Research on legal implications of group shunning

by BreathoftheIndianNose 55 Replies latest jw friends

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Surely though, if you are a non-member, you have DA'd at least.

    The WT will say that membership is free, and they consider you a member until you formally inform them otherwise. They will claim that whatever members choose to do about association, or even speaking to you, after you have DA'd is down to the individual WT member.

    Their claim is you are free to go, and they will not discipline you, once you have DA'd.

    Until you DA they are free, and acting legally, to discipline you, no matter how many years you have been fading/non-attending.

    The area that is dodgy for the WT is the printed instructions on how JW's should "view" and treat DA'd/DF'd ones.

    But, with their carefully phrased articles, what Law have they broken ?

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa

    Surely though, if you are a non-member, you have DA'd at least.

    No, only members of the Jehovah's Witnesses "DA" themselves. No one else in the world can or would "DA" from the Jehovah's Witnesses but members of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    "DA" is a Jehovah's Witness proceedure, label, announcement, and punishment.

    A person has a right to become simply a non-member, like every other non-jw walking down the street. Non members do not participate in JW proceedures, and are not subject to JW discipline. Non members do not "DA". They can't "DA" because they are non members.

    The Org would like you to think you don't have that right.

    (this is not legal advice, consult an attorney. this is how I am interpreting a few court cases I ran across, as well as posts here on this board over the years from people who wrote such letters and some of whom did consult attorneys.)

    Their claim is you are free to go, and they will not discipline you, once you have DA'd.

    Yes, they would claim this. They claim DA is nothing but an announcement that you have left the church. In reality the announcement is exactly the same punishment given to DF people..the announcment "so-and-so is no longer a Jehovah's Witness" This punishment described by the watchtower as "severe" and "the strongest form of discipline." http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007045

    If the announcement is discipline when you are DF, then the exact same announcement is discipline when you DA. this needs to be established and exposed far and wide.

    If I am a non member, they have no right to discipline me (announce me DA or DF).

    But, with their carefully phrased articles, what Law have they broken ?

    If they discipline me when I am a non member, they are in effect refusing to let me be a non member and are violating my first amendment right to freedom of religion.

    (Again, consult an attorney. This is my interpretation of the cases I read about.)

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I have problems with nonlawyers giiving legal advice on an internet forum, esp. when members are former Witnesses and may not be sophsiticated in legal terms. As I explained in the past, I took some quasilegal courses in the Political Science department. I read the cases and attended the lectures. My grades were always top-notch. As part of my financial aid package, I worked for the ACLU. We were warned not to give legal advice. The lawyers handing down the "no advice" rule seemed a bit arrogant to me. My colleagues and I gave legal advice to strangers over the phone whenever a lawyer wasn't present to hear us. Time passed. I started law school. During my first week, I found out that cases exist in a context. You never have a straight case about a subject. Other fields of law, not covered in college, intrude. I found out that minor factual details can change the holding of the court. Procedural law governs everything.

    My work at national public interest organizations gave me insights into how test cases are selected. I read legal information on the Internet that is wrong all the time. Yet I completely understand why people post the information. They would be correct if the law were more modern and isolated. Also, from hearing discussions at the ACLU and other places, these advocacy groups believe in causes more than individual clients. If I had a perfect civil liberties case, I would hire my own private lawyer to look out for my interests.

    As I said before, I think this area is fascinating. The First Amendment is always going to have precedence. It would take me perhaps three weeks of legal hours to begin to understand the cases and how they interrelate. I don't know what type of lawyer would specialize in this area. Lawyers and professors love writing about First Amendment religious issues.

    Also, when you rely on the Internet and don't know how to Shepardize, the holding of the case may have been overturned. I understand that people can't afford lawyers in many cases. No court is going to order individual JWs to talk to you. There is a right to free association. If you are very intertwined with the Witnesses, such as all your family, friends, employer, employees are Witnesses, some money to a lawyer is a wise investment. I also note that no one has listed real names and contact info who used these strategies successfully.

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa

    saving another thread here -doesn't deal with topic of the discipline of non members, but does talk about legal issues and DF-

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/181033/1/Article-Is-Wrongful-Excommunication-Legally-Redressable-About-Mormons-JWs-and-other-religions#.UzV-WoU26M0

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    This is what scares me. Nonlawyers reading a stray case and finding alll sorts of revelation in it. The revelation always seems to correspond with what the reader wants the courts to do. Real life is not like that. Stray cases are not legal research. Members of this forum read the "opinion" of the nonlawyer. It says what the member wants to hear.iss

    I once thought this was nifty. Finding what I wanted to find. Now I know I was very wrong. It may not look like it but law school does teach one how to do legal research. You slowly go over edited appellate cases first year. Despite vows to the contrary, you develop a legal brain. The WT shunning can be so severe for some people that it can be worth seeing a lawyer. There are ways to hold down costs. I don't know what type of lawyer would specialize in these cases. Large cities may have lawyers who represent churches. Perhaps a call to a local law school might yield a referral.

    I have a hunch that if it were so simple, everyone would announce they were an ex-member and could not be touched. Frankly, I don't know. A lawyer did read the cases and disagreed with the interpretation. This lawyer has always been correct in the past. I've been out for too long. My understanding of disfellowshiping is more than 40 years old. I know libel and slander do not apply. It might make a difference how large the population of Witnesses is in a particular area. There are many questions and I have yet to read a single case.

    Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter. This country, the USA, was found by religious dissidents from Europe. The Pilgrims were apostates.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @listBObeesa:

    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 exactlythe same as for "DF."

    Only a nonJW who doesn't understand the process would mistakenly think the announcment was nothing but a membership announcement.

    I think I see several differences between your thinking and my thinking. First, I wouldn't say that "discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning". The "=" sign imples an equality, as if they are the same thing. They are not in practice, and I wouldn't think so legally. The announcement lets everyone know the membeship status of the individual. From there, the congregation members actually impliment the discipline.

    When you said, "The same way the kiss on the cheek from a mafia boss can amount to an assassination order." The kiss isn't the discipline, it is when one of the mafia goons sits you down and puts a bullet through your head. To me, there is a distinct difference. Let me put it this way, what if the signal wasn't a kiss, but a hand shake? You would most likely view the hand shake the same way. I asked the same question in relation to a membership list hanging on the board. Let's say you got your way and the courts step in and say, "Hey, that announcement is over the line." The next step would be to simply maintain a congregation membeship list on the board (as all churches do), and the congregational members would take their cues from there.

    In other words, if you had your way, nothing would really change; also, the courts would have set new precedent for overreach.

    But this might all be irrelavant. Question: why don't you view the announcement as part of the separation process? It seems you are saying that the separation comes sometime before. When the separation comes - there are processes that both sides can go through as part of the entire separation process. After the entire process is complete - announcement, documentation to headquarters, etc - clearly, then any "discipline" by the WTB&TS directly would be innapropriate.

    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.

    The bill of rights was constructed to put limits on the governement. If a private organization is interferring with your choice to be free of said organization, then I don't see that as a first ammendment issue at all - rather is is just an issue of harassment. Notice, on the link you posted, if you read the full text, it continually talks about freedom of and from religion in relation to goverment activities: "The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join."

    I would be interested in knowing why it would be viewed as a first ammendment issue.

    Glad midterms went OK for you. What are you studying?

    MMM

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit