Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a policy for shunning former members? The Watchtower lawyers present arguments to the Belgian court system that it is an individual choice whether to shun family. However, this podcast provides excellent proof from their own written publications that they have a system of teaching their adherents to shun former members. In fact, the Watchtower, Bible & Tract Society has a long history of influencing its members to comply with their teachings even at the cost of dividing families and long-time friendships.

https://foref-europe.org/blog/2021/03/19/belgium-the-decision-of-the-court-of-ghent-against-jehovahs-witnesses/

The following links pertain to written comments by Dr. Introvigne, a defender of JW's who disagrees with the Belgium court:

PART ONE
https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-fined-in-ghent-for-their-ostracism-a-wrong-decision/

PART TWO
https://bitterwinter.org/the-ghent-jehovahs-witnesses-decision-dangers-for-religious-liberty/

PART THREE
https://bitterwinter.org/the-ghent-jehovahs-witness-decision-dangerous-for-all-religions/

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Case
On 16 February, a trial started against the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (CCJW) at the criminal court of Ghent (East Flanders) on the alleged grounds of discrimination and incitement to hatred with a particular focus on their shunning (ostracization) practice in cases of disfellowshipping (exclusion) and disassociation (voluntary resignation).

A former Jehovah’s Witness who had voluntarily left the movement in 2011, filed a criminal complaint against the CCJW in 2015, and managed to have it supported by over a dozen more former Jehovah’s Witnesses.

According to the internal religious practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses, when the elders of a local congregation exclude a member or are notified about a voluntary resignation, they make a short neutral public announcement which states: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. The CCJW is not involved in the making of that neutral announcement but is notified about the decision.

In their conclusions provided to the Court before the trial, they said that they do not segregate excluded or resigning members as these can always attend their religious services. They also point out that baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses who no longer actively associate with fellow believers, are not shunned.

Clarifying the relations between Jehovah’s Witnesses and disfellowshipped or disassociated family members, they say: “In the immediate household, although the ‘religious ties’ the expelled or disassociated person had with his family change, … blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.” In other words, normal family affection and association continues.

In addition, the CCJW had provided the Court with nine statements of individuals who had been excluded and who had since been reinstated as Jehovah’s Witnesses. In their testimonies, they explained how they had been fairly treated by congregation elders, family, and others in the congregation when they were excluded.

The social distancing doctrine stated and practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses in Belgium and all other countries was fixed by their Central College in the United States on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible

Support the show