The legality of shunning and my unique circumstance...

by drew sagan 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    I have always had a question as regards to the legality of shunning.

    I know that under the laws of this country (USA) the Witnesses right to have this practice has been granted to them by the law. Wikipedia mentions an important court case that occured:

    In June 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the Witnesses' right to disfellowship those who fail to live by the group's standards and doctrines. In so deciding, it upheld the ruling of a lower court that: "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 . . . 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]

    But there are some aspects of this that are still open, at least that is how it appears to me.

    This case seems to be within the context of an adult member. And even though I do not agree with the practice at all, i can see why it is allowed by the courts.

    On the other hand, I am very curious to get some discussion going about what this means to to minors. Getting kids baptized young so as to come under organization authority early isn't great, but because of parental consent it would be allowed. We know that it does present a trap in the sense that when the child becomes an adult he is subject to all of the phycological pressures put on them by the parents. So because there is consent, legality is not necessarily an issue when both parents are involved.

    But, what if one parent or neither parent of a minor child give consent to the child to become a member of the group?

    I was under 18 years of age when the JWs started to bring me to the Kingdom Hall. I was actually only 15 at the beginning.

    Neither of my parents wanted me to join the group. They allowed me to go, but did not want me joining, and stated so to an Elder that was over my house. This however didn't stop the JWs from working on me to get me to join. I was given encouragement to study with a JW Elder (against my parents wishes) and to hide it from them. They encouraged me not to give them info because they where "opposing" the truth.

    I was baptized at the age of 17, without my parents knowledge. While every JW kid is coerced into joining this religion as a minor, the vast majority are at the parents consent. Mine was not.

    It's really amazing stuff now that I look back. I cannot see how it was legal for that religious group to basically tell a child to act against it's parents wishes. While it was my "choice" to do so, I was a minor at the time.

    I think about being a young kid, bound to all of the organizational rules and policies without my parents ever knowing. I could have been in a Judicial Committee at age 17 without my parents ever even knowing!

    Looking back I see this is what made me somewhat 'untouchable' at the time. I think the Elders realized that since I was a minor they didn't want to rule over me at all. After I got baptized I really spent any time one on one with the Elders at all. They left me alone, and I'm glad for it. But I just can't help but think how crazy of a situation I was in back during the days I was a baptized JW and under 18, all without my parents consent.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Drew,

    Would your desired outcome be something like this: The JW's should allow adults who were baptized as kids without parental consent to revoke their membership in the Watchtower club?

    I guess that might be a possible legal outcome. However, JW's are known for shunning even those who are merely inactive or ex-members. So in spite of the legal outcome, I'd struggle with how this would change the actual social outcome for people like you.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    I've often thought this would be a worthwhile effort.

    The outcome may still be shunning, HOWEVER:

    What if there are punitive consequences for that shunning? Meaning, what if someone sues them civilly and they have to pay a fine for coersion or something to that effect being put on a child who is under the legal age to consent to any contract?

    You know how they are so reactionary when something hits their pocketbooks!

    This could lead them to change the policy and discontinue allowing minors to be baptised. So in the end, yes there would be a sacrificial lamb but for the great end result!

  • mentalclearness
    mentalclearness

    I also was thinking about the legal end of cases like this. I'm actually trying to consult with a friend who is a lawyer about being a minor and committing. But the laws here work different than in the States. Over there it's based on precedents. Here it's based on Laws. Does that make sense??? So find out on your end and I'll ask on my end....I think it's outrageous underage minors are coerced into commiting into any religion.

  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    Yes I was just about to point out your topic about it!

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    I'm sure the Watchtower would fight this tooth and nail to avoid any precedents. So whoever is willing to spend the time and money, more power to that person. If I had been baptized a minor, I would certainly find it worth my while!

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan
    This could lead them to change the policy and discontinue allowing minors to be baptized.

    Of course this would probably only be in cases where the parents where either not in agreement with the child being baptized or had no knowledge. Children whose Parents willingly allowed their children to enter this organization would be out of luck.

    So this still would effect a minority of kids. The most it would do is that the Watchtower would require Elders to get consent from minors who parents are not JWs before they could be baptized. At least that is the way I see it.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Hey, the more lawsuits against WTS, the better.

    I could see a class-action suit for minors who were baptized and are now shunned adults.
    The lawyers would have to find some people whose lives were adversely affected to some
    extreme level- depression, financial ruin, marital chaos.

    I don't see it in the current U.S. courts, but maybe oneday.

    As mentioned, the outcome might just be a ban on minor baptism. Even that would be
    a major victory for us cult-haters. Although I don't know how the lawyers would benefit.
    Remember that the average class-action suit just makes the lawyers rich and offers
    little to the clients.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit