Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  mustang

  A quote gives the Ratification story:

  I am currently a very peculiar and extinct form of Jehovah's Witness. I quit attending meetings, doing Field Service and so forth in 1974; in fact, my last meeting was the last meeting of 1974. I resolved to never go back.

  Further, beyond that simple resolution of not going back, it occurred that WTS took an evolutionary step in the 1980's. they changed the Baptismal Vows.

  You can look up any one of several essays that enumerate 5 or more different years of baptismal Vows. The purpose of all of these its to illustrate that WTS cut out the loopholes of the old practice of accepting a "generic Christian Baptism" as being acceptable.

  And further, the questions asked in the Baptismal Vows changed from essentially the same as those "generic Christian Baptisms" to being PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE to WTS. Consequently, my Baptism was not such a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to WTS.

  All fine and good: so what's the problem with going to a few meetings?

  A male relative of mine and I are having this discussion. He was involved in the legal "industry" at one time, before shifting to another career. He commented that 'our Baptisms were essentially the a "generic Christian Baptisms"'.

  So, I returned, 'we're not JW's?, not having been baptized as such'?

  He returned, 'the problem with that is the legal doctrine of Ratification'. (Yes, Law has "doctrines", just like a Religion).

  'And that means ...', I responded.

  "Ratification means that when they made the changeover and no longer accepted the "generic Christian Baptism" and required the new Vows, then any new JW's were Baptized under the new Vows. But the older memberships were transferred over to the newer format after some point of the older members 'going along with the program'. At that point, the older member Ratifies the changes. The older member has the option of suspending activity and by never continuing, he rejects the new rulings."

  "You mean that I haven't Ratified the early 80's changes? I quit going, no meetings, Field Service, talks, regular or irregular association, nothing".

  "Essentially, yes. Any future return to association will do the Ratification automatically. They have no requirement to inform you of these technicalities; you are expected to be cognizant of such matters without external coaching. So, many people have been caught up in this and never knew that they could 'opt out'; you successfully opted out".

  "Look it up in the Law Library or books; all it takes is a Law Dictionary; you will get the gist of it by the definitions. Some hunting through textbooks will get you an example. But the best example is either the passing of a new Law by a Legislative Body, or simply your latest Credit Card change of APR. The Law changes can be found in History books or Political Commentaries, as well."

  "The Credit Card example is simple: you are paying 15%, but your November statement tells you that the rate will change to 18% on the first of January, next. You have a number of options: formally accept the change in writing, do nothing and accept the change without acknowledgment or continue paying off the old balance at the old rate and pay off the balance and quit altogether. The first two options accept the new rate, the second two do not accept the new rate. One of those is complicated by continuing to use the service, without a clean break."

  "Any use will invoke or Ratify the change?, I queried.

  "Yes, that is the principle of the Legal doctrine", was the reply.

  Well, inadvertently, I 'opted out' of the changeover. This makes me either a non-JW (a generic Christian, perhaps, a la my generic Christian Baptism) or some sort of "trapped in time" 1950's JW that doesn't exist any more.

  So, long story - long, you can see that I do not wish to endanger my unique status.

  Mustang
• 

  JimmyPage

  I remember signing something, too. It struck me as odd that the ink was red. And the guy holding the paper had horns and a tail.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Mustang is right. Baptism is not a "contract" in the legal sense. For starters, under American law, a contract requires mutual obligations that are legally enforceable.

  With baptism, there are no legally-enforceable mutual obligations. The prospective JW agrees to abide by the group's rules. That's it. The religion does not promise to do anything in return. The person getting baptized obligates himself to follow certain rules. The religion does not agree to submit itself to any corresponding obligations. Therefore, the first part of the test fails.

  Also, the obligations are not legally-enforceable. For instance, let’s say I make "contract" with my neighbor, the terms being that I'll wash his car every month and he'll smile at me every morning and say "hello." That's not a legally-enforceable contract. The court cannot and will not step in force my neighbor to keep his end of the bargain. It'd be against public policy to force someone to be polite or maintain a friendship with someone against his will. That's the same principle involved with a baptism "contract." No court will step in and prohibit JWs from shunning those who have been kicked out of the group. That obligation (friendship and companionship) is not a legally enforceable one.

  This is just one of many reasons why baptism is not a contract in the legal sense. Mustang is also correct in saying that American courts do not step in and get involved with the governance of private groups, especially religious ones. As long as religious groups are not breaking any secular laws, they are pretty much free to carry on disciplinary proceedings as they see fit. As far as I'm aware of, no laws are being broken by shunning former members.

  This is why we don't even have to reach the question of whether underage baptism is a legal contract. It's not a contract to begin with. Even when dealing with legal underage contracts, if the minor reaches the age of majority (18) and continues to abide by the terms of the contract, he is said to have "ratified" the contract, which would now make an otherwise unenforceable contract enforceable from that point forward. So, even assuming that the baptism “contract” was legally enforceable, if a JW who got baptized before he turned 18 continued to accept the terms of the “contract” after he reached the legal age of majority, he would have ratified the terms of the contract as an adult and will have agreed to bind himself by its terms.
• 

  mustang

  For starters, under American law, a contract requires mutual obligations that are legally enforceable.

