Shunning & Slavery

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've noticed over the years that religious shunners are generally unwilling to defend shunning behavior. In fact, many don't even seem comfortable admitting that they might shun a family member or close friend if that person were to 'leave the faith.'

It puts me in mind of American slavery. I'm not necessarily comparing the two as equally evil, but rather pointing to the 'knowledge of evil' in both practitioners.

I would think that most slavery proponents would have been quite uncomfortable trying to justify slavery in public discourse, most especially in the later years when the cultural assumption was turning against them. I'm guessing they wanted to enslave but didn't want to be forced to justify, or even think about, the moral grounds for enslavement.

Same with shunning. I think shunners know that their behavior is wrong and so will not venture to defend it in public discourse.

Imagine putting a child out of your house, out of your family, out of your love... for the sin of following his own intellectual integrity.

My parents, strong in their faith, never even hinted of feeling that way, and I'll always respect them for that -- for knowing that nothing can ever trump love.

Is there anyone here who would defend religious shunning?

 

[oldbadger]

Errrr...... Ummmmm....

To Shun:-
persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.

Slavery:-
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work

..... well..... how similar! What a stunning analogy!

We all avoid people, for various reasons. And the only answer that anybody needs to give, if asked why they have shunned somebody, or banned somebody from their premises... is:- I don't have to give a reason!

Easy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Errrr...... Ummmmm....

To Shun:-
persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution.

Slavery:-
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work

..... well..... how similar! What a stunning analogy!

Sorry, bud, but you have missed my point. I specifically said that I'm not comparing the behaviors but rather the common 'knowledge of evil' in both groups. Their tacit admission that their behavior is wrong.

We all avoid people, for various reasons. And the only answer that anybody needs to give, if asked why they have shunned somebody, or banned somebody from their premises... is:- I don't have to give a reason!

Sure. That's how many of us get comfortable with our evil ways. We just don't talk about it.

 

[Quintessence]

I think shunners know that their behavior is wrong and so will not venture to defend it in public discourse.

Have you considered things from their perspective? How would you feel if someone you cared about suddenly did something that you think is profoundly wrong? You hold this person in high esteem and you value their company, but now that they did this thing, you feel that you have to cut ties with them. You don't really want to, though, because you like them. You have feelings for them. That conflict is hard. It tears you apart inside, and it forces you to make some hard choices. Perhaps you don't like talking about it because it's emotionally difficult, not because you think your decision to cut ties is wrong?

I'm not going to say that I agree with the idea of cutting ties with someone because of their religion, but I can understand it and I'm not going to say a person is wrong for doing it (much less suggest it's some sort of universal wrong or compare it with slavery). Unless they're doing something illegal by cutting ties, their relationships are their affair, not mine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Have you considered things from their perspective?

Oh yes. Long and hard.

How would you feel if someone you cared about suddenly did something that you think is profoundly wrong?

By 'something profoundly wrong' you mean 'think the wrong thought', yes?

You mean how would I feel if my child suddenly began to hold different religious beliefs than I hold? Well, I would feel happy. It would mean that they are grappling directly with God rather than accepting their status as just another sheep in my flock.

You hold this person in high esteem and you value their company, but now that they did this thing, you feel that you have to cut ties with them.

Really, Quint, it wouldn't occur to me to kick my child out of my home and out of my life for having the audacity to believe differently that I do about ultimate concerns. I don't have any fear of contrary worldviews. No one has to think like I do as the price of membership in my tribe.

Perhaps you don't like talking about it because it's emotionally difficult, not because you think your decision to cut ties is wrong?

I'm not asking anyone here to talk about specific cases. I'm asking them to talk about the concept of religious shunning. But my experience has been that shunners are ashamed of their behavior and so won't discuss it. I hope I'm wrong about that.

I'm not going to say that I agree with the idea of cutting ties with someone because of their religion, but I can understand it and I'm not going to say a person is wrong for doing it (much less suggest it's some sort of universal wrong or compare it with slavery). Unless they're doing something illegal by cutting ties, their relationships are their affair, not mine.

