Jehovah’s Witnesses — An Organization?

by Marvin Shilmer 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  "A common misconception that I have seen on this forum is that baptism is a legally significant event."

  Under US law the moment a person joins a religious organization they are subject to governing aspects of that organization, meaning that organization has a legal right to act toward the subject according to its dictates that are not illegal.

  Under Watchtower's scheme the threshold “moment” is baptism.

  For Jehovah’s Witnesses, arguably the most important legal consequence is related to Watchtower’s organized communal shunning program. For many members this means they are unable to just walk away. Instead members find themselves leaving (or being put out) with a public announcement suggesting they’ve somehow sinned gravely.

  This public marking is perfectly lawful under current US law, and a person subjects themselves to it legally at the point of baptism.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  jeremiah18:5-10

  Sincere question: if as TD comments, the relationship is basically between individual and their congregation, not parent organization, then would being df just apply to that congregation? Why would other congregations need a letter of introduction or enforce a decision made by another? Couldn't you just start over? Of course we all know you can't because you're on file with the branch, therefore the relationship is with the parent organization and any and all past decisions follow you. Again they want it both ways.
• 

  Chaserious

  Under US law the moment a person joins a religious organization they are subject to governing aspects of that organization, meaning that organization has a legal right to act toward the subject according to its dictates that are not illegal.

  Under Watchtower's scheme the threshold “moment” is baptism.

  This public marking is perfectly lawful under current US law, and a person subjects themselves to it legally at the point of baptism.

  I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with this because it is not accurate. I'm not trying to be argumentative and it's certainly nothing personal; rather I just don't want readers to have incorrect information.

  This part of the above comment is completely circular: " a legal right to act toward the subject according to its dictates that are not illegal."

  Any person in the world has a legal right to do things that aren't illegal. That's just the differece between legal and illegal. Baptism in and of itself does not give the Watchtower organization or any congregation any legal rights that it would not otherwise have toward a person. As I said, it might be one factor in determining whether you might welcome some of the normal things that church leaders do vis-a-vis their church members.

  I previously asked for the specific U.S. law that you were referring to, and you cited a 12 page Watchtower legal letter that cited some cases. I did read the letter and I have previously read almost all of the cases cited in that letter, and none of them supports the assertion that you are making.

  Edited to add: I will note that there is an 1871 Supreme Court case (Watson v. Jones) that does have language to the effect that you agree to follow the rules when you join an organization. However, this is misleading to have been quoted in a letter about baptism. That case was not about an individual member, it was about an individual congregation that wanted to leave the national church organization and keep their church building. The case was really not about an individual being subject to church rules, but a congregation being subject to church rules. This is a different matter, and there are legal rights that are affected when a congregation joins a larger church organization. The Watson language has never been used to apply to individuals being legally bound in secular law by church rules when they join.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Any person in the world has a legal right to do things that aren't illegal.”

  But any person in the world does not have a legal right to publicly suggest you’ve committed a grave sin based on their own whims.

  As a religion Watchtower does have that right, and it’s granted under US law by membership in a religious organization. For Jehovah’s Witnesses the threshold moment for membership is baptism.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “I did read the letter and I have previously read almost all of the cases cited in that letter, and none of them supports the assertion that you are making.”

  The fact is this: Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to public censure by Watchtower appointed men acting under Watchtower policy, and Watchtower’s right to continue this policy has been upheld over and over again when taken before US courts.

  The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization. This membership moment has, in Watchtower’s case, been narrowed to the point of baptism.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  "But any person in the world does not have a legal right to publicly suggest you’ve committed a grave sin based on their own whims."

  "____ is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"

  There is no legally cognizable tort in that statement, whether it is made about someone baptized or not. If they got their jollies by announcing that Barack Obama or Derek Jeter is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they could do so also. No special secular legal right is conferred upon the organization by virtue of baptism.

  I enjoy your material much of the time, but it's somewhat disheartening to see that someone who writes a blog that is held out as being factually based feels compelled to defend assertions about the law by repeating them over and over again, but does not feel compelled to back them up with actual citations to law.
• 

  Chaserious

  " Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to public censure by Watchtower appointed men acting under Watchtower policy, and Watchtower’s right to continue this policy has been upheld over and over again when taken before US courts.

  The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization. "

  Yes, but nowhere in the cases that you refer to in the first paragraph above does it make the connection to a threshold that you make in the second paragraph in the above quote. The leading case, the one that is always referred to in lower courts when discussing the legality of shunning, is Paul v. Watchtower. I have read the case, and I am curious to know where you think it (or the other cases referred to) makes the connection to baptism being a threshold. As far as I can tell, the statement that "The threshold at which Watchtower gains this right is at the moment of membership in its religious organization" is entirely your own.

  In fact, the Paul case said that:

  " Providing the Church with a defense to tort is particularly appropriate here because Paul is a former Church member. Courts generally do not scrutinize closely the relationship among members (or former members) of a church."

  Note that it said "particularly appropriate" because she was a member, which indicates that being a member is not what the legality of shunning turns upon. That is after the longer discussion that showed the Watchtower would be able to shun no matter what. As the court said, they don't really look at the membership structure or requirements within a church.

  Paul case available here
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  "____ is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses"

  There is no legally cognizable tort in that statement…

  Aside from constitutionally protected behaviors (like religious liberty) statements that are innocuous at face value can carry liability if proven to be code language for something sinister.

  But in Watchtower’s case this does not matter because in the US it has proven itself “a religion” in the courts.

  In Watchtower’s case the phrase you quote means a person has committed a grave sin sufficient that Christians should treat them as though dead; as a pariah. US Courts have decide that’s okay for a religion.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Chaserious

  " a grave sin sufficient that Christians should treat them as though dead."

  Yes, but there is no requirement that a person be a member of a religion for that religion to have the legal right to make such statements. The Westboro Baptist Church makes such statements about specific non-members all the time. (e.g. U.S. soliders). For confirmation that this is legal in the U.S., read the Snyder v. Phelps case from the Supreme Court. Membership has nothing to do with it, and by proxy, baptism has no legal significance.
• 

  scotoma

  I was baptized in the mid 50's at the age of 10. I didn't need elder approval. The congregation didn't even have to get a parental permission to dunk me under water. Furthermore, my parents didn't have a family study and I never went over any 80 questions. The only qualification was that I had a towel, swimming trunks and sat in the seats reserved for baptismal candidates. I answered yes (I think) to both questions neither of which referred to any "spirit directed association".

  Subsequent to that I behaved as if I were a Jehovah's Witness. If someone asked what my religion was I said I was a Jehovah's Witness. The community I lived in had reason to believe I was a Jehovah's Witness.

  Therefore: Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to make a public announcement that I am no longer a Jehovah's Witness if in their judgement I am not representing Jehovah's Witnesses properly.

  The real issue is whether a disfellowshipped person gives a rats ass about such a declaration. In most cases a disfellowshipped person probably has some intent to get back in good standing with their family and the organization. With those intentions they aren't going to sue anyone.

  If a person is disfellowshipped and doesn't want to be known as a JW anymore he certainly has no intentions of having anything to do with legal aspects.

  The real problem is that they disfellowship people who would really like to remain as Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore cause mental anguish for those sincere people who need the support of the community.

  I am glad I never sat in on a judicial committee. But in my oppinion there should only be three questions:

  1. Can you name your sin?

  2. Do you want to continue to be considered a Jehovah's Witness?

  3. If the answer is yes the final question is do you want our help in readjusting things?

  If a person says they don't want to be considered a Jehovah's Witness anymore they should have no objection to such a public announcement.