Help -Legal rights of Witnesses?

by sammielee24 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  The very name - Jehovahs Witness - would imply that when a person is one of that religion, it is his belief that in order to be part of the religion he must give witness.

  Why is it then that a person who was baptized as a JW, but then da'd or df'd by the Organization is not allowed to practice his faith? To witness? People are cast out and told that the privilege of witnessing is no longer theirs, but given the 'freedom to worship' in the USA, is this not against the right of all people to practice freedom of their religion if they so choose? Why do we only hear about the Societies 'right to religious freedom' but not the average persons 'rights to religious worship'? As far as I'm aware, the policy of an organization has no right to strip one of their right to worship and witnessing is part of that worship - and this witnessing is used in many a family daily to reinforce their faith.

  A person df'd or da'd is, by the WTS, apparently deemed 'no longer one of jehovahs witnesses'. That being the case, then there should be no problem in expunging the files of any person who they turf out - for what reason would an organization have to keep them if they do not consider the person a JW any longer?

  I know people who have been refused reinstatement because of pettiness and bullying from Elders who have a personal issue with the person. I happened upon a document where an elder in a reinstatement case, pretty well implied that because the df'd person married an unbeliever, that they wouldn't be getting back any time soon if ever. Now - the way I see it, refusing to allow one to practice one's faith based on 'who' they marry, is (trying to use a parallel) like refusing to allow a mixed race couple in to eat at your restaurant. It's illegal. What legal recourse? sammieswife.

  The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. It proclaimed:

  "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
• 

  jgnat

  The whole freedom of religion angle means that the courts and the laws of the land will not interfere with the internal workings of a religion. The secular view is that anyone can walk away at any time. Lose their priveledges and rights within the organization? Who would care but those within?

  A JW has recourse through the torts system of law. That is, if they can prove damages, they can sue.
• 

  blondie

  There was a group known as "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" legally and that is why the WTS no longer calls "Jehovah's Witnesses" "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." Take a look at how this drops off on the WT-CD by 1980.

  Also there is a group called "Jesus Witnesses."

  There is no restriction on being "God's Witnesses."

  And why would there be a restriction regarding calling one's speech about God, "witnessing." The WTS certain has no legal right to that.

  Blondie
• 

  compound complex

  Dear Sammilee,

  I don't imagine there's any harm in posting this WT quotation a second time in one week. It still has me baffled; I have an idea what's involved with Christianity, but I haven't clue what the WT's up to:

  "A basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ and so forth...Simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." -- WT 4/1/86, p. 31

  I guess Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit must defer to the "Slave." After all, hasn't the slave become [in his mind] greater than the Master?

  Confused and Bewildered,

  Compound-Complex
• 

  sammielee24

  A JW has recourse through the torts system of law. That is, if they can prove damages, they can sue.

  I guess I'm a little amazed that there hasn't been a class action suit against the WTS for all those who were raised under their rules, especially prior to 1975. The brainwashing was complete for all of those and still is and for all of those people who did not go to college on direction of the WTS, who sold their homes, who left their jobs believing that the world was ending in 1975. People who are left now with no financial means should be compensated perhaps by the millions of dollars in assets the WTS has because of the WT action in relation to that time. This went beyond mere faith - the society now is in a position to right their wrong monetarily and I'm surprised they haven't been forced to do so. sammieswife.

  I
• 

  sammielee24

  "A basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses

  Thanks Co-co. I see the meaning is heavily weighted with the word 'approved'. Now - as I said before, if a baptized JW wishes to become 'reinstated' into the 'approved' fellowship, but is denied that fellowship (ie worship as per their belief) on the basis of divorce and marriage to a non believer, then I see that as nothing more than prejudice. To me it's like saying, I make the rules of you eating here in my restaurant and I say because you are divorced that goes against my rules. My rules supercede the legal rules of the land. The 'approved' fellowship status relates directly to those members, including family members within the group who are ordered to shun and cut off every person who is not 'approved'. This can have financial, health, medical, emotional and physical repercussion for those both in and out. Once can argue that a person can opt out at any time, but for those raised in it and brainwashed in it their whole lives, this has quite possibly a whole different outcome. I further question why the society if it declares one 'no longer one of jehovahs witnesses', continues to retain the records of the individual and try to continue to enact punishment against those family and friends who keep in contact with the non witness. Perhaps it is time that the society was not allowed to continue to use the 'right of religious freedom' clause in calling out anyone's name in their halls with any implied status because we all know the implied threat to other members should they associate with the person of that name. sammieswife.
• 

  La Capra

  Those civil rights are protected only when the GOVERNMENT tries to impede them. Private citizens, religions, individuals, etc. can infringe away. The courts will step in only when the government is acting (or a case can be made that private action was for the government-like company towns keeping the JWs from going door -to-door.). There is quite a bit of expansion into the private sector here, but mainly through education (private schools) and through private employers (but the courts make it government action through the Interstate Commerce Clause).

  The WBTS can infringe away, since it is not acting as an agent for the government. The only thing the constitution prohibits an individual from doing is owning a slave. Everything else in the constitution is prohibitions on what the GOVERNMENT can do.

  Hope this clears up why people can't sue WBTS for infringing on free exercise of religion.

  Shoshana
• 

  blondie

  Good points, Shoshana.