OK, we're just different. I think each one of us has an obligation to engage the moral debate. I think God demands it of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religious shunning often isn't just one person deciding not to associate with someone else; it's a coordinated effort to completely exclude the person being shunned from the community or family. It is often enforced by command from an authority and there are punishments for maintaining contact with the person.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Religious shunning often isn't just one person deciding not to associate with someone else; it's a coordinated effort to completely exclude the person being shunned from the community or family. It is often enforced by command from an authority and there are punishments for maintaining contact with the person.

Yeah. It really is one of the ugliest aspects of some religious traditions, in my opinion. Conservative ones. I've heard of Othodox Jews, Baha'is, fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims and Christian groups which do it.

It is one of the defining aspects of cults, of course. Believe as the authority believes or else get out.

 

[Quintessence]

By 'something profoundly wrong' you mean 'think the wrong thought', yes?

No. I'm talking about anything that you regard as taboo to some degree or another. It could be one serious taboo that is a deal breaker for you or perhaps a lot of little ones that add up to a bigger nasty. Everybody is different with this; for some it might be something religious, for others it might be some other cultural or behavioral phenomena. When other people around you begin to severely conflict with your own values and lifestyle, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain a relationship. One way or another, that conflict has to be resolved, and there are basically two ways that happens:

1) Cut the person out of your life in order to maintain or uphold your values and taboos.
2) Keep the person in your life and change yourself by disarming your taboos and discarding previous values.

Where the person has a very concrete taboo about something - that is to say, they are firm and uncompromising in their belief that they have the right of things - they are going to have a very hard time doing the second one. They are not going to compromise who they are for someone else. And I don't think it's fair to ask them to (again, unless they're doing something illegal); in some cases, they can't. It's not a choice.

But perhaps you and I are not thinking of the same thing when we think about "shunning." I don't know. All I know is that human social dynamics unavoidably involve these sorts of things. Shunning and shaming certain behaviors is how we create and enforce social norms. We all do it, whether it's religious or not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No. I'm talking about anything that you regard as taboo to some degree or another.

OK, let me see if I can refine my issue: I'm talking about religious shunning. I mean like Orthodox Jews sitting shiva over a child who has decided to become a Christian or an atheist or a Buddhist. I knew a Liberal Rabbi once whose family sat shiva for him when he chose Liberal Judaism rather than OJ. A couple of decades later he was still devastated by that.

My position is that such behavior is immoral. I believe that humans are sometimes terrified of having their worldviews shaken -- so much so that they will push away anyone who sees things differently than they do. Even their own children. I hold that's an immoral thing to do. No decent God would insist that we shun our child, no more than a decent God would force Abraham to sacrifice Issac.

That's not only an article of faith for me but a position that I'm happy to defend in debate.

When other people around you begin to severely conflict with your own values and lifestyle, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain a relationship. One way or another, that conflict has to be resolved....

I don't care what you believe about the meaning of life or the nature of god(s). Just as I don't care whether you prefer jelly to jam. I certainly wouldn't put you out of my life for it.

But perhaps you and I are not thinking of the same thing when we think about "shunning." I don't know. All I know is that human social dynamics unavoidably involve these sorts of things. Shunning and shaming certain behaviors is how we create and enforce social norms. We all do it, whether it's religious or not.

I barely tolerate most social norms. In my view, anyone who loves social norms more than they love their children... such a person has gotten lost in his journey toward God.

You probably notice that I feel pretty passionate about that.

 

[Tumah]

I've noticed over the years that religious shunners are generally unwilling to defend shunning behavior. In fact, many don't even seem comfortable admitting that they might shun a family member or close friend if that person were to 'leave the faith.'

It puts me in mind of American slavery. I'm not necessarily comparing the two as equally evil, but rather pointing to the 'knowledge of evil' in both practitioners.

I would think that most slavery proponents would have been quite uncomfortable trying to justify slavery in public discourse, most especially in the later years when the cultural assumption was turning against them. I'm guessing they wanted to enslave but didn't want to be forced to justify, or even think about, the moral grounds for enslavement.

Same with shunning. I think shunners know that their behavior is wrong and so will not venture to defend it in public discourse.

