Should Jehovah's Witnesses be taken to court for the practice of shunning?

[Hannah J Paul]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is the height of irrationality. However, a few have done exactly that. And the presiding judge all but laughed them out of his court. You see, government and legislation do not interfere with how a religious group operates itself. Moreover, the thought behind any judge's decision is that when you became a part of that religious group, you agreed to its statutes and rules. Now that you are out of it - for whatever reason - you cannot turn around and expect the court system to step in and force your former brothers and sisters to associate with you.

Here's something I find rather telling: They are not associating with "Susie" because either she was disfellowshipped (for refusal to stop a sinful practice) or because she has disassociated herself from them (she has decided they are a cult, their doctrines are wrong or some other subjective reason). Now if Susie goes to court, she is obviously disturbed by their refusal to associate. So Susie expects the court to force them to associate with her. After all, you do not sue someone because they stepped on your toe in line at the Walmart. Patently, Susie feels she has a grievance serious enough to warrant filing a civil action complaint - which of course costs money. Why in heaven's name would Susie want to associate with someone she clearly feels is so in the wrong that she felt it necessary to pay money to sue them in civil court? I mean, one way or another, shouldn't Susie be glad she is "shut of them" - as the saying goes?"

United Nations? Civil rights violations? Petition of grievance? I am going to assume this is a joke. If so, I did indeed find it comical. If it is not a joke, I apologize - it is not comical. It is sad.

Hannah J Paul