I re-read the previous posts you cited. But I am still confused. The shunning, accourding to the WTB&TS, is the disipline - not the announcment. You said, "The shunning IS the discipline that the elders are applying.". So, I don't see how announcing membership (or lack of membership) can be viewed as the discipline. Just because it "informs" the members as to the status of the DFed or DAed individual doesn't mean that it is the discipline itself.
Correct. An announcement is made that a person’s status has changed doesn’t mean the announcement is the discipline itself.
But it also doesn’t mean the announcement is NOT the discipline itself.
Every JW and exJW knows that the discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning. One does not occur without the other. We all also understand that discipline for a "DA" is exactly the same as for "DF."
Only a nonJW who doesn't understand the process would mistakenly think the announcment was nothing but a membership announcement.
When you say "the announcement=discipline" - how do you figure? If the annoucement is "So-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", how does that amount to discipline?
The same way the kiss on the cheek from a mafia boss can amount to an assassination order.
It would seem to me that the announcement itself can be viewed, from a legal perspective, as a membership maintenance issue.
Yes, the announcement can be incorrectly viewed as just a membership issue and nothing more if a person doesn’t know the truth of what is going on. But the truth is the announcement is not just a membership issue, it is first and formost a communication to the congregation that the person is an unrepentant sinner and must be shunned.
How would this be any different than there being a "membership list" hung on the announcement board for anyone to see?
A “membership list” is a list of members of the group, period. not discipline.
JW announcement is the equivalent to a posted list titled: “unrepentant sinners who must be shunned.” (discipline).
But, that said, I would say that the JWs DO have the right to post such a list of their members!
They have a right to discipline their members as they see fit. And people have a right to be JWs and go through their discipline.
And people also have the right to NOT be JWs and NOT go through their discipline process.
But if you want to say that the shunning is the discipline, then that changes the topic back to what Band on the Run was addressing: the legality of shunning in general. Concerning the 1st amendment: it seems to me that the 1st amendment is more binding on the government ("CONGRESS shall make no law...") than on any religious institution. In other words, JWs shun based upon their intpretation of the biblical text. It seems like a very great infringment upon the 1st amendment rights of the JWs if the courts attempt to tell JWs how to reinterpret that text.
I would say the issue is not the legality of shunning. I would say the issue is the legality of a church disciplining someone who is a non member.
When the letter from the attorney said, "Any efforts to make a pronouncement or take action regarding Mr. Minette's status as a Christian, his moral character or any other statements which may possibly affect his relationship with others will be viewed as a violation of Mr. Minette's constitutional rights, in fact, violation of his First Amendment rights." How would this violate his first ammendment rights? The first ammendement to applies to congress, and federal, state or local government officials... so I am not sure what this means here.
As I understand it, by saying the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, the first amendment is implicitly stating that the people have the right of free exercise of religion.
From The National Constitution Center website:
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-1-freedom-of-religion-press-expression
You have the right to participate in any religion you wish. And, you have the right to be a non member of any religion you wish.
Churches can only discipline their members. If I stop attending and tell the elders I am no longer a member, they have no legal right to discipline me. Disciplining a non member is not covered under the church's freedom of religion.
It seems to me that the findings of the court case below apply... (though poster Chaserious does not agree, and posts reasons in the other thread):
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html
By voluntarily uniting with the church, she impliedly consented to submitting to its form of religious government, but did not thereby consent to relinquishing a right which the civil law guarantees her as its constitutionally protected value. The intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right required for a finding of an effective waiver was never established. On the record before us Parishioner - a sui juris person - removed herself from the Church of Christ congregation rolls the moment she communicated to the Elders that she was withdrawing from membership.
WHEN PARISHIONER WITHDREW HER MEMBERSHIP FROM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THEREBY WITHDREW HER CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH SHE HAD IMPLICITLY AGREED TO SUBMIT TO ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION, THOSE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THEREAFTER TAKEN BY THE ELDERS AGAINST PARISHIONER, WHICH ACTIVELY INVOLVED HER IN THE CHURCH'S WILL AND COMMAND, WERE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT [775 P.2d 778] PROTECTION AND WERE THE PROPER SUBJECT OF STATE REGULATION.
While the First Amendment requires that citizens be tolerant of religious views different from and offensive to their own, it surely does not require that those like Parishioner, who choose not to submit to the authority of any religious association, be tolerant of that group's attempts to govern them. Only those "who unite themselves" in a religious association impliedly consent to its authority over them and are "bound to submit to it." Parishioner voluntarily joined the Church of Christ and by so doing consented to submit to its tenets. When she later removed herself from membership, Parishioner withdrew her consent, depriving the Church of the power actively to monitor her spiritual life through overt disciplinary acts. No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts.
MrMustard said:
Good luck on your midterms.
Thanks. I think they went alright...