Imagine putting a child out of your house, out of your family, out of your love... for the sin of following his own intellectual integrity.

My parents, strong in their faith, never even hinted of feeling that way, and I'll always respect them for that -- for knowing that nothing can ever trump love.

Is there anyone here who would defend religious shunning?

This must be what you were referring to when you mentioned shunning in the other thread. You should have linked what you were referring to.

All I hear over here, is that you are saying your weltanschauung is correct and anyone who does something that doesn't fit with it must be doing something wrong.
And my opinion is that my view is correct and anyone who does or says anything that doesn't fit with it is wrong.

You are interpreting a story from another religion within the context of your own belief system: shunning a child for intellectual integrity. But is that what really happened? Do you think the parents said, "Son, we can't handle your intellectual integrity. Get out."?

If you want to understand why another religion -or another anything really- does something in a manner that you find perplexing, your best course of action is to research the background and context within which the action is taking place.

 

[Quintessence]

My position is that such behavior is immoral. I believe that humans are sometimes terrified of having their worldviews shaken -- so much so that they will push away anyone who sees things differently than they do. Even their own children. I hold that's an immoral thing to do.

Do you feel it is immoral to preserve traditions? To hold and uphold personal values or a way of life? To maintain your sense of self and to be who you are? And to maintain your community and culture?

I barely tolerate most social norms. In my view, anyone who loves social norms more than they love their children... such a person has gotten lost in his journey toward God.

I'm confused, because your perspective is itself a social norm. Your personal and cultural norms state that it is unacceptable to shun or cut ties with someone because of their religion.

I'm also confused because social norms make up the very fabric of any human society, and I doubt you mean to suggest you can barely tolerate living in human society.

Personally, I would not fault a person who honors social norms - like not murdering people - above the love they have for someone important to them, be it a child, romantic partner, best friend, mentor, or whatever. If someone you care about violates a strong taboo, I really, really have a hard time faulting anyone for cutting ties there. For some people, being part of the "wrong" religion is a deal breaker. For others, they physically cannot stand being around smokers. Others want nothing to do with anyone who has a history of violent crime. Or even petty thievery. Don't blame a one of them for choosing who they want to have relationships with. Why should I? Their relationships, their norms, their culture, their values... it's their business. Again, up until the point you're doing something illegal like firing someone for being a member of the "wrong" religion as an employer.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This must be what you were referring to when you mentioned shunning in the other thread. You should have linked what you were referring to.

I did. See the other thread.

All I hear over here, is that you are saying your weltanschauung is correct and anyone who does something that doesn't fit with it must be doing something wrong.
And my opinion is that my view is correct and anyone who does or says anything that doesn't fit with it is wrong.

Oh boy. Not much experience in moral debate, I guess?

If I declared that skinning children alive was immoral, you would simply state that you consider it moral and that's that? End of debate?

J'accuse. Othodox Jews are immoral to sit shiva over their children who intellectually stray from OJ. As bad as slavers.

What do you say?

You are interpreting a story from another religion within the context of your own belief system: shunning a child for intellectual integrity. But is that what really happened? Do you think the parents said, "Son, we can't handle your intellectual integrity. Get out."?

Oh, I doubt the parents are honest enough to phrase it that way. I suspect they load on the guilt. "You don't love us! How could you betray us! If you don't come back into the fold, we will banish you!"

That's more likely how it goes down. But of course, it's really about the kid holding to his own intellectual integrity. He can't force himself to believe that Biblical nonsense. He can't. Not and be honest about things. So he gets banished from his tribe for holding to his own intellectual integrity. Sad stuff. And obviously immoral behavior on the parents' part.

If you want to understand why another religion -or another anything really- does something in a manner that you find perplexing, your best course of action is to research the background and context within which the action is taking place.

It's so funny. Every time I mount an unanswerable argument, I am sure to be accused of ignorance. So much easier to do that than to actually address and defend one's immoral stance, I guess.

How about it? Can you defend the practice of religious shunning? Did you know that it's part of the formal definition of a 'cult'? Cults weed out anyone who strays from the groupthink. Even if the strayer is a member's own child.

