What do you think of the practise of shunning in churches and what sort of people carry out this act?

There is always pressure to conform to the prevailing standards of the community. There are consequences for not conforming. Shunning is merely a more draconian way of pressuring people to conform.

Should it be allowed? Well, I’m not sure any form of pressure to conform (as far as things that do not hurt others are concerned) should be allowed. I don’t see what can be done about it, though. Pressure to conform is always abusive, to a greater or lesser extent. Did you go to high school? Enuf said.

As to privacy and rights—I don’t know. I know that internet content providers and large companies are always sending out these privacy policies. They seem to be voluntary, although perhaps they are the result of pressure from the government. I doubt if the government can pass laws prescribing the behavior of religious organizations. However, I do think that legal restrictions protecting privacy of church goers would be a good thing.

Shunning? I think it is needlessly cruel. But then, I think almost all forms of social control are needlessly cruel. Then again, I’m a person who has always been a little more different than most, and has felt bad because of it. I sometimes wonder if I had been popular, would it have been much different? Perhaps we all have similar struggles.

These churches are full of controlling people, who think people should not be allowed to think for themselves. These people are afraid to do anything wrong, and thus compete with each other to be holier and holiest. It’s very sad, I think. I don’t like people like this. I think they are inhumane. I doubt if it will ever change, though.

Wow.

Back in the day, if we didn’t like or agree with a pastor, we just found another church.

What’s the point of hearing the Word of God from someone you don’t respect?

And they call me crazy…!

“PRAISE THE LORD, you son of a b…!”

I don’t think draconian is the most suitable adjective to describe how I feel about shunning. Churches that do this are far and away the most repressive and hateful of organizations in the country/world, not to mention being the most backward and repellent. They’re just one of the many, many reasons I won’t get involved with organized religion or any other type of religion. It’s a classic case of yokels being yokels.

Didn’t you once say you wouldn’t join any club that would have you for a member?

True dat, my inquisitive homie.

I thought so. Thank you.

Were you quoting Rodney Carrington?

thats for the church groupies that are better than everyone else and self assumingly closer to God…but no God I know of would lift up that kind of activity

I find the idea that a pastor would hear a confession from someone in their congregation and then make it public in any form absolutely inexcusable. To go beyond that and use it as a way to chase people out of the church is such an abuse of the office, that I would deem that person unfit to serve. In my tradition, a pastor who intentionally breaks the confessional seal is subject to removal from ministry. The only instance in which the confessional seal may be broken is if the pastor believes that the person confessing presents an immanent danger to him/herself or someone else.

As far as shunning goes, I’ve never much understood the practice myself. Certainly, there are disruptive and destructive people that it would be easier to get along without. But it would take a lot for me to tell someone that they were no longer welcome in my church.

Allowed? Well, I would not say that the government should interfere in any way, or that there should be laws against it.

The final nail in the coffin for my father that gave him his final decision that religion sucks was when his family made it difficult for him to see his favorite aunt and uncle, because she was not from the same religion. He thought it was the stupidest most idiotic thing ever. He had a very small family and his own parents had many difficulties, so any loving adults in the family were very important to him. It was not so much they were shunned by the temple, but were ostracized by the family.

The idea that a pastor would take a private confession and tell it to the congregation is disgusting. To ask for legal controls seems to miss the point that this church and clergy are assholes. Even if a law stops them it does not change what is inside of the person.

@JLeslie I understand your point. Unfortunately, when a church leader (as an upholder of morality!;) holds such power it can cause tremendous damage to the church-goer within the community and for this reason I feel that the leader and his/her henchmen should be held accountable for their actions. The influence that ‘upholders of the faith’ can have is well illustrated by the effect that American missionaries have had on the Ugandan government re. homosexuality. As a result of their actions, is it now an offense punishable by hanging to be a homosexual. Although, this is a different example to the ones I gave in the question, the negative influence that church leaders/clergy/pastors/rabbis/imams etc can have on another persons life are without restriction. I believe it is time to hold them accountable for such reprehensible actions.

@Excalibur Hmmm…your point is interesting. I guess you could argue it is akin to speech leading to riots. But for the most part I think they would be covered by the right to free speech in America. With your example about homosexuality in Uganda, if it had been a grass roots movement, where average lay people convinced everyone it should be an illegal act, would you seek the same law against them? Or, only for clergy because they seemingly have power over people? Since I am not religious, I just think people idiots to follow a pastors ideas when it seems illogical and hateful, but easy for me to say. The real problem in Uganda, from what I can tell, is they do not understand the idea of separation of church and state. I am not picking on the Ugandans, certainly plenty of people in America seem to have a hard time with the concept also.

@ Jleslie With your example about homosexuality in Uganda, if it had been a grass roots movement, where average lay people convinced everyone it should be an illegal act, would you seek the same law against them? – Yes, I think I would. Because it is against basic human rights. Just because the grass-roots followed Hitler does not make it right.:)

@Marrakech But the grass roots in Nazi Germany were not put in jails, because it really was not a grass root effort from what I understand, but rather a political leader and followers. I think you are saying that the leaders of churches should be given some limitations under the law, so that would mean punishable by law also.

This conversations makes me happy that we have the supreme court to tell the majority to screw themselves. Sometimes I don’t agree with the supreme court, but I think they are less likely swayed by religion and emotion than the average guy.

I have been thinking about shunning for a while and my current thought is that shunning is brilliant. I think it should be the only “punishment” that religious groups are allowed to administer. No corporal punishment, no forced indoctrination, no forced marriages, no incarceration. Then it would be fair for churches to make rules more restrictive than the rest of society. What do they list as “thou shalt not? Inappropriate sexual behavior? Gambling? Violence? Tax evasion? Failure to tithe? Tattoos? Spitting? Working on the Sabbath? Drawing cartoons? Shun the bastards!

Members would have to choose to follow those rules or risk shunning.

In my imagined world, governments should not be used to enforce any religious rules – “moral shortcomings”. Exactly what they would enforce.. I’m still working on, but it would certainly include things like violent crime, traffic laws, taxation, and equal access.

@6rant6 Wait, you want shunning so people will follow the rules, or so people will get kicked out of the religions and less people will be part of the religions?

@6Grant6 Any church that exercises discipline as if it were a petty teacher or policeman ought to be had up for abuse. And what makes the leadership in the church so moral and upright that they can impose such stringent measures. Only a psychopath would impose such discipline.

@JLeslie Win win.

@Marrakech Well personally, I wouldn’t belong to a church that used corporal discipline to encourage conformity. But then I can’t think of any reason I WOULD belong to a church, so I probably don’t count. However, I’m sure some people would see that as a wonderful approach even if (or perhaps, because) they would be subject to it.

I wouldn’t have thought they could use corporal discipline anyway. They would be had up for assault. However, there are all sorts of psychological pressures they put on people including rejection. I sounds like very bad parenting to me.:)