  Quite so. A highly respected non-current poster here has maintained that Baptism is not a contract. And Contract Law was his specialty in the management role of his career for many years.

  "legally enforceable mutual obligations": OK, WTS would seem to "promise" to deliver PARADISE and EVERLASTING LIFE. You won't find a Judge that will admit this into consideration or an attorney that will try to defend this one. This is one reason why the Contract expert always maintained that Baptism was not a Contract.

  Mustang
• 

  DT

  With baptism, there are no legally-enforceable mutual obligations. The prospective JW agrees to abide by the group's rules. That's it. The religion does not promise to do anything in return.

  It's not clear to me that baptism constitutes an agreement to follow the group's rules. It is advertised as symbolising a dedication to God, not to men. The watchtower Society even tells its members to obey God as ruler rather than men. The wording of the second baptism question could imply an acceptance of their disciplinary practices. However, it could also be seen as excluding the possibility of expulsion since it only mentions baptism as a condition for being known as a Jehovah's Witness. It might not be enforceable, but it could be used to show the lack of disclosure that takes place.

  It'd be against public policy to force someone to be polite or maintain a friendship with someone against his will. That's the same principle involved with a
  baptism "contract." No court will step in and prohibit JWs from shunning those who have been kicked out of the group.

  I agree. However, I think it is important to draw a distinction between an individual's freedom to shun and a corporation's use of intimidation to force its members to shun someone. (I believe that Bear versus the Reformed Mennonite church makes this distinction. I can't find a good link at the moment. I may post one later.) I don't have a problem with people choosing to shun whoever they want to. I have an issue with a corporation forcing people to shun.

  As long as religious groups are not breaking any secular laws, they are pretty much free to carry on disciplinary proceedings as they see fit. As far as I'm aware of, no laws are being broken by shunning former members.

  If a religion's use or threat of intimidation to force its members to shun someone interferes with their free exercise of religion, then I would say it is a very serious civil rights violation. This enforced shunning is also only used against those who are no longer members and are theoretically no longer subject to the Watchtower Society's discipline. The courts have ruled against religions that try to discipline former members, although this principle has not yet been applied to JW shunning practices.
• 

  mustang

  DT: U R asking the tough and good 's

  Now here is 1 4 U: I have shown that the WTS (and other churches: I'm betting Scientology's Lawyers R BETTER!!!) use the Church Law shield. Now, do U know why we won't get good answers to the tough 's

  Mustang
• 

  neverendingjourney

  It's not clear to me that baptism constitutes an agreement to follow the group's rules. It is advertised as symbolising a dedication to God, not to men.

  That's not completely true. When I got baptized, I was asked questions out of the back of the OM book. There were quite a few questions that made it explicitly clear that I was submitting myself to the Watchtower's demands and that the Watchtower had the right to disfellowship me if I stopped following their rules. I doubt there are very many people who have gotten baptized that don't realize they can be disfellowshipped and shunned if a committee of elders decides to dish out that sentence.

  I understand what you're saying, but there simply isn't a baptism contract, at least not one the courts are willing to recognize. If you join a group, the group has the right to set its rules and dish out discipline as it sees fit so long as no secular laws are violated in the process. If the WT required that apostates be stoned to death, then the government would intervene to help you. No laws are broken by ordering current members to shun a former member. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but I don't make the laws. They are what they are.
• 

  mustang

  I have an issue with a corporation forcing people to shun.

  BTW: in the Paul decision, the Justices held that DF'ing was not "malum in se" [evil, in and of itself]. I disagree; and I'm wondering if this was an academic thought, noted in passing or if "malum in se" would have make a difference in interpretation and dispensation. I believe that there has been a case since then interpreted along the lines of "malum in se" and perhaps overlooking the principles of EA and First Amendment Free Exercise. This bears looking further.

  I have an issue with a corporation forcing people to shun.

  Quoted twice on purpose; going away from Legal views, the more I think about it, this isn't Christian, interpreted properly or done with biblical Christian love.

  Mustang
• 

  mustang

  I doubt there are very many people who have gotten baptized that don't realize they can be disfellowshipped and shunned if a committee of elders decides to dish out that sentence.

  I got baptized very young and figured things out later. I went to an assembly, walked around outside a few times and decided to get Baptized on the spur of the moment.

  Of course I knew about DF'ing pretty soon. That was even though we didn't have many for some time, being a small congregation. It happened in other congo's and the word got around.

  But, not only did I NOT RATIFY the Baptismal Vow changes, but I never took the "Oral Exams"/"100 Questions". Things were a lot more loose back then. I wouldn't pass muster today.

  Mustang
• 

  DT

  Now here is 1 4 U: I have shown that the WTS (and other churches: I'm betting Scientology's Lawyers R BETTER!!!) use the Church Law shield. Now, do U know why we won't get good answers to the tough 's

  Yes, I think so. It's frustrating to me that many of these lawsuits are dismissed without a trial. How can a judge know if the law or freedom of religion is being violated if he won't even hear the case? I know it's a messy situation legally, but avoiding the issue doesn't work when both parties can claim that their fundamental rights are in jeopardy. A failure to make a decision favors one party over the other and could possibly be viewed as its own kind of interference with human rights. I believe the church law shield failed in the recent pedophilia lawsuits, so I'm hopeful that more courts will be willing to examine these issues in the future.