You see nothing wrong with that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you feel it is immoral to preserve traditions? To hold and uphold personal values or a way of life? To maintain your sense of self and to be who you are? And to maintain your community and culture?

Oh, yes. Most especially if it requires shunning those who are different, who cut their hair differently or wear a wrong-colored robe or think that God is female, whereas we all know He is clearly male. I despise tribalism. I consider it a primitive mindset. See Afghanistan and other such cultures. Tribalism is necessary in primitive places, but I hope we are outgrowing it. I work toward helping pry us away from it.

I'm confused, because your perspective is itself a social norm. Your personal and cultural norms state that it is unacceptable to shun or cut ties with someone because of their religion.

Huh? You think that I adhere to my anti-tribal worldview because I learned it from my tribe and am afraid to let it go?

If so, it means you won't let me be who I am, yes? It means you assume everyone is socially-normed and so I must be socially-normed?

I'm also confused because social norms make up the very fabric of any human society, and I doubt you mean to suggest you can barely tolerate living in human society.

Ever read Catcher in the Rye? I despise phonies. I feel sorry those who thoughtlessly parrot the cultural norm in speech and behavior. God can't like that in his creations.

Personally, I would not fault a person who honors social norms - like not murdering people - above the love they have for someone important to them, be it a child, romantic partner, best friend, mentor, or whatever. If someone you care about violates a strong taboo, I really, really have a hard time faulting anyone for cutting ties there.

OK, but I don't understand why you keep talking about an entirely different issue than I am trying to talk about. If you want to shun murderers and thieves, I've really got no problem with that. But it has nothing to do with my OP.

For some people, being part of the "wrong" religion is a deal breaker.

Yeah. I think those people are confused. Which wouldn't bother me so much except for the terrible real harm they do to other people by way of that confusion. It's why I'm here trying to debate this issue -- hoping I'll get through to one of them and thereby reduce the suffering they cause. Maybe they'll think twice next time before putting their wrong-thinking child out onto the snow.

For others, they physically cannot stand being around smokers. Others want nothing to do with anyone who has a history of violent crime. Or even petty thievery. Don't blame a one of them for choosing who they want to have relationships with. Why should I?

Why do you insist upon discussing a thing which I have quite directly told you that I am not discussing? I really do find that curious, Quint.

Religious shunning. Wrong belief about ultimate concerns. Wrong ways of thinking.

Do you really think it's OK for a parent to shun his own child for thinking different about life than the parent does?

That doesn't see cruel and wrong-headed to you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Communities, religious and otherwise, which regularly engage in the act of shunning, seem to have no qualms about defending the practice.

 

[Quintessence]

That doesn't see cruel and wrong-headed to you?

I understand that the force that drives this is a component of a larger framework that is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of human behaviors and societies. That's why I keep bringing up parallels that you think are "irrelevant" to the discussion. They have the same root, and I think in terms of big pictures. And the big picture is, everybody has and is governed by various social norms and values. Everybody uses these values and judgements to guide their behavior, including but not limited to the kinds of relationships they have with other people. Human civilization would completely fall apart without social norms that govern behavior.

Although I could point out how your own perspectives on this are inescapably tribalistic and socially normative, I really don't want to make this too personal. Instead I would invite consideration of a live-and-let-live approach instead of judgmental statements like this one above.

 

[Tumah]

I did. See the other thread.

Oh. When I click on the topic in My Replies it brings me to the last post, so you probably posted it on a previous page and I missed it.

Oh boy. Not much experience in moral debate, I guess?

I'm not sure there is any use to debating subjective moral standards. That's the subjective part of it.

If I declared that skinning children alive was immoral, you would simply state that you consider it moral and that's that? End of debate?

Theoretically. What is the point of your declaration? Are you trying to tell me what I should believe? Are you trying to gain a new perspective? Are you simply looking to hone your debate skill?

J'accuse. Othodox Jews are immoral to sit shiva over their children who intellectually stray from OJ. As bad as slavers.

What do you say?

I respond that your position is not intellectually honest because you are perceiving the action through your subjective lens rather than learning what is actually going on. That is no different than seeing a mother getting a dead fetus removed from her and calling her a murderess...without first finding out if the child is endangering her life or even already dead.

