Shunning

==In religion==

===Christianity===
{{Main|Excommunication}}

====Anabaptism====
{{Main|Anabaptist theology#Church discipline}}
Certain sects of the [[Amish]]—an [[Anabaptist]] community—practice shunning or ''meidung''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Why do the Amish practice shunning?|publisher=Amish America|url=http://amishamerica.com/why-do-the-amish-practice-shunning/}}</ref> Historically, the [[Schwarzenau Brethren]] practiced a form of shunning that they called "avoidance," a refusal to eat with even a family member whom the church had placed in "avoidance."<ref>{{cite book|author=Carl F Bowman|title=Brethren Society: The Cultural Transformation of a Peculiar People|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|year=1995|page=90-91}}</ref>

====Catholicism====
Prior to the [[Code of Canon Law of 1983]], in rare cases (known as excommunication ''[[Vitandus|vitandi]]'') the [[Catholic Church]] expected adherents to shun an [[excommunication|excommunicated]] member in secular matters. 

In 1983, the distinction between ''vitandi'' and others (''tolerandi'') was abolished, and thus the expectation is not made anymore.<ref>{{cite CE1913|wstitle=Excommunication|first=Auguste |last=Boudinhon|volume=5}}</ref>

====Jehovah's Witnesses====
{{Main|Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline}}
{{See also|Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Discipline}}
[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] practice a form of shunning which they refer to as "[[Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#Disfellowshipping|disfellowshipping]]".{{sfn|Holden|2002|pp=[https://archive.org/details/jehovahswitnesse00andr/page/32 32, 78-79]}} A disfellowshipped person is not to be greeted either socially or at their meetings. Disfellowshipping follows a decision of a judicial committee established by a local congregation that a member is unrepentantly guilty of a "serious sin".

Sociologist Andrew Holden's research indicates that many Witnesses who would otherwise defect because of disillusionment with the organization and its teachings retain affiliation out of fear of being shunned and losing contact with friends and family members.{{sfn|Holden|2002|pp=[https://archive.org/details/jehovahswitnesse00andr/page/250 250–270]}}

===Judaism===
{{Main|Herem (censure)}}
[[Herem (censure)|Cherem]] is the highest ecclesiastical censure in the [[Jew]]ish community. It is the total exclusion of a person from the Jewish community. It is still used in the [[Haredi Judaism|Ultra-Orthodox]] and [[Hasidic Judaism|Hasidic]] community. In the 21st century, sexual abuse victims and their families who have reported abuse to civil authorities have experienced shunning in the Orthodox communities of New York<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse] The New York Times, 9 May 2012</ref> and Australia.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community Rabbis' absolute power: how sex abuse tore apart Australia's Orthodox Jewish community] The Guardian, 18 February 2015</ref> Orthodox Jewish men who [[Get (divorce document)#Mesorevet get (Get refusal)|refuse to grant their wives a divorce]] are sometimes subject to shunning or shaming, as a form of social pressure intended to compel the husband to allow his [[Agunah#Mesorevet get (Get refusal)|wife]] to leave the marriage. This pressure can take the form of refusing to allow the husband to perform certain religious rituals in the synagogue, refusing his business in commerce, [[legal responses to agunah|legal solutions]] such as restraining orders, and public shaming.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stomel |first1=Rachel |title=A prying shame: The public scrutiny of get refusers |url=https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-prying-shame-the-public-scrutiny-of-get-refusers/ |website=The Times of Israel |access-date=11 January 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Lefkowitz Brooks |first1=Jacob Joseph |title=Rabbis, others demonstrate against 'get refuser' while he is sitting shiva |url=https://shalhevetboilingpoint.com/torah/2019/08/29/rabbis-others-demonstrate-against-get-refuser-while-he-is-sitting-shiva/ |access-date=11 January 2023 |work=Shalhevet Boiling Point |date=August 29, 2019}}</ref>

