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

[The Facts]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to sue. Burglars have even sued a homeowner because he got injured while breaking into their house. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Don't you help people that are depressed? Don't you think there is a bigger issue at hand concerning those individuals? Mentally unstable anyway?

There is even support groups for Ex Catholics http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/25...port-Group

Even an Ex Church of Christ support group http://www.setbb.com/exchurchofchris/vie...rchofchris

All I can say is WoW..... People leave religions all the time without any incidence. But the "few" (I'm saying few because the number of people leaving without incident is large) leaving there religion that can't handle it, probably need therapy and see a psychiatrist.

I really think you are grasping at straws on this one. You have done better.

Do you REALLY think that a petition would accomplish anything???

If the U.S. Gov't couldn't make the witnesses fight in War against Germany and kill German witnesses AND Hitler couldn't make the German witnesses join in killing American witnesses in war then what makes you think that this petition would do anything??? Just sayin.......

Your unhealthy fixation with JW's is not good for you mentally. In all seriousness, have you considered getting help yourself?

[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

[DIANE]

How refreshing to see even the non JWs can see how ridiculous this is.

Sad as any death is, as some on here have said, there would have been existing mental health issues .

[?]

Here's what happens in JW families. Witnesses practice child baptism some as young a six have been mentioned in their literature . (WATCHTOWER 1992 3/1 p.27) ( Year Book 2011 p.58 )

This little child then becomes subject to JWs judicial committees and could be disfellowshipped or shunned if they at some point in life learn the truth about the Watchtower religion and no longer want to worship the self anointed Governing body.

So if they just change their mind after growing up and finding out the facts they will be shunned
by all friends and family .

With the advent of the internet some as young as 11 or 12 are finding the facts and being shunned .

How can this be defended honestly ?

[Caribbean Man]

As others have said the law cannot force persons to associate with other persons. I don't think you can sue someone for refusing to associate with you. However I think a case can be made against the organization for teaching members that they are not to communicate with their own relatives.

A person who is being shunned by his own family can perhaps put forth the argument that this cruel treatment is not born of his family's own free will but they are doing it under a form of psychological and emotional duress resulting from the organization's teachings, and the threat of being ostracized themselves if they do not comply.

I think the closest parallel to this kind of argument holding the organization accountable for its teachings would be existing laws in many countries that criminalize hate speech or inciting hate. The organization's teachings does, in essence, incite a person's family to treat him badly - to treat him in a way they otherwise would not treat him had they not been thus incited by the organization's teachings.

It would still be a somewhat difficult case to make given the competing interest of freedom of religion. One of the ironies of our modern justice systems being more tolerant and respectful of religious freedom is that it at times gives religions the freedom to punish others harshly for asserting their own religious freedom. Laws that were once established to enable others freely practice their religion are being used to assert the right of religious organizations to severely punish individuals for asserting their individual religious freedom.

The laws are, as is often the case, lagging behind the collective moral zeitgeist. There may be laws in the future outlawing the inciting of persons to shun his own family on religious grounds. All our consciences clearly testify to this being a cruel and immoral practice. The problem is that some like the JWs allow the fear of man and a misguided fear of God to overrule the proddings of their conscience.

[WoB]

Yes!