First find out the context, then make the decision.

Oh, I doubt the parents are honest enough to phrase it that way. I suspect they load on the guilt. "You don't love us! How could you betray us! If you don't come back into the fold, we will banish you!"

That's more likely how it goes down. But of course, it's really about the kid holding to his own intellectual integrity. He can't force himself to believe that Biblical nonsense. He can't. Not and be honest about things. So he gets banished from his tribe for holding to his own intellectual integrity. Sad stuff. And obviously immoral behavior on the parents' part.

You present an interesting version of events. I wonder if you believe it is possible that you are missing some key points of information that might lead to an alternate story.

Also, I'm not sure something can be "obviously immoral". That's subjective morality for you.

It's so funny. Every time I mount an unanswerable argument, I am sure to be accused of ignorance. So much easier to do that than to actually address and defend one's immoral stance, I guess.

Maybe its not because you are mounting unanswerable arguments but because your are creating straw-men out of ignorance. If you don't mind the unsolicited advice: consider making it your practice to learn the background behind a given idea and then mounting an argument with that information. I think it will help give credence to your arguments.

How about it? Can you defend the practice of religious shunning?

I cannot defend the practice of religious shunning. I can explain the reason for Jewish shunning:

1. The [Orthodox] Jewish belief system includes a number of requirements that must be fulfilled in order to be considered part of the Jewish people. There are caveats of course. But let's take the case of a normal Orthodox Jew who grows up without any psychological trauma or resentment to his parents and makes a conscious decision to stop fulfilling the Commandments. The Commandments represent a treaty between G-d and the Jewish people. Someone who forsakes this treaty is considered to have forsaken his nation. In other words, he has decided he doesn't want to be a part of the Jewish people anymore.

2. The [Orthodox] Jewish belief system includes a strong and well-defined belief in the soul. It is not some nebulous idea, but an intrinsic part of the system of the Jewish religion. Judaism doesn't just believe in the existence of the soul, it lives with it It represents the Divine aspect of the person, the part that connects him to G-d and also, to the rest of his people. And aspect of every Jewish soul is believed to be in every other Jew. The Commandments are intrinsically tied to the soul in a formal system. 248 metaphorical limbs of the soul parallel the 248 positive Commandments and 365 metaphorical sinews of the soul parallel the 365 negative commandments.

3. All that being said, when an Orthodox Jewish person of sound mind makes the conscious decision to leave the Commandments behind him, he is not just betraying his parents, he is making the decision to cut his soul off of the Jewish people, the treaty between the Jewish nation and G-d and G-d Himself (until such time as he returns). Sitting shiva is because of the recognition that this child has committed a spiritual suicide no different than the physical. Indeed according to some authorities, when the child dies, the relatives have to sit shiva for twice as long- 14 days, 7 for the body and 7 for the soul.

It has nothing to do with the intellectual honesty of the person. It has nothing to do with feelings of resentment. I imagine most healthy parents would be beyond broken-hearted over losing their child. Losing a parent is a natural part of life -not easy but we are somewhat conditioned to expecting that. Losing a child that you've known for so long... it has no words. But for Orthodox Judaism, the spiritual loss of this child is an inescapable reality no less real than the physical loss of a grandparent. And just like the latter is recognized, so is the former.

Did you know that it's part of the formal definition of a 'cult'? Cults weed out anyone who strays from the groupthink. Even if the strayer is a member's own child.

You see nothing wrong with that?

"Religion" and "cult" are labels. You could define a cult as a form of religion. I'm not sure what the difference is besides for the derogatory connotation of "cult".
But just because there are religions that I perceive as wrong, does not mean that mine is wrong. And this is logical: let's say there really is a G-d and He really did create a religion around Him. Then 99 other religions crop up. Does that mean that since 99% of religions are false the religion that this G-d created is also false?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I understand that the force that drives this is a component of a larger framework that is an intrinsic and unavoidable part of human behaviors and societies. That's why I keep bringing up parallels that you think are "irrelevant" to the discussion. They have the same root, and I think in terms of big pictures. And the big picture is, everybody has and is governed by various social norms and values. Everybody uses these values and judgements to guide their behavior, including but not limited to the kinds of relationships they have with other people. Human civilization would completely fall apart without social norms that govern behavior.