===Baháʼí faith===
{{Main|Covenant breaker}}
Members of the [[Baháʼí Faith]] are expected to shun those that have been declared [[Covenant-breaker]]s, and expelled from the religion,<ref>{{cite book |title = The origins of the Bahá'í community of Canada, 1898-1948 | first = Willy Carl | last = Van den Hoonaard | publisher = Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press | year = 1996 |isbn = 978-0-88920-272-6 | page = 107}}</ref> by the [[Baháʼí administration|head of their faith]].<ref name="PSmith">{{cite book |last = Smith |first = P. |year = 1999 |title = A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith |publisher = Oneworld Publications |location = Oxford, UK |pages = [https://archive.org/details/conciseencyclope0000smit/page/114 114–116] |isbn = 978-1-85168-184-6 |url = https://archive.org/details/conciseencyclope0000smit/page/114 }}</ref> Covenant-breakers are defined as leaders of schismatic groups that resulted from [[Baháʼí divisions|challenges to legitimacy of Baháʼí leadership]], as well as those who follow or refuse to shun them.<ref name="PSmith"/> Unity is considered the highest value in the Baháʼí Faith, and any attempt at schism by a Baháʼí is considered a spiritual sickness, and a negation of that for which the religion stands.<ref name="PSmith" />

===Church of Scientology===
{{details|Disconnection (Scientology)}}
The [[Church of Scientology]] asks its members to quit all communication with [[suppressive person]]s (those whom the Church deems antagonistic to Scientology). The practice of shunning in Scientology is termed [[Disconnection (Scientology)|disconnection]]. Members can disconnect from any person they already know, including existing family members. Many examples of this policy's application have been established in court.<ref>Judgement of Mr Justice Latey, Re: B & G (Minors) (Custody) Delivered in the High Court
(Family Division), London, 23 July 1984</ref><ref name="sinister">{{cite news The Times |title=Judge brands Scientology 'sinister' as mother is given custody of children |date=24 July 1984 |page=3}}</ref><ref name="bmj1971">{{cite journal |date=30 January 1971| pages=297–298| title=News and Notes: Scientology Libel Action|issn=0007-1447|volume=1| pmid=5294085|issue=5743| pmc=1794922|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.5743.297| journal=British Medical Journal}}</ref> It used to be customary to write a "disconnection letter" to the person being disconnected from, and to write a public disconnection notice, but these practices have not continued.<ref name="wallis">{{cite book|last=Wallis|first=Roy|title=The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology|publisher=Heinemann Educational Books|location=London|year=1976|pages=144–145|isbn=978-0-435-82916-2|oclc=310565311|title-link=The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology}}</ref><ref name="acts">Hubbard, L. Ron (23 December 1965) HCO Policy Letter "Suppressive Acts" reproduced in {{cite book |title = Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand and any associated Scientology organisation or bodies in New Zealand; report of the Commission of Inquiry| first1= Sir Guy Richardson |last1=Powles |author2= E. V. Dumbleton |date=30 June 1969|oclc= 147661 |location=Wellington|pages=53–54}}</ref> 

The Church states that typically only people with "false data" about Scientology are antagonistic, so it encourages members to first attempt to provide "true data" to these people. According to official Church statements, disconnection is only used as a last resort and only lasts until the antagonism ceases.<ref>[http://faq.scientology.org/discon.htm What is Disconnection?] (Accessed 5/29/11)</ref> Failure to disconnect from a suppressive person is itself labelled a suppressive act.<ref name="SciEth209">{{Cite book | last = Hubbard | first = L. Ron | title = Introduction to Scientology Ethics (Latin American Spanish ed.) | publisher = Bridge Publications | year = 2007 | page = 209 | isbn = 978-1-4031-4684-7}}</ref> In the United States, the Church has tried to argue in court that disconnection is a constitutionally protected religious practice. However, this argument was rejected because the pressure put on individual Scientologists to disconnect means it is not voluntary.<ref>California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)</ref>