Attending another church is grounds for disfellowshipping

by passwordprotected 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Kahlua

  Have you thought about writing to the UN about Article 18 and explain the situation with the WTS?

  It might be interesting to see what they say if they answer.
• 

  Yizuman

  While I am sorry to hear of the situation. I hope this serves as a wake up call for your friend as to how crappy the WTS religion really is. How did your friend feel about all this?

  Not to belittle your friend's situation, but it could have been worse. In Islam, to change religion is a dealth penalty offense. Your friend should be thankful he and his family is not being chased by a mob of JWs yearning for his blood.

  But in his case, if he's worried about a split in his family, contact the UN and mention Article 18 and I too am interested to hear what they have to say about it.

  Yiz
• 

  John Doe

  The first Amendment applies to government--not private corporations. We are all free to shun whomever the hell we want--the government is not. As has been mentioned, mandating what the jw's can do would be a violation of their first amendment rights. About whether the jw's deserve religious freedom--there is no prerequisite for 1st amendment protection. A right is not earned.
• 

  passwordprotected

  Chalam, if the governments are placed by God in their positions in order to offer protection and civil order, then surely it can't be classed as revenge to utilize the policies and laws to afford the religious freedom of people trapped in a cult?

  What the WTS does is bully people. No one likes to see bullying. Didn't Jesus directly confront the leaders of a bullying religion?

  Re. writing to the UN, we're going to do it.

  Re. a pro bono lawyers, we'll be looking into it. Glasgow has lots of human rights lawyers due to all of the political asylum seekers...y'know, people who've had to flee their country for reasons such as changing their religion.

  Re. 1st amendment; we live in the UK.
• 

  wobble

  Password,

  just a couple of quick thoughts, the Human Rights Act 1998 Articles 9 and 10 may be of use,also for advice , the organization "Liberty" may be able to help.

  May God bless your efforts,

  Love,

  Wobble
• 

  dozy

  I think the analogy of the golf club that another poster has used works here and applys in other areas as well - eg if you were a member of the Labour party then stopped going to their meetings , started openly attending meetings & campaigning for the SNP then I suspect that you would be very quickly "disfellowshipped" (or equivalent) from Labour. You might even be shunned by members (albeit not ritually).

  It is crap - I know - I'm shunned by some members of my family & I'm not even DFd. It really hurts & is very unchristian - not what Jesus wanted at all. But that is the way JWs have been indoctrinated.

  The WTBTS has tightened this one up in recent years (change in announcement etc) so implying that it is the member themselves that DAs himself by his actions rather than the organisation disfellowshipping him as such. Added to the religious angle (bear in mind that ex-Muslims often disappear without trace - they have an even stronger view on "apostasy" - just ask Salman Rushdie) then I just don't see any case here. I wouldn't recommend getting any lawyers involved - can be expensive.
• 

  skeeter1

  The "Suing has been tried in the past, and failed."

  Many legal theories have to be tried dozens of times before they finally win.

  Ever read the case histories in the 1800's on "Attractive Nuissance" (ie holding landowners responsible when a child tresspasser wanders uninvited onto the property by an object (say a pool) the child found interesting). At first, every case failed, failed, failed. Then, a case or two won in one state's court, then another, then another....and now, everyone who has a pool keeps a gate/fence/locks on it by county code and is still held extremely liable if a child wanders onto the property and drowns. There's a saying, "The wheels of justice grind slowly, but finely."

  Law takes years to change. In almost every area of the law, the law is most likely to start the change in Califronia, Canada, and Europe; and at the Appeal level there. It is not any coincidence to me that this is why we see the WTS being sued for child abuse, blood, and European countries watching the WTS under these governments.

  I think we are seeing an influx of problems with radical Islam. Ex-Islams followers are shunned if they reject Allah. The WTS notes this in their latest publications (like the frying pay calling the kettle black). Because there are much more Islamists than Jehovah's Wtinesses, and JWs haven't blown up buildings . . . the Western world is now ready to look into the shunning policies.

  Western media appears more willing to look into the JWs than to offend Islam. The Danish movie (Der Verdener?) portrayed what happens in a high control religion that shuns. There were stunning parrallels to Islam, which the Danish government and people are dealing with. The film had mass appeal, I think, because of this. Very few outside our little world gives a horse's hoof about the JWs.

