Ostracism: anyone with legal background on this forum who could help?

by Nick! 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nick!

  Here in Europe, we have started different initiatives aiming at exposing publicly and legally the Watchtower on the subject of ostracism, discrimination and shunning.

  In the past we have seen different manifestations held in front of Kingdom Halls or Branch offices on issues such as pedophilia and blood transfusions policies, and even, such as in France, against building of real-estates.

  Now it seems that the issue of discrimination against disfellowshipped or dissociated people is gaining momentum. We have seen the large demonstrations in Brazil, and maybe the lesser important ones elsewhere. In Italy we had our first manifestation against ostracism on December 1 st of last year, followed by several TV interviews and tracts distributions in different parts of the country, aiming at alerting the public opinion and the Italian Parliament on the fact that, approving a new law in discussion at the Parliament right now, in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses would infringe the Constitution because of the discrimination policy against the ex-JW, which is not generally known by the public and the political parties.

  In Belgium one of the ex-JW has started a court case against the WT a few years ago on the discriminatory policies of the WT against the ex-JW, and will have his 4 th trial in the month of April, because there is legal ground for it.

  Are there any people with legal background on this forum, who could tell us about the US situation on the subject? Is it completely excluded to tart any legal action, as individuals or as legal entity, against the WT on their discriminatory teachings of hate and social and family exclusion?

  Organizing a serious legal opposition in different countries against the WT should awaken the public opinion against the WT policies.

  The aim is not to argue against the right of any religious movement to expel members who do not abide by the internal rules, but to prevent that the regulations around this procedure go against the human rights. The freedom of religion stops where individual rights are infringed. No one can claim freedom of religion, if their religious practices include stoning to death those who want to leave the religious movement. Shunning is social stoning to social death, not by personal choice but by order of the religious leaders of the WT!

  Roberto di Stefano - alias Nick!
• 

  cameo-d

  What has light to do with darkness?

  There is no spiritual common ground anymore between the slave and the freeman.

  Quit whining about not being invited to be among the zombies and the dead. You cannot change them; it is a personal journey for everyone. Instead your focus should be on up-building those who have courageously walked away showing integrity and having truth as a priority. They deserve respect for their stand and should lead the way by example. These are the ones who truly have the "fruits of the spirit". Do the scriptures not tell you that the righteous will be persecuted? Is telling the truth ever rewarded in this world? Many of us learn at an early age that although we are admonished to "tell the truth" when we do, we are usually punished for it in some way.

  Let them be pricks and ostracise you. Hold your head up and quit attempting to wallow in the mud with them. Be proud of your standards and who you are. Lead the way. Maybe someday they will quit rolling in their vomit and look up. Let them come to you. Stop trying to continue to force yourself to be "allowed" among them. Stop groveling to the WatchTower for privileges of association with the dead.
• 

  Band on the Run

  You need a lawyer dealing with European human rights. I'm an American common law lawyer. My perspective is that law is a blunt, inelegant weapon to use for this purpose. Most Western democratic societies abhor interference with freedom of religion. I understand that some issues are very different in Europe. Your separation of state from church seems more absolute. Altho I am a NYer and was a downtown NYer on September 11th, the ban on head veils in school in France is shocking from my perspective.

  People untrained in law are always screaming for undefined rights. I used to scream particularly loud. There are so many provisos and different strands of thought that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that its jurisprudence in this area is a disaster. Once they acknowledge it, though, they continue in the same vein rather setting clear guidelines so people can order their conduct.

  I was a political science major. Marketing the dilemna seems to be a more effective route. Mass protests with lots of media coverage can lead to reform. Self help groups, sort of like AA, would help victims gain a sense of community and pooled resources. On the other hand, persecuted groups often retreat deeper into themselves when faced with controversy and perceived persecution.

  Another thought I have is that the Witnesses were very clear what the price was for not being in their favor. My KH had two or three disfellowships a motnh as a routine for a long while. An underclass started having sex outside of marriage and all my age peers sucumbed.

  P.S. A more vernacular English word for manifestation is demonstration. Mass protests are demonstrations. The two words have similar meanings but demonstration is the word used for protest.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Not an attorney, but in the US the "Separation of Church & State" is a First Amendment issue and trumps almost anything else. The only way I would see any level of government infringing on religions is if they pursue taxation in some form. Every level of government is short on funds due to the economic recession, and I think most citizens would rather see the churchs taxed than pay more themselves.
• 

  jgnat

  The best chance of legal action against the Jehovah's Witnesses is under the civil, or tort law. The United States also operates under case law, so it can't hurt to look for similar past cases. The claimant would have to prove injury or loss. This is what I found after a two minute google search for case law:

  http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=61329.1&webtag=fl-personal_inj
• 

  drewcoul

  Desirous of Change,

  Incidentally, you will not find the term "Separation of church and state" in the First Ammendment.....or anywhere in the Constitution or the Ammendments. It's a made up term to make people think there is a Constitutional arguement against the "State" getting involved in any way, shape or form with religion. In actuality, the Constition of the U.S. prohibits the establishment of a state religion and allows Americans to practice whatever religion they choose. Anything more than that has been adjudicated and interpreted into the Constitution even though it's not really there.

