Similar to Scientologists?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dislike the use of the word 'cult' in this context as it has a wide range of meaning and is mostly used as a derogatory term.

It must be noted that almost all religions / denominations are guilty of the activity you describe. Religions do evolve both intentionally and unintentionally and selection results in those that are effective at obtaining and maintaining membership surviving.

That's a fair criticism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Can you tell us what sort of orchestrated psychological abuse our founder in the modern era Charles Russell incorporated into the organisation formerly known as the International Bibles students, now Jehovahs witnesses. Thank you. I take it you have read Hubbards book because I have and I can tell you here and now it bears absolutely no resemblance ...[text shortened]... on the subject can point out from his work the similarities. Once again, thank you in advance.

Without reading a book for you I can readily describe what I believe is orchestrated psychological abuse: shunning, excommunication, ostracism, disfellowship, call it what you may.

Evidently, the practice was not strictly viewed by Russell; if became so later:

"However in 1952, under the Presidency of Nathan Knorr, the Society instituted a new, harsher policy of disfellowshipping and total shunning. The policy is primarily based on four passages of scripture, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 2 Thessalonains 3:14, 2 John 9-10, and Matthew 18:17, which we will examine in turn:" (which you can see here: http://jwsrefined.com/2014/05/15/disfellowshipping-and-shunning/)

So as with any lasting -ism, the founder's views are subject to later interpretation.

Originally posted by JS357
Without reading a book for you I can readily describe what I believe is orchestrated psychological abuse: shunning, excommunication, ostracism, disfellowship, call it what you may.

Evidently, the practice was not strictly viewed by Russell; if became so later:

"However in 1952, under the Presidency of Nathan Knorr, the Society instituted a new, harsher p ...[text shortened]... nning/)

So as with any lasting -ism, the founder's views are subject to later interpretation.

The practice of disfellowshipping was known to Paul, about 1800 years prior to Russell and is clearly outlined in scripture. It does not in many instances encompass a total shunning because circumstances vary. Nor do you make mention of those who have been disfellowshiped and who are reinstated. Furthermore you make no mention of the processes leading up to and attempting to help the erring one remain within the organisation again for reasons only known to yourself. But that is not the subject, a comparison has been made between Scientology and that of Jehovahs witnesses, usual terms like 'cult' banded about having its basis in nothing but a kind of heresy.

One would hope that we might form a better understanding of an organisation and its practices by some other means than observing people going about on the street. Were they perhaps dressed as the Grim reaper, wearing hooded smocks and hiding in bushes?

Now one wonders what happens if its our usual practice to make comparisons between organisations on the basis of having observed people on the street. Do we take a more scholarly approach and research our subject prior to making an evaluation, perhaps by reading its published literature or do we observe them in the street or in shopping malls handing out literature and conclude they are similar?

As twhitehead has pointed out, the comparison is not only unfair and in my opinion I'll conceived and clumsy for if one carries the logic through, Native Americans must also be similar to Scientology because they also practised ostracism. Is that really the case?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The practice of disfellowshipping was known to Paul, about 1800 years prior to Russell and is clearly outlined in scripture. It does not in many instances encompass a total shunning because circumstances vary. Nor do you make mention of those who have been disfellowshiped and who are reinstated. Furthermore you make no mention of the processes lea ...[text shortened]... ugh, Native Americans must also be similar to Scientology because they also practised ostracism.

I use to practice ostracism, until i discovered the 'supreme Ostrich' was actually a goose.

😞

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I use to practice ostracism, until i discussed the 'supreme Ostrich' was actually a goose.

😞

Ahh Ghastly one, God loves a trier

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The practice of disfellowshipping was known to Paul, about 1800 years prior to Russell and is clearly outlined in scripture. It does not in many instances encompass a total shunning because circumstances vary. Nor do you make mention of those who have been disfellowshiped and who are reinstated. Furthermore you make no mention of the processes lea ...[text shortened]... t also be similar to Scientology because they also practised ostracism. Is that really the case?

Both (or all three, as you mentioned Native American tribes, and others, as well) use retention practices that ultimately, if they fail, can resort to a form of shunning. The threat of shunning, and shunning itself, can be psychologically harmful. I think you are a reasonable person so I can't 't believe you would deny that can happen.

