as they are not asked to violate God's word or endanger their lives or their salvation. (Acts 5;29; Col 3:20)

How does it cause emotional torture? It does not. "Torture" implies intent. The only intent to torture emotionally is by the shunned individual when they keep trying to contact their families, knowing the pain they are causing, not only to their families. but to themselves. If they left their families alone, there would be no torture.

Our beliefs and practices are shared with all members before they join. And just because one finds an experience traumatic, that is not necessarily a violation of human rights. For example, to some people, being kicked off a sports team is traumatic, but that does not mean their human rights have been violated. The team's coach has a right to choose who gets to be part of the team.

If you breach company policy and are fired from your job as a result, and you are no longer allowed onto the property, is that a violation of your human rights? Are you somehow being tortured? Just because it is painful does not make it torture.

A person can file a restraining order against a family member, does that mean the person is torturing the family member? Of course not. Just think about why the person needed to file the restraining order in the first place. It is because the family member was either physically dangerous or was harrassing them. We shun in order to keep ones from posing a spiritual danger and because those who leave often try to harass those who stay. It takes only a single internet search to verify this in the thousands of pages posted by our apostates.

The Courts Have Spoken
Though there is no clear violation of human rights, this did not stop Janice Paul from trying to sue us in the United States over the issue of shunning. In 1987, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th District upheld the Witnesses right to shun those who fail to live by the organization's standards and doctrines, upholding the ruling of the lower court. The court concluded:
 "Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . . We find the practice of shunning not to constitute a sufficient threat to the peace, safety, or morality of the community as to warrant state intervention. . . . the defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. . . Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion" - Emphasis Ours.
We do not take the difficulties related to shunning lightly, and that is why we offer Witnesses who may be thinking of leaving, or those who break Bible principles, every opportunity to remain in the fold and offer them assistance in dealing with whatever issue they have. But at the end of the day, it is up to them to accept it.

As to the general accusation that Witnesses "break up families", the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) stated:
. . . that non-Witness family members often cause conflict by refusing “to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion.” - Emphasis ours.
Shunning is a free practice of our religious beliefs as well. As the ECHR stated, it is not so much about the belief itself, its more about respecting our rights to practice them, whether you agree with them or not.

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

 

 

 

[Anna]

On 10/6/2017 at 9:59 AM, Kurt said:

To understand if shunning is a violation of Article 18, ask yourself these questions if your association with Jehovah's Witnesses has ended:
"How is shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from joining another religion?" 
"How is shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 

Of course it doesn't apply to the one whose association has ended. They can do what they like obviously since they are no longer bound by the rules of the congregation.

But rephrase it to say "....ask yourself these questions if you are an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses" and see whether the prospect of shunning has an impact on your answers.

 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Kurt said:

How does it cause emotional torture?

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Kurt said:

Accept the Consequences
What this really amounts to is the disfellowshipped person's refusal to accept the consequences of their actions. Since they cannot openly dissent against the leadership and live their lives apart from Bible principles while maintaining active membership, they claim that removing them to protect the congregation from their influence is violating their conscience and freedom. However, before becoming a Witness, they agreed to live by the tenets of our beliefs and they agreed to accept the consequences of not doing so. We have the right to decide who can or cannot remain members. Neither the public at large nor former members have the right to tell us who can be members or whether we must communicate with them. That is our choice, not theirs.

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Anna said:

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

I know some JW members (family) with very sad experience. Family with few children. Parents are divorced. One parent stayed   with 4 minor children. The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall. Then with time all other children was baptized but also in young teenage age. First child was df about in time of high school. Stayed under same roof, but  rest of "faithful" members reduce very much contacts. Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home. And child was gone after some time. One by one rest of children was also left JWorg. In one moment while they was been member of cong. elders made pressure and rebuke all them because they (children) spend few days in summer time with their df father. After such emotional torture of elders one minor kid cut vein on hands and must be hospitalized. After that "last drop" for her young mind and emotions, all went down. She is "damaged". And no one of elders take responsibility for her "soul".      

Is that good material for Court? Is that violation of Human Rights that was made under/because of Church Rules and Policy? Is it possible to separate so called "religious, doctrinal interpretations of Bible text" with "rules and instructions made by JW Clergy, Priesthood" vs Natural Law vs Secular Law?  

WT JWorg are private Company in the very core, in essence. And as such been legalized in various country as Company, Charity Society or similar entities. As such is under some General Law and Acts. Every JW member became member, get status of membership at the moment of baptism. And by that act  Contract was made between minor children or adult person and WT Company.   

Court have no interest to made decisions is some religious teaching or doctrine right or wrong, true or false. But when belief system produce "emotional torture" and other sort of torture, intellectual, spiritual, psychological - then that can be material for secular authorities.  

[TrueTomHarley]

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall.

I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.

 

50 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home.

I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

[Srecko Sostar]

24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

This kid was in adult age at that time and rest of family has been couraged  to maximally limit contacts with him and "counseled" how spiritual health of family would be better if df kid find another place for living. "Counsels" was in all kinds of instructions, Bible, examples from WT publications and informations that elders have on such matters.  As to my knowledge, this df kid feeled this emotional coldness and spiritual pressure that was puted on rest of family and because such conditions lived the house. How was looked all that in everyday real life i do not know, but it is possible to imagine all tensions, fears, tears, inside battles of mind and heart...   

You can not believe that such young children were baptised in JWorg ? :)))      

 

[Anna]

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31

How can that be reconciled with what really happens?

To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.

So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there

http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

56 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You can not believe that such young children were baptised in JWorg ?

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse"

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 

I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.