Sounds sad to me, Quint. Really it does. I am a poet and prophet of God. I have no love for authority, for the way-things-are, for normal behavior, or for any sort of crowd-think.

I see that as fear, really. Fear of going outside of normalcy. What bugs me is the fear can be so strong as to make a person destroy his own child's life -- just because the parent is gripping tightly with both hands to the 'social norm', terrified of thinking on his own or following his heart.

I say it's a weakness and can be fixed.

Although I could point out how your own perspectives on this are inescapably tribalistic and socially normative, I really don't want to make this too personal.

No, you really can't do that. But you are welcome to try. You have my permission to be personal.

Instead I would invite consideration of a live-and-let-live approach instead of judgmental statements like this one above.

Hey, some say it is judgmental of me to condemn the keeping of slaves. That I should just live and let live. If people want to keep slaves, what business is it of mine.

Call me self-righteous, even moralistic, but I'm willing to argue that they should stop keeping slaves. Just as the OJ should stop sitting shiva for their children who think incorrectly about ultimate concerns.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not sure there is any use to debating subjective moral standards. That's the subjective part of it.

So you've got nothing to say against slavery or murder? Rape? You wouldn't be willing to argue for the immorality of those things?

If not, I'd consider you to be an immoral person. My God says we all have an obligation to join the moral debate. Seriously, how could you live with yourself knowing that you had held your silence when a young man asked you about the morality of killing -- only to have him go out and kill a bunch of innocent people?

Theoretically. What is the point of your declaration? Are you trying to tell me what I should believe?

Absolutely. If you believe that skinning young innocent children is perfectly fine, I will try to convince you to believe otherwise. Call me self-righteous if you must, but there you have it.

Your system of morality has nothing to do with preventing harm, suffering and death to other people? Maybe for you morality is just about reciting the proper holy words in the proper order and intonation? Or believing the right thing about God? (Serious questions. I know nothing about you except that you claim to be Orthodox Jewish.)

Are you trying to gain a new perspective? Are you simply looking to hone your debate skill?

Those, too. But mostly I'm trying to save innocent children from being skinned alive or from being shunned by their parents.

I respond that your position is not intellectually honest because you are perceiving the action through your subjective lens rather than learning what is actually going on.

So just more accusations of my ignorance? That's what you offer me? You have seemed like a fairly-competent thinker so far, a good writer, and admirably well-behaved. I have great hope for you as a debater. Please don't disappoint.

That is no different than seeing a mother getting a dead fetus removed from her and calling her a murderess...without first finding out if the child is endangering her life or even already dead.

You seem confused. I'm not talking about any specific instance of child shunning. I'm talking about the practice itself. It's ugly unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

You present an interesting version of events. I wonder if you believe it is possible that you are missing some key points of information that might lead to an alternate story.

Still my ignorance. Excuse me while I try to suppress this yawn.

Also, I'm not sure something can be "obviously immoral". That's subjective morality for you.

Actually I'm a prophet of God. Sorry. I should have informed you earlier. My bad. I hope you're not claiming that God (through Me) cannot assert the obvious immorality of various behaviors?

Maybe its not because you are mounting unanswerable arguments but because your are creating straw-men out of ignorance. If you don't mind the unsolicited advice: consider making it your practice to learn the background behind a given idea and then mounting an argument with that information. I think it will help give credence to your arguments.

More AmbigGuy ignorance. So curious how weak debaters love that one. The other day I found myself surrounded by a pack of Historical Jesusers. (I don't think the guy actually existed in first-century Judea, but that's not Holy Revelation... just my human opinion.)

You're ignorant; you're ignorant; you're ignorant, came the cry from all directions.

Not really, but maybe so. Let’s test it by debating the historical Jesus, I invited.

Oh, you are so ignorant! they exclaimed. Too ignorant for us to engage you in debate!

Alas, you are reminding me of that just now. Proclaiming my unreadiness and inadequacy to engage the battle even as you edge away, away, away from the fight.

