'Religion is a consensual affair, not a permanent contract' (page 2)

Disillusioned Lost-Lamb

Smoke, mirrors and plenty of misdirection.

I can see this in the Morman community, as there are parts of Utah where they make up the majority of the general population. I don't see that anywhere in the US with JW's, but perhaps if it involved a employment issue. Hard to say

lisaBObeesa

Wha Happened?, this really has nothing to do with the defamation thing...I'm sorry it brought the word up, actually.

It has to do with this:

Someone who says they no longer want to be a JW, is, as of that moment, a NON-MEMBER of the JWs and the JWs no longer have ANY authority to discipline them.

"..A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights."

and this:

...To appreciate the breadth and unanimity of this I'll note that Jehovah's witnesses have a similar notion with different terminology. A member who is excommunicated is called, "disfellowshiped" while one who leaves on their own is "disassociated". There is a clear understanding that the Watchtower bible and tract society cannot claim disciplinary authority over a person who no longer considers themselves a member of the society...

so my question is this:

Could it be that JWs have no legal right require JWs to shun people who disassociate? Wouldn't that be disciplining a non-member?

I assume would say shunning is not 'discipline' in the case of a DA, but....

As I understand it, whether or not a person is disfellowshipped or if a person disassociates, the announcement and the results are the same...am I right about this?

If yes...if the announcement and the results (being shunned)are the same in every way, then how could they say what is happening to the disfellowshipped person IS discipline, but what happened to the DA'd person is NOT discipline?

Wouldn't the announcement that one is 'no longer a JW' which = punishing the person with shunning.... be a 'continuation of disciplinary process' and thus violating the DA'd person's civil rights?

If I am no longer a member, they have no right to tell my friends and family anythng about me. I am none of their business! right?

lisaBObeesa

If I am no longer a member, they have no right to tell my friends and family anythng about me. I am none of their business! right?

never mind that last sentence...but the rest stands..

wha happened?

I wasn't thinking defamation. I was thinking employment, or a place in the local society

Phizzy

I studied the cases you mention, and others here in the U.K with a view to helping myself and others on here. I came to the conclusion that the WT has moved along as these cases came to Court and adjusted their methods sufficiently.

The WT would claim that they point out their interpretation of scripture about how such people, DF'd DA'd, should be treated, and the R&F Dubs choose their course of action "according to their conscience".

We know how it really works, but we have no recourse in Law as far as I can see, in the U.S or here in the U.K

The DA letter with the "I will sue the arse off each of you JC Elders" clause works most times, except the effect is the same as just letting them announce it, the JW rumour mill makes sure you are shunned by all except the ones who wouldn't have shunned you anyway, but family and friends are more often than not still lost.

Fernando

Thank you for posting on this topic lisaBObeesa.

I think the blog notes valid and potentially useful points.

I wonder if ostracising and labelling former members as 'mentally diseased' and 'dangerous' and to be treated with prejudice and ignorance, constitutes a 'continuation of disciplinary process'?

apostatethunder

If you don't sign anything when you get in, why would you need to sign anything to be out? Are you effectively entering into a contract with the watchtower, and if yes are you truthfully informed at the time of what this means for you? If not, why not? How would that not be illegal? If you stop going to the meetings/preaching etc, what right does this organization have to keep bothering you with anything?

How can they justify disfellowshiping anybody for apostasy just for criticising the organization? If their real motivation is to follow the Bible, why can they not be questioned without negative consequences when even God allowed Abraham to question Him? Are they saying they are more than God? If so, they should admit it openly.

'Religion is a consensual affair, not a permanent contract'

Share this