by drew sagan 74 Replies latest jw friends
congratulations to you and your wife. Sounds like you really handled it well.
But in this case, I have to agree with Dawg: I would have busted that son of a bit** right in the mouth.
Anyway, we are celebrating our 1st year as disfellowshipped ones, and I wouldn't have it any other way. So many of those people are just horrible humans.
Brant and Karen
Drew..Your wife is disfellowshipped for having a membership at the YMCA???.....Did`t AuldSaul/Brandon get DisfellowShipped for making too big a deal about the WBT$ membership in the United Nations-NGO???..........WBT$,do you really wonder why people think you run an Idiot Cult?..WBT$ if you haven`t figured it out yet,I`ll tell you why..It`s because you run an Idiot Cult!..Your a bunch of morons!..
..LOL!!..People around the world,read about your stupidity every day..JW`s are leaving your cult,new recruits are few and far between..And..It`s only going to get worse.....WBT$ Congratulations on the Pedophile Victims Payout!..It Tarnished your already,Rotten Reputation..I hear theres going to be more Pedophile Victims taking you to court..You`ll lose again..And..We`ll make sure the entire planet finds out..I promise..LOL!!...OUTLAW
Congrats to you both, how are you feeling about it? I think the way they went about D\F your wife was very harsh, such tools
es
Congratulation to the both of you. You will finally feel refresh without the pressure of the cult. You both deserve a break and some relaxation. So, hey ... ... why don't you both join the YMCA. :)
ds and ar:
congrats...I hope you are able to pull the rest of your family out of the burning building called WTBT$.. The Borg must be paranoid if a little think like a Y membership (which barely got a mention in the Craptower years ago) causes them to piss their collective pants. I wonder how many R&F dubs (esp new ones) know they cant join the Y?
I think the only reason to appeal is to have some fun with the bastards. (I hope Elder B is really a good guy and sees the light). Make sure to bring those recorders into the appeals committee. And by the way, dont let them tell you that you cant, but if the appeals committee upholds the original committee's decision, appeal it to the Society. They dont tell you that you can, but you can (and they are supposed to hold the announcement in abeyance until it is finally resolved).
Speak to a lawyer about the possibility of suing these elders for slander. I'd make it quite clear to them that it's not the Organization you're suing----it's them personally which will cost them alot of cha-ching in lawyers fees. And if they think 'mother' would help them out financially, they're dreaming.
Regarding lawyers, just remember, its not worth the hassle financially...unless you are made of money, in which case, can I have some? The elders may have to pay for lawyers, but the FREE Borg Lawyers who fight in front of the US Supreme court and have a pretty good record and have already set precedent on this issue (see below....at least in lower courts) regarding D/F...its their religious right to boot whomever they wish.......YOU have to PAY for A lawyer, likely never in front of the highest court in the land...and likely wont win unless there is a dramatic shift in mindset in the federal court system. ...NOT worth the hassle for you......
NO MATTER WHAT, ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM...I WISH I WAS READY TO MAKE THE LEAP. ...best wishes...and hope to hear more from you hear.
SnakesInTheTower (of the "not making meetings hardly at all" Sheep Class)
REFERENCES/QUOTES:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/Disfellowship-shunning-1.htm
The Court Decision
16 You may want to know the outcome of the court case involving a woman who was upset because former acquaintances would not converse with her after she chose to reject the faith, disassociating herself from the congregation.
17 Before the case went to trial, a federal district court summarily granted judgment against her. That judgment was based on the concept that courts do not get involved in church disciplinary matters. She then appealed. The unanimous judgment of the federal court of appeals was based on broader grounds of First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) rights: “Because the practice of shunning is a part of the faith of the Jehovah's Witness, we find that the ‘free exercise' provision of the United States Constitution . . . precludes [her] from prevailing. The defendants have a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in the practice of shunning. Accordingly, we affirm” the earlier judgment of the district court.
18 The court opinion continued: “Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah's Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs . . . Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church. Churches are afforded great latitude when they impose discipline on members or former members. We agree with [former U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Jackson's view that ‘[r]eligious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free—as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.' . . . The members of the Church [she] decided to abandon have concluded that they no longer want to associate with her. We hold that they are free to make that choice.”
19 The court of appeals acknowledged that even if the woman felt distress because former acquaintances chose not to converse with her, “permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses free exercise of religion . . . The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by [her] as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.” This decision has, in a sense, received even more weight since it was handed down. How so? The woman later petitioned the highest court in the land to hear the case and possibly overturn the decision against her. But in November 1987, the United States Supreme Court refused to do so.
20 Hence, this important case determined that a disfellowshipped or disassociated person cannot recover damages from Jehovah's Witnesses in a court of law for being shunned. Since the congregation was responding to the perfect directions that all of us can read in God's Word and applying it, the person is feeling a loss brought on by his or her own actions
and more specifically this at the end of a letter posted on RandyTV.com from the BorgLegalDepartment to someone who disagreed with them is found at http://www.randytv.com/secret/dfletter1987.htm
Janice Paul (Perez) v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al., decision rendered June 16, 1985, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Spokane; Howard Bates v Kingdom Hall, et al., decision rendered July 24, 1985, by the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio; dismissal of theocratic issues affirmed by Court of Appeals of Montgomery County, Ohio, on March 6, 1986; Timothy Tauvar v Bar Harbor Congregation, et al,, 633 F. Supp. 741 (D.Me. 1985), dismissal affirmed, 787 F.2d 579 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, January 12, 1987, by Supreme Court of the United States; Joseph E. Maes and Veta Maes v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, et al., decision rendered May 1, 1985, by the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento; Ray Rasmussen and Pauline Rasmssen n v. Larry C. Bennett, et al decision rendered September 9, 1986, by the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Toole; and Maurice E. Cassels v. Elders of the Sunnyslope Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, et al , decision rendered April 19, 1983, by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
"If you think you can hold on just so you can talk to mommy and daddy think again"
That line just makes my blood boil... and they wonder why we call them a cult.
I would love to round up the hard@$$ elders and put them in front of a JC. If they imposed the same restrictions upon themselves as they do for others, they would be d'fd. Hell, the GB would be the first to go with their application to the UN.
You know, it might be fun to just call the service desk at the borg headquarters and ask to speak to someone about this. Wonder what they would answer?
Be something like "no comment".
Sorry to hear what you had to go through, but what a relief to be out! Enjoy your life!
Swalker
If you want to really piss them off- appeal. And make sure to emphasize the "mommy and daddy" comment to the appeal committee. You might get it overturned. But it would definately embarass the a*****e who likes his power.
Drew and wife,
Congrads. "Free at last.....free at last......."
You guys did the best you could.....
The Elders did not pray when they met with me, either. Refused. Considering the group: not that strange. One of the things that mark the pastors I enteract with is this: they pray A :LOT.
Keep the board posted on your progress.
Yours in this Journey,
V
Drew and Amber: What you did took great courage. I hope your respective families will not take the hard-nosed WT position. I hope they love both of you enough to keep the lines of communication open. Congratulations and best of luck to you.