  Watchtower's time on its shunning policy is coming to an end. They need to stop this for the preaching work. The governments couldn't say that they broke apart families. This would have freed them to preach in Russia, etc, which is barely untouched. Plus, it would help them with their tax status in France, Germany, etc.

  Skeeter
• 

  skeeter1

  First Amendment applies only to Federal Government, not Private Companies

  First Amendment cover the Freedom of Religion. Montana abolished its "at-will" employment laws, in favor of "no wrongful discharge." I can see a case testing this law as it relates to a disfellowshipped Circuit Overseer...

  Also, didn't New York say that Bethel workers were employees (for worman's compensation or slip-n-fall accidents). As an employee, would Title VII cover them? It covers private employers, and states that they can't be discriminated because of their religious practices, or lack thereof.

  So, the law is evolving to cover private employers from discriminating on religion. We may not be yet at the point where a Bethelite can sue, but the wheels of justice are headed for the "no shunning for changing religion" road.

  ********************************************************

  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends this religious freedom to the workplace, by prohibiting employers and companies from discriminating against any person or employee on the basis of their religious beliefs or practice

  Title VII

  1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of several factors, including race, sex, gender and religion. Title VII applies to public and private employers with 15 or more employees, as well as federal, state and local government employers, employment agencies and labor organizations or unions.
     
     Title VII prohibits discrimination in the hiring, firing, terms or conditions of employment. Thus, Title VII mandates that an employer not only can't refuse to hire or promote someone because of their religious beliefs, but also that an employer must ensure that a work environment is not hostile for a person of particular religious beliefs.

  Title VII Definition of Religion

  2. Title VII protects religious observation, practices and beliefs. Title VII has a very broad definition of religion. Traditional organized religions are included, as are religious beliefs that are unorthodox, new, uncommon and/or not subscribed to be an official church. There is no reasonableness requirement for religious beliefs, practices or observation and there are no requirements that a religion must be believed or practiced by a certain number of people. Even those with traditional religious beliefs can have religious practices that fall outside the officially recognized or accepted tenets of their religion.
     
     Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs, related to God, and non-theistic beliefs based on moral principles of right and wrong.
     
     The litmus test for determining religion dictates that the belief must be strongly held and concern ultimate ideas about life, purpose and death. Personal preferences about social situations, politics or economics do not constitute religious beliefs protected under Title VII.

  General Rules

  3. Employers can't treat any employee or applicant more or less favorably on the basis of that person's religious beliefs. This means employers can't make hiring decisions, promotion decisions, work assignments or any other employment decisions on the basis of whether the employee or potential employee does or does not practice a particular religion.
     
     Employers also can't force or compel employees to participate or refrain from participating in any religious activity as a condition of employment.
     
     Finally, employers must allow employees to engage in religious expression, as long as the religious expression does not impose undue hardship on the other employees or have an adverse effect on workplace efficiency.
• 

  homeschool

  I'm sorry that you go through so much, when it's obvious you're doing the right thing for the right reasons. That's it...I don't know the laws and scriptures like I should . Just wanted to send thoughts your way
• 

  skeeter1

  Summary of Above.

  The First Amendment states that the Federal Government can't mess with First Amendment Rights. I agree.

  But, that does not mean that the Federal and State governments can't pass laws which protect first amendment rights in the private sector.

  In fact, both the federal and state governments have passed such laws protecting private citizens from religious discrimination. Title VIII comes to the forefront of federal laws. It covers private employers from discriminating against religion, or lack thereof, in employment decisions. New York has ruled that WTS Bethelites are employees for slip-n-fall type accidents. Montanta has abolished its "at-will" employment, meaning that the employer just can't fire for no good cause.

  Where does this leave the WTS and shunning. California courts ruled that a Ministerial Servent & up, is an employee. Say an MS or Circuit Overseer was disfellowshipped or even just lost priviledges solely for attending another church. Could he bring a Title VIII, alienation of family, etc case? This would be stronger case in New York, Montana, or California. Yes, I can see this happening.

  Skeeter