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 the practice of shunning preventing me from exercising my freedom of thought and conscience?" 
"How is the practice of shunning preventing me from joining another religion?"
"How is the practice of shunning preventing me from expressing or manifesting my beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public or in private"? 
"How would being shunned prevent you from having friends?" 
"People get cut off from family for a variety of reasons, often for the rest of their lives. How is being cut off from family through shunning any different? If they can survive, why can't you?" 
Answering these questions honestly should lead you to the proper conclusion. These are the very same questions that prevent judges from ruling shunning to be abusive. Their conclusion is that life happens and you'll survive. There is no malicious intent to shunning.

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". 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. Besides this, shunned family members outside the household are still allowed to talk about family matters with the family or conduct business with them. Shunned members inside the household are only restricted from speaking on spiritual matters.

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.

For a lengthier discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses relationship to human rights, see the post by Sergey Afanasev at http://afanasyevjw.blogspot.nl/2017/03/blog-post_13.html.


Comments

Robert said…
I really like this article because it takes a critical look at the claim of "human rights" violations.

The issue in my eyes is that they are never specific about what human right is violated. The argument is framed in such a way that even sending a criminal to jail is a "violation" of his human rights because it costs him his job, hurts his job prospects, and separates him from his family...

Oh but wait...they don't see that as a human rights violation...




Dalmatino said…
very good reasoning. tnx
Opposers Dismythed said…
Thank you, and you're welcome!
Lu said…
This is perfect and so timely.. Thank you for this is explanation. Just the other day someone posed a questions asking me if children shun their parents are they not breaking the command to honor their parents, so this helps to reason on it
Opposers Dismythed said…
Thank you, Lucian!
Dismythed said…
Contrary to some claims, we do not kick children out of the house for having been shunned by the congregation. We even inform families and congregation overseers that such is to be discouraged. We do not blacklist businesses or do anything to interfere with their operation, nor refuse business to shunned ones. We are certainly not violent towards them.

We do not claim that shunning is not discrimination, but, it is not based on religion, race or creed. It is a Bible-based practice that was introduced in the first century for keeping the congregation spiritually clean from corrupting influences. (1Co 5:11; 2Jo 10) We do not shun anyone because they believe differently, thus it cannot be identified as religious discrimination.

Shunning is necessary because ones who have left often attempt to corrupt members with lies and have even posed physical threats to them. We have a right to live free from such hatred. Though we do not officially shun people from other religions who persecute us in the same way because we recognize that they have simply been misled by lying propaganda and should not be prevented from an opportunity to learn the truth. Though we may choose to avoid such ones personally as long as they are a physical danger.

It is true that shunning can have unintended adverse effects, but those effects are not one-sided. If it hurts the betrayer to be shunned, it also hurts the betrayed to have to shun them for the safety of their family and congregation. Does not punishing a child also hurt the parent who punishes them? Shunning is not easy for anyone, but it is necessary.

We invite readees to watch this video: JWs Understood: How Common Is Shunning? We hope you find it informative. We seek only to help ones like you to gain some perspective on such issues.

The severest consequences associated with shunning do not occur in a vacuum. Those effects are the result of ones failing to maximize their survival tactics. When one is shunned from one social group, they must seek out another. Even lions and apes do that much. If someone does not return to us and does not seek out a new social group and rebuild their support system, their own lack of effort cannot be blamed on us. Each person is responsible for his or her own choices. Lack of accountability is usually the reason they are shunned in the first place, failing to own up to and accept their own responsibility in what they practice. Someone who is accountable takes control of their own life and guides it towards maximizing their happiness even in difficult circumstances.

Some like to make it sound like we are trying to get benefit from the organization with this blog, but if we do not identify ourselves, how are we possibly currying favor with anyone? We post these things to help ones who have been deceived by anti-JW propaganda and because it brings us satisfaction to help such ones.