Come on. Please don’t disappoint. Face the issue with me. Just for fun, imagine that I am a superduper doubledogged genius who knows virtually everything about everything. Save your accusations of ignorance until I actually show some ignorance.

1. The [Orthodox] Jewish belief system includes a number of requirements that must be fulfilled in order to be considered part of the Jewish people. There are caveats of course. But let's take the case of a normal Orthodox Jew who grows up without any psychological trauma or resentment to his parents and makes a conscious decision to stop fulfilling the Commandments. The Commandments represent a treaty between G-d and the Jewish people. Someone who forsakes this treaty is considered to have forsaken his nation. In other words, he has decided he doesn't want to be a part of the Jewish people anymore.

Irrelevant to my OP. If the child has decided to banish himself from his family and tribe, that's not shunning. That's self-banishment.

3. All that being said, when an Orthodox Jewish person of sound mind makes the conscious decision to leave the Commandments behind him, he is not just betraying his parents, he is making the decision to cut his soul off of the Jewish people, the treaty between the Jewish nation and G-d and G-d Himself (until such time as he returns). Sitting shiva is because of the recognition that this child has committed a spiritual suicide no different than the physical. Indeed according to some authorities, when the child dies, the relatives have to sit shiva for twice as long- 14 days, 7 for the body and 7 for the soul.

Sure, it's all the kid's fault. Even though he is shoved kicking and screaming from his parents' arms, it's still his fault that he's being shunned.

What a bizarre rationalization. It's the kid's fault for thinking wrong, not our fault for banishing a wrong-thinker.

Yikes. Can't see that tribalism may be the problem here? Personally I look forward to the day when there are no more Jews. Or Catholics. Or Muslims. Or atheists.

The shunning problem will disappear along with them.

It has nothing to do with the intellectual honesty of the person.

Of course it does. Obviously that's all it has to do with. He can't continue to believe that a 2,500-year-old Book contains the literal Words of God, and for that he gets banished.

Or are you saying that he could just lie to his parents and community and avoid being shunned? Yeah, I'll bet there's a lot of that going on, come to think of it. Like a homosexual in Uganda who must remain in the closet lest he be murdered.

(Of course it's the homosexual's fault. He made the decision to be homosexual and all. He should probably be ashamed for forcing the government or his neighbors to kill him.)

It has nothing to do with feelings of resentment.

I agree. More to do with intellectual/spiritual fear and rigidity.

I imagine most healthy parents would be beyond broken-hearted over losing their child.

Sure. That's the twisted immoral part -- that a parent could allow rigidity of thought and tribalism to override love of his own child. Very scary stuff. Unhealthy for everyone.

But for Orthodox Judaism, the spiritual loss of this child is an inescapable reality no less real than the physical loss of a grandparent. And just like the latter is recognized, so is the former.

I wish you'd stop with that 'spiritual' business. I don't care if the parents shun their children spiritually. I'm talking about shunning them physically.

"Religion" and "cult" are labels.

Sure. So is 'shunning.'

You could define a cult as a form of religion. I'm not sure what the difference is besides for the derogatory connotation of "cult".

You might want to do a bit of reading. (Not calling you ignorant or anything, of course, winkwink.) As I say, people who are serious about cults have much more practical guidelines for judging cults... thought-control by the leader(s) being the main one. Sometimes there's also standardized dress, enforced isolation of the members, etc. And of course shunning behavior is a big part of all cults.

And this is logical: let's say there really is a G-d and He really did create a religion around Him. Then 99 other religions crop up. Does that mean that since 99% of religions are false the religion that this G-d created is also false?

Um... no idea what you are talking about here. My religion is true even though 99.9999999% of humanity doesn't follow it.

 

[savagewind]

Oh. When I click on the topic in My Replies it brings me to the last post, so you probably posted it on a previous page and I missed it.

I did this for the longest time until I discovered there is a link for you to the "last read post". It's keeping track.

 

[savagewind]

The way I see it is the OP is not so much about an individual shunning another individual. The shunning for differences of world view as an institution is bad.

The reason I see it as bad is it discourages individuality and encourages dishonesty.