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.
I will respond to this gradually, in a couple of posts here. When I was on JWD daily, a few years ago, the subject of Baptism and particularly, UNDERAGE BAPTISM being not legally binding, came up roughly every 3 or 4 months. I have started to "can" the responses to that rather than reinvent the wheel each time.
ALL OF THE ABOVE is basically covered by the "Secular Law versus the Church Law shield" discussion. I have read this from Federal and Supreme Court cases [and decisions] that are thereby precedents and some few "Lawyers Letters" written for the WTS by Brumbley et al.
Ecclesiastical Abstention AND Freedom of Religion are the answers for this and are so well established that new cases frequently will not advance. It covers Baptism, DF'ing, DA'ing [shunning if you like] and other such treatment that would ordinarily be considered discriminatory.
If you "signed the articles" [alluding to old fashioned signing on to a sailing ship as a crew member] you have waived those rights that you may have had and traded them in for the Church Law.
Church Law is NOT interpreted by the Secular Courts. The Secular Courts allow the Church to do as they please, if they do not violate Civil and Secular Laws. That includes having their own Courts [Religious Tribunals, Judicial Committees, hearings under other names in various denominations] and even an Appeals process. And again, if you "exhaust those remedies" you have no recourse to Secular Law.
This is Ecclesiastical Abstention [EA for brevity] in a nutshell. And failing EA, the Secular Courts will consider Freedom of Religion. Your problem becomes a "he said, she said" case [which in this case does not care how many witnesses or corroborating statements are available] that has no STANDING or place in the Secular VENUE.
Contrasting the SECULAR VENUE versus the CHURCH LAW VENUE highlights the issue of Jurisdiction: the Secular Court doesn't have to deal with this and doesn't want to.
STANDING means your right or ability to speak or be allowed to speak on a matter. Basically the Judge of a Secular Court will tell you he has no place dealing with HOW YOU WORSHIP: that is between you, your Spiritual Leader(s) and God. [I'm outta here, raps gavel, fade to black]
Now, I was addressing [or starting to address] DT on the matter of DISCLOSURE. And yes, there is a massive problem with Disclosure here. But the Church cannot be brought to bear in this matter due to EA and Freedom of Religion, i.e. the Church Law shield is in place.
Disclosure [actually Failure to Disclose] is a major tool of the WTS: by the time you understand your Legal position, you have already compromised yourself.
Courts generally will go with the old saw "ignorance is no defense"; however this has been overcome at times. But the Church Law shield is strong enough to prevent that in this instance.
I believe that the "100 questions" was a move by WTS Legal to tighten any possible penetration of the Church Law shield. That closes the loophole that "you didn't try to screen [or inform] your converts or adherents". This is now a matter of record ["everybody" knows Fred is doing his "Oral Examinations" for Baptism] in the congregation. It ultimately leads to the "dunking" ceremony, which everybody is free to witness and the recording of the Baptism in Congregation Records.
The "100 questions" becomes Due Diligence in preventing any claim of Failure to Disclose. There becomes a trail of training which can conceivably disqualify a potential member.
Does this mean that I think the Church Law shield is impenetrable? No, but it is extremely strong. As it stands, a Church has to do gross Legal wrongs to cross the boundary. I am looking at a promising case that might indicate some openings have been made in their proverbial armor. I will not comment on that prematurely.
Personally, I never stood for the "100 questions"; I left the WTS BEFORE the 1980's changes in Baptismal Vows. Technically, it could be said that I am not a JW :)
That leads to the Ratification discussion, which I will do later.
[I am prepared to discuss the 1918 Sedition Act and the 1917 Espionage Act in regard to SSS (Selective Service System) issues, for instance; I am currently reviewing that at the request of a government official. Forty years ago, I fought two Federal appeals on this, Pro Se, as my own counsel: I prevailed.
I also have been arrested three times while in Field Service: the third time threatened to go to Court. A Lawyers Letter from Brooklyn nipped that in the bud.
I jokingly mentioned "human sacrifice" earlier, but that is not unheard of, historically speaking.]
Does the WTS think they have a problem or chink in the armor at the Church Law shield? I doubt it: they have had so many wins that usually today a "Lawyers Letter" responding to your "Lawyers Letter" brings things to a screeching halt. Your Lawyer shrugs and says that it is pointless to proceed. [Game, set, match.]
WTS Lawyers have this down to a science; they did this while you were asleep. They are about 90 years ahead of you before you put your running shoes on.
But they do not necessarily sit on their laurels. They are dealing with ongoing matters and seem to stop and consider the future. That to me is evident when looking at the Baptismal Vows and "100 questions". They are refining their technique to stay ahead of you and ahead of the game.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT in favor of WTS, nor am I a JW 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