Name-calling may provide a temporary dopamine high, but in the end, what does it accomplish? Does it inspire anyone to listen to the person's claims? Would a child be inspired to love them more by treating those they love with contempt? Only the individual can change the narrative of their own life. Bashing others for his or her own choices will not bring him or her more positive results.
Dismythed said…
I would be keenly interested in so-called "studiies" regarding shunning that focus strictly on not associating with shunned persons, and not poisoned by the wells of kicking out under-aged children, physical asssaults or blacklisting businesses. (Given that JW's do not condone such things, contrary to the claims of our lying apostates.)
Dismythed said…
Maybe I should clarify. "Name-calling" is not the same as labeling. We label many concepts good and bad. So calling someone an "apostate" is not "name-calling" because it accurately describes the practice that such persons engage in. But to call someone an "idiot" is name-calling because it is a disparaging comment meant solely to illicit an emotional reaction.

But did you know that Jesus called others names? At Matthew 23:33 he called the Pharisees "Serpents, offspring of vipers", and also at Matthew 12:34. But note that this was a judgment by one who had the authority, identifying them as Satan's children, just as at John 8:44. So in a spiritual sense, it was accurate. It was not some untrue disparagement.

While some of our number had developed the habit in the 60's and 70's of calling people "goats" because they were turned away, the organization outspokenly put an end to it because it was a judgment that such ones had no authority to make. As an organization, we do not practice such things. We cannot be blamed for what select individuals choose to do.
Anonymous said…
This is a very interesting question as is "How common is shunning?" Is this a common concern? Or I should ask rather, do many people ask these questions?

Excuse my ignorance, I don't know much about the subject.
Well now you do. :) The accusation occasionally arises. The shunning issue is a pet project for the author of this post.
Anonymous said…
Okay. I have heard a few things about this issue. The folks I heard seemed to be more interested in whether the shunning was encouraged/done under some form of compulsion or done so voluntarily on an individual basis.

Voluntary shunning is for sure an everyday thing.

Human rights is also a hot topic.
Following rules and belonging to any organization is also voluntary unless done so under threat of physical or environmental harm to that person or someone they care about. That is why the form of shunning we practice is completely voluntary. A person who wishes to be a member can either follow the rule or cease to be a member. That is a choice.
Robert Murphey said…
There are also groups that harass and hire private investigators to stalk and spy on former members. That also makes THAT form of shunning involuntary, and abusive.

Opposers love to claim that how we shun is abusive. But how so? Elders do not harasses you, police you, stalk you, or anything like that. And the person can still attend meetings if they so choose. Of course, no one unnecessarily associates with them, but leaving a person alone is the furthest thing from abuse.
RACHEL said…
I think shunning is a despicable practice. The 7n8versal Declaration of Human Rights states that a person has the right to change their religion without coercion. The threat of being cut off by family members is powerfully coercive. One is coerced into remaining a JW even when they no longer believe. Also, the Declaration protects the rights to family relationships without outside interference. The fact that many JWs conti use association with disfellowshipped family members in secret shows it is not their choice to shun, but an organisational mandate.
Your statement highlights a contradiction. You say that families do not have a choice, but then demonstrate them exercising their choice to continue to associate with the person instead of remaining true to Jehovah. That is a choice and no one makes any effort to prevent them, but they have to accept that they are putting their membership status and their ability to communicate freely with other members at risk.

"Coersion" under the Declaration of Human Rights clearly refers to a threat of bodily, financial or other demonstrable harm. Disfellowshipping is merely a peaceful way of removing the former member's ability to associate with other members, except under certain necessary situations, such as cettain family obligations or business dealings. (We do not preclude members from doing business with disfellowshipped persons or believing as they want to believe or practice their religion as they choose to practice it.)

One member in my congreggation continues to communicate with his two disfellowshipped sons both because he employs them and because he is helping them as long as they seek to return to the organization. The elders allow it because it is acceptable circumstances. He just never associates with them through casual conversation.

Also, it does not matter what anyone thinks or any man-made law says. It is in the Scriptures, and we obey God over men.
Allow me to emphasize one point: We do not force anyone to believe or not believe or practice or not practice their faith in any way they choose. Disfellowshipping simply affects communication, and nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to give or receive communication from or to whomever they choose. To do so would interfere with the rights of others to be at peace from unwanted communication or right to withhold communication.
Robert Murphey said…
I agree with the above. And said a different way, deeming shunning a violation of human rights, is forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to retain as members those who on longer qualify to remain members, thus, violating THEIR rights to decide their membership.

This aptly demonstrates the inconsistency of critics.