by Marvin Shilmer 32 Replies latest jw friends
So Marvin if that is the case, why has nobody been succesfully able to deter their disfellowshipping through threat of lawsuit, or better yet, been able to sue after the fact based on the work you have found?
No doubt in addition we are talking about the "watchtower definition" of organization, not the illustrious webster so much.
Excellent, Marvin!
So Marvin if that is the case, why has nobody been succesfully able to deter their disfellowshipping through threat of lawsuit, or better yet, been able to sue after the fact based on the work you have found?
Jehovah's Witnesses are a congregational church. (At least in the U.S.) Your relationship is between you and your local congregation. It is an 'At will' relationship, meaning that either party can terminate it.
Your relationship is not with any of the J.W. parent organizations.
The cases in the first letter only serve to make the point that secular courts are not going to question or get involved with the rulings of an ecclesiastical court. There has never been any case or statute in the U.S. that says that secular courts are going to enforce any duty to follow the internal laws of any religious organization.
The only legally significant part of the 1996 letter is the part where they say their files about members are secret and they aren't turning them over, and that the FOIA doesn't apply to them. Not every word in a letter written by a lawyer has the force of law. Sometimes lawyers try to take the moral high ground, and that's what they are doing when they say you promised to listen to our rules when you got baptized. There is no law that says you have you keep all of your promises, but when a lawyer is dealing with a case of a broken promise, he or she will almost always put in a paragraph about that in addition to any legal basis.
If you really became legally bound to Church governing procedure when you get baptized, they could go and get a court order to compel you to attend a judicial committee if you refused to go. As the maxim goes "for every right there is a remedy." If they have the right to hold people who join to a "legal burden," then what is the legal remedy against those who don't?
I was getting ready to question how it's a bait and switch considering the references used for your article jump over 50 years to make your point. Then I noticed the Bible Teach book reference and there is no denying that its a recent publication of the WT. Awesome catch Martin! At times former JWs point to something written several decades ago to make a point and its not always effective, at least not to me.
On another note, is the way the baptismal questions are worded a direct result of purposeful legal maneuvering by the WT and their legal department?
Serious question here. If we can't beat the WTBTS in court, why couldn't an individual threaten legal action against each local Elder? If they say they will DF you, can't you sue just the Elders for defamation of charater? Is the GB gonna have their back?
Thanks for the awesome info Marvin.
Hey Marvin Good site. I read the blood part. Very good except that you keep writing alter instead of altar
The cases in the first letter only serve to make the point that secular courts are not going to question or get involved with the rulings of an ecclesiastical court...
I'm hardly an attorney, but I think the legality starts and ends with whether a congregation can legitimately consider you to be a member thereof.
A Baptist minister would have zero business showing up at your door and asking embarrassing personal questions about the sexual techniques you and your wife enjoyed. If he did anything afterwards to damage your family relations or good name in your community, you would concievably have a viable legal complaint against him.
Elders from your congregation can do this, because you've voluntarily given them this authority.
That's true, but whether someone has authority to show up at your door and ask questions about your sex life or whatever is purely based on church authority, not legal authority. I think it's important for readers to know that the elders have no legal authority to compel you to follow any church procedure, such as answering questions or attending judicial committees.
A common misconception that I have seen on this forum is that baptism is a legally significant event. If it were really some sort of contract, it would be invalid in the case of minors, which we all know it isn't. Minors can't enter binding contracts in the U.S. and other common law countries (and most civil law countries as well). The fact that it took place would be admissible if someone were to file a lawsuit seeking damages, but so would just about anything else of relevance.
-
Very good except that you keep writing alter instead of altar
never a jw,
Thanks for pointing out the gaffe. Hopefully I found and corrected all instances of this. If you see more please let me know.
Marvin Shilmer