  That being said, I don't believe you will ever see the U.S. government get involved in the disfellowshipping/ shunning debate. There is a concept of "Freedom of association" that allows people to associate with those they choose to associate with and to not associate with those they don't want to associate with.

  The only debate I can see them interjecting themselves into is blood transfusions if it involves a minor (which they have done for years), or an adult with diminished capacities. They will not force an able bodied person of sound mind to accept a blood transfusion if they don't wish to.
• 

  blondie

  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, upholding the ruling of a lower court, finding 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." [ 72 ] [ 73 ]

  819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987).

  http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.875.85-4012.html
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  This tells about a settlement in a 1998 lawsuit where a Bethelite was providing a ride for a congregation member who was killed when Bethelite driver had a vehicle accident. Family members for the deceased woman included the WTS as a defendant in the lawsuit and WTS made a $1.5 million settlement rather than let it set a precedent that said Bethelite was their 'agent' and opening them to the jury determining the award.

  Could the WTS be brought into lawsuit as an agent where a case involves: elder/speaker traveling to convention; publisher/MS/elder/pioneer hauling carload of people in service or to meetings; driver running to pickup supplies for KH quickbuild?
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Sorry, don't know how to edit, so here is link:

  http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000043.html
• 

  Band on the Run

  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, comrpising Ca and some other states, is a harbinger of jurisprudence. It is extremely respected along with the 2d Cir.(NY) and the D.C. Circuit (all federal agencies). These courts have much more clout than appears from reading an encyclopedia article.

  I spent months and months researching Establishment Clause jursiprudence. Indeed, I wrote my legal writing sample on one facet. Besides barring an outright establishment such as the Church of England in England, it is unclear what the boundaries are. These cases are almost always decided 5-4 and are politicized. Researching the Founder's intent with great detail, it is impossible to say what they meant besides no federal church. It is interesting b/c the Bill of Rights were only applied to the states with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War. It deals with equal protection of the laws and due process of law. Several states had their own established religions which were const'l. I need to research why such provisions lapsed.

  Each side claims some author to determine what Establishment means. Hamilton, Madison and Jay are frequently quoted b/c of thier outsized role in drafting the Const'n. Indeed, the orig. const'n had no Bill of Rights. The states refused to ratify the document without an express Bill of Rights. Yet the const'n was very much a political result of compromise between state factions and strong personalities at the const'l conveniton. It was deliberative. I don't see how one Founder speaks for the whole unless there were a vote. The const'n was submitted for ratification. The thoughts of those in the state conventions should also be considered.

  I feel that Establishment was left vague purposefully b/c no clear consensus emerged as to its contours. There was no litigation under it until around the Civil War, which is an enormous stretch of time for something so volatile today. The current court has decided to keep using a much maligned (even by the Court) three-prong test, called Agostini/Felton. There are three prongs to the test. If you Google it, you can find the formulation. (I am lazy)

  The test is cumbersome in practice. The clear trend in the 60s was to a separatist view that required strict separation between church and state. With the addition of conservative judges, most of whom are Catholic, the pendulum has swung alarmingly to the other end, accomodationist. Government funding of projects is often upheld if the grant goes to individuals who are free to choose a religious program. Secular alternatives must exist. School vouchers are impermissible for impressoinable elementary and school children but fine for college students.

  Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were frequently the swing votes in these cases. I assume Kagan and Sontameyor will tend to be separatist.

  Fundamentally, though, this is a Free Exercise case. The Court is always on the side of religious expression. There are very few examples in the opopsite direction. It is almost an absolute right that is zealously guarded. The exceptions are criminals or civil laws that apply to everyone. Bigamy is a crime b/c all people are prosecuted for bigamy. A very recent case is the use of halucogens by Native Americans in religoius ceremonies. Law was upheld.

  There is a congruence here of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause. One of the prongs mentioned above is whether govt. involvement excessively entangles govt into a religion. Here, courts would have to make theology decisions. They will not do so. There are some laws that reflect community morals and beliefs strongly. Freedom of Religoin is perhaps the highest one in this country, founded by religious refugees seeking liberty.

  The public marketplace is a much better way to deal with this issue. People in general should know the consequences of falling away from a cult. Courts do not belong in that process. Ads in newspapers and online, calls to radio shows, etc. are much more rewarding areas.