Is "disfellowshipping" good or bad?

[marco]

I've just read a BBC story of a young girl who was in an abusive relationship with her partner but was refused permission to remove herself from it by her religious elders. She suffered broken ribs. Work colleagues, seeing her bruises, persuaded her to go to the police so she was "disfellowshipped." Her father woke her at 7am and threw her out; none of her family speak to her. However, work colleagues have shown her remarkable kindness and support, in true Samaritan style.

Apostasy in Islam is also harshly treated, the apostate sometimes being killed.

Are there good reasons for shunning those who do not comply with religious rules?
Are religious duties stronger than family ties?
Does the story, like Christ's parable, tell us anything about belief and behaviour?

[Kenisaw]

I've just read a BBC story of a young girl who was in an abusive relationship with her partner but was refused permission to remove herself from it by her religious elders. She suffered broken ribs. Work colleagues, seeing her bruises, persuaded her to go to the police so she was "disfellowshipped." Her father woke her at 7am and threw her out; none of her family speak to her. However, work colleagues have shown her remarkable kindness and support, in true Samaritan style.

Apostasy in Islam is also harshly treated, the apostate sometimes being killed.

Are there good reasons for shunning those who do not comply with religious rules?
Are religious duties stronger than family ties?
Does the story, like Christ's parable, tell us anything about belief and behaviour?

There's no good reason for any of this, and I can only hope that no one on this website, believer or atheist, would attempt to defend such actions in any way, shape, or form...

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

The source of this practice stems from:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

[marco]

There's no good reason for any of this, and I can only hope that no one on this website, believer or atheist, would attempt to defend such actions in any way, shape, or form...

I took the trouble to find out if people DO defend the practice and of course they do. It is an example of putting one's theoretical ideas about religion above one's own family. Abraham - that biblical pillar - was prepared to murder his son because his religious outlook told him so.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

The source of this practice stems from:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Well it stems from an interpretation of this advice. The RC Church takes the "Truly, I say to you" statement as binding people in the bonds of a sacrament, such as marriage; or offering forgiveness - loosening sins - in Penance.

It is astounding that people can be so persuaded they are right that they would shun their own children. "Harden not your hearts", says the Bible, while inviting people to do just that.

[bluethread]

There's no good reason for any of this, and I can only hope that no one on this website, believer or atheist, would attempt to defend such actions in any way, shape, or form...

Yours is a common knee jerk reaction to a worst case scenario. The problem is the reasoning, not the practice per se. "Disfellowshipping" is a common practice in all societies in many ways, shapes and forms. In my community, an abusive spouse would be ostracized and removed from the home until it could be determined that such behavior would not continue. Is this a way, shape and form of "disfellowshipping" you approve of. If not, how else should one deal with an abusive spouse?

[Kenisaw]

There's no good reason for any of this, and I can only hope that no one on this website, believer or atheist, would attempt to defend such actions in any way, shape, or form...

I took the trouble to find out if people DO defend the practice and of course they do. It is an example of putting one's theoretical ideas about religion above one's own family. Abraham - that biblical pillar - was prepared to murder his son because his religious outlook told him so.

That's why I said "on this website". I fully agree there are all sorts of people in the world who feel empowered by some source to involve themselves into the affairs of others, and/or to infringe on another's rights in the name of their dogma...

[bluethread]

I fully agree there are all sorts of people in the world who feel empowered by some source to involve themselves into the affairs of others, and/or to infringe on another's rights in the name of their dogma...

What right are you referring to? The right to require people to interact with you? Where does one find that right?

[marco]

There's no good reason for any of this, and I can only hope that no one on this website, believer or atheist, would attempt to defend such actions in any way, shape, or form...

Yours is a common knee jerk reaction to a worst case scenario. The problem is the reasoning, not the practice per se. "Disfellowshipping" is a common practice in all societies in many ways, shapes and forms. In my community, an abusive spouse would be ostracized and removed from the home until it could be determined that such behavior would not continue. Is this a way, shape and form of "disfellowshipping" you approve of. If not, how else should one deal with an abusive spouse?

If one interprets "disfellowshipping" as ostracizing violent people then good and well. I think it carries a specific meaning among certain religious groups and the consequences are quite heartbreaking, since people are shunned by their families not necessarily for anything brutal they have done, but for some infringement of a religious rule.

[Kenisaw]

I fully agree there are all sorts of people in the world who feel empowered by some source to involve themselves into the affairs of others, and/or to infringe on another's rights in the name of their dogma...

What right are you referring to? The right to require people to interact with you? Where does one find that right?

What? What field did that come out of? I'm talking about the people that force others to stay in abusive relationships in this particular context, which deny's an individual their rights as a human being.

If you still feel the need to expound on whatever it is you are discussing, please let me know and I will be happy to chat with you about it...