In a large, varied, mobile society, shunning can be less harmful, because the shunned can find friends, jobs, people who will sell them groceries, etc. In a land where people live in relatively isolated, homogeneous villages, it can mean banishment and death. In between these two poles, we have homogeneous ideological groups within a mixed society. These groups, if they practice shunning, can do a lot of harm.

I'm not singling out JWs or Scientology.

With all due respect, I don't believe you are going to change my mind on this.

Cults want to control their subjects and have a strict hierarchy.
JW for instance are not supposed to mix with people at work who are non JW.
Consequently they get jobs like window cleaners or working outdoors on their
own like robin.

Originally posted by JS357
Both (or all three, as you mentioned Native American tribes, and others, as well) use retention practices that ultimately, if they fail, can resort to a form of shunning. The threat of shunning, and shunning itself, can be psychologically harmful. I think you are a reasonable person so I can't 't believe you would deny that can happen.

In a large, varied, m ...[text shortened]... r Scientology.

With all due respect, I don't believe you are going to change my mind on this.

Do you think that societies should consider the psychological effect on a miscreant who fails after repeated attempts to help and rehabilitate the offender to adhere to its standards? Standards upon which a conscious decision was made to uphold? Do you think any political or municipal body would consider the psychological effect on someone who transgressed its code of conduct after repeated attempts to help the miscreant for acts which transgressed those values? Then why should a religious organisation be any different?

The idea that Jehovahs witnesses are similar to Scientology because they practice expulsion for non repentent wrongdoers is quite simply ludicrous.

Originally posted by Captain Strange
Cults want to control their subjects and have a strict hierarchy.
JW for instance are not supposed to mix with people at work who are non JW.
Consequently they get jobs like window cleaners or working outdoors on their
own like robin.

wow what about doctors, lawyers, town planners, architects, research students, teachers, social workers, BT engineers, call handlers etc etc how are they supposed to conduct themselves, in a bubble. You talk more slobber than David Slobberfield on slobbbering Sunday, near Slobberingham.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow what about doctors, lawyers, town planners, architects, research students, teachers, social workers, BT engineers, call handlers etc etc how are they supposed to conduct themselves, in a bubble. You talk more slobber than David Slobberfield on slobbbering Sunday, near Slobberingham.

I've been treating you with respect.

Originally posted by JS357
I've been treating you with respect.

yes but you are not the problem, Captain slobber is.

Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

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 test for upholding a direct burden on religious practices is as stringent as any imposed under our Constitution. Only in extreme and unusual cases has the imposition of a direct burden on religion been upheld. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy); Hill v. State, 38 Ala.App. 404, 88 So.2d 880 (1956) (snake handling).

The harms suffered by Paul as a result of her shunning by the Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly not of the type that would justify the imposition of tort liability for religious conduct. No physical assault or battery occurred. Intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practices--or against its members. Cf. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 646, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1189, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (Murphy, J., concurring) ("[T]he benefits that may accrue to society from the compulsory flag salute are [not] sufficiently definite and tangible to justify the invasion of freedom and privacy that is entailed.)

Offense to someone's sensibilities resulting from religious conduct is simply not actionable in tort. See Cantwell, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900; cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971).

Without society's tolerance of offenses to sensibility, the protection of religious differences mandated by the first amendment would be meaningless.

http://www.jehovah.to/gen/legal/state/paul.htm

Originally posted by twhitehead
And my point is that even in the way they may carry out orchestrated psychological abuse there will be significant differences.

Of course there would be differences. I'm sure nobody would dispute that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
AI think the differences between the two organizations is significant enough that nobody should confuse the two.

As I said, I made it clear that they are not really comparable in terms of their core beliefs or doctrine. There is no confusion about that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The idea that Jehovahs witnesses are similar to Scientology because they practice expulsion for non repentent wrongdoers is quite simply ludicrous.

Unless you listen to what former JWs have to say about their experience ~ and unless you compare it to what 'survivors' of Scientology have to say ~ I'm not sure you are qualified to offer a view on this topic. I neither expect or need your agreement on this matter.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the legality of what the JW who met my friend did in that Jakarta mall and whether she was perhaps acting not in accordance with her organization's policy and advice.

Were you prohibited from proselytizing to members of other recognized religious groups according to the law in Pakistan when you were there?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not only is it unfair it reeks of the kind of low brow readers digest flimsy journalism so beloved by the OP.

Have you ever met anyone who managed to extricate themselves from the Church of Scientology and talked to them about what the experience was like? Have you read any testimony by such people?