Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DT

  I had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement. (See this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx)

  Most Jehovah's Witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to God. It's really a contract with a publishing company. Consider the wording of the second question that is answered before baptism, "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"

  The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to escape liability from their inhuman treatment of their members by claiming that they agreed to follow their rules by becoming baptised. JW baptism is viewed as a kind of contact between humans and is contrary to the normal intention of baptism.

  If JW baptism is a contract, why aren't both sides required to live up to its terms? The baptised individual gets a pretty raw deal in exchange for getting dunked. All they get is the dubious honor of being known as Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it would appear that this is guaranteed according to the terms of the contract. The only stipulation mentioned is that they are required to get baptised. It's as if they paid for this distinction in full at baptism.

  Yet, if someone is expelled, it is announced that they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Where in the contract does it state that the Watchtower Society can annul their only obligation under the contract? If someone is later reinstated, they are once again viewed as Jehovah's Witnesses without getting baptised again or entering into any new contract. The Watchtower society acts as if the original contract is still valid. If it remains valid, what gives them the right to suspend it at will?

  Some religions have applied shunning as a punishment without actually expelling the individual. If the Watchtower society did this, it wouldn't present a problem in terms of their contract. However, their current procedures could be viewed as a breach of contract and possibly slander.

  I generally support the rights of organisations, including religions, to choose their members within legally defined limits. However, it appears that the Watchtower society has willingly waived this right as part of a contractual agreement in which they receive benefits. They should either live up to the agreement, acknowledge it is invalid, or include language that clarifies the terms and the individual responsibilities.

  What are your thoughts about this?
• 

  Finally-Free

  Consider the wording of the second question that is answered before baptism, "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?"

  That wasn't the question when I got baptized. As far as I'm concerned, the WTS violated the "contract" the moment they changed the question.

  As a rule, I don't enter into contracts where the other party can unilaterally change its terms without my consent or approval.

  W
• 

  flipper

  DT - Because no contract is ever signed ; thus making it legal. JW's should know this one - Remember all the articles we used to get on " Get it in Writing ! " ? It's just a bunch of crap anyway
• 

  wha happened?

  I don't know if my memory serves me right, but I do remember signing something the day I was baptized. Does anyone else remember this?
• 

  Jim_TX

  Any dealings with the WTBTS cannot be viewed as a 'contract'.
  
  The WTBTS (or whatever branch thereof) is organized as a 501(c)(3) organization. You are joining a group... sort of like a user-group.
  
  There are dues (contributions), and membership requirements (baptism is one of these). If you violate their requirements (aka - apostate), they can kick you out of the user-group (aka disfellowshipping).
  
  When I walked away - I quit the 'user-group'.
  
  If you start thinking in these terms - perhaps it can help you a bit better.
  
  Regards,
  
  Jim TX
• 

  Finally-Free

  I don't know if my memory serves me right, but I do remember signing something the day I was baptized. Does anyone else remember this?

  I vaguely remember signing in. It was just a list of baptismal candidates™. It was no "contract". If it were, I would have insisted on having a copy. W
• 

  mustang

  I'll be as popular as a pork chop @ a Jewish wedding here, but these are the answers to some of these questions according to the principles of Law:

  The Breach of Contract business is addressed in the same fashion as the way the WTS handles an attempted DF'ing lawsuit. That is by invoking the "Church Law shield". The Church Law shield is "Ecclesiastical Abstention": the Secular Law courts don't do windows and they don't do Church Law.

  Your JC was a "Church tribunal" and dealt out an administration of Church Law. You have no recourse under Secular courts for Church Law dispensations, as long as they don't violate Secular Law. That is no human sacrifice for other such gross acts are allowed; then Secular Law would step in to protect the common welfare.

  Your only recourse under Church Law is whatever appeals the Cherish Law provides. Once you have "exhausted those remedies", you have no further recourse; that is on this planet, Earth, anyway.

  This is a summary of the Paul case, which approached things differently, but still came out in favor of the WTS:

  The decision mentioned the usual strategy: the usual Ecclesiastical Abstention arguments are a moot point here, since they aren't being exercised.

  This is a "Tort theory" case, for damages, instead: we recognize the Tort theory.

  However, First Amendment Free Exercise Clause religious freedom rights prevail: we trump the Tort theory with Freedom of Religion rights.

  The decision mentioned that the DF'ing practice was not found to be "malum in se" [evil, in and of itself]. While the rest of the decision reads in accordance with what would be expected of the usual jurisprudence practice, this one bothers me as a possible issue. I see a weak point here, that subsequent cases seem to have affected.

  Quoted because I posted this elsewhere. Another comment:

  That wasn't the question when I got baptized. As far as I'm concerned, the WTS violated the "contract" the moment they changed the question.

  As a rule, I don't enter into contracts where the other party can unilaterally change its terms without my consent or approval.

  The principle of Ratification applies here. I will write more on that subject in an additional post in this thread.

  The 501(c)(3) organization is a Tax Code issue. The Church Law shield is where internal disputes lie.

  DISCLAIMER: I am NOT in favor of WTS, nor am I an apologist: I am explaining how their Legal strategy works and/or has been interpreted. Nothing that I say is intended or can be used as Legal advice. Seek proper Legal counsel for further details or visit your local Law Library.

  Mustang
• 

  DT

  Any dealings with the WTBTS cannot be viewed as a 'contract'.
  
  The WTBTS (or whatever branch thereof) is organized as a 501(c)(3) organization. You are joining a group... sort of like a user-group.
  
  There are dues (contributions), and membership requirements (baptism is one of these). If you violate their requirements (aka - apostate), they can kick you out of the user-group (aka disfellowshipping).

  I don't know all the legalities, but I would have to assume that the Watchtower society can enter into contracts and does so on a regular basis as part of doing business. Naturally, the rights of anyone who chooses to join the organisation is limited. However, when someone joins a different type of group, there is usually some type of disclosure about what is involved. It's not ok to collect some form of payment and then expel the person from the group without disclosing how this might happen. A contract is just an agreement between two parties. It can be either written or implied. The wording of the baptism questions implies an agreement between the two parties. The Watchtower society does this willingly and as a way of benefiting themselves (legal protection and a way of enforcing their policies) I think it is only reasonable that they live up to the agreement or change the agreement.

  They are the ones who choose to use baptism as an indication that the person has agreed to submit to the kinds of punishment they dish out. I'm merely trying to point out that there is insufficient disclosure and that they fail to fulfill their own responsibilities that are implied under that agreement.
• 

  Honesty

  Just be thankful you are free and out from under their thumbs.

  The rest is all just a matter of semantics.

  Let them say what they want to.

  Their opinion carries no weight with real people anyway.
• 

  sammielee24

  Quoted because I posted this elsewhere. Another comment:

  That wasn't the question when I got baptized. As far as I'm concerned, the WTS violated the "contract" the moment they changed the question.

  As a rule, I don't enter into contracts where the other party can unilaterally change its terms without my consent or approval.

  The principle of Ratification applies here. I will write more on that subject in an additional post in this thread.

  The 501(c)(3) organization is a Tax Code issue. The Church Law shield is where internal disputes lie.

  DISCLAIMER: I am NOT in favor of WTS, nor am I an apologist: I am explaining how their Legal strategy works and/or has been interpreted. Nothing that I say is intended or can be used as Legal advice. Seek proper Legal counsel for further details or visit your local Law Library.

  Mustang

  Mustang, I'm interested in hearing this.

  Baptism in the WTBTS becomes legalistic in action, when they use it as a barometer of punishment. Baptism of a child in the WTS means that the child will be punished more harshly and rigidly than a non baptised person who commits the same crime. It stands to reason that the society should not have two levels of punishment based on your membership...which is baptism. A child has no way of comprehending shunning and disfellowshipping at the point of baptism - and yet, they are expected to suffer the punishment the society feels justified in meting out to them because they are baptized.

  Freedom of religion is one thing - but separating the criminals into groups for the purpose of punishing one and not the other because of a color, a gender, age or a baptism, is clearly prejudicial and I'm not sure how that can't be a major civil action on it's own. sammieswife.