There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA (page 2)

clarity

Gio ...thanks for posting that valuable information!

When it is necessary to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation, a brief announcement is made simply stating:" [ Name of person ] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", There is no need to elaborate. This will alert faithful members of the congregation to stop associating with that person."______Organized to do Jehovah's Will Book page 154

.

Island Man

I think a good lawyer could perhaps use Watchtower quotes where the organization instructs JWs to shun former Witnesses, to make the case that just announcing that a person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses is tantamount to the organization hinting to all JWs - including the person's own family, that he should be shunned. A lawyer can argue that the organization continues to discipline former members by instructing all JWs - including the former member's family - that they need to shun all ex-JWs. WasBlind's quote above could be used by a good lawyer to make a case. Given that the org teaches members that "so and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" means that the person has been disfellowshipped as an unrepentant wrongdoer then the org's making the exact same statement in the case of someone who simply resigned from the religion would constitute conveying the impression that the individual was disefellowshipped as a sinner and can be seen as sullying his character.

wasblind

In the words of the WTS , even if a person Does not commit a " Sin " they can still be shunned

.

" Disassociation

The term "disassociation " applies to the action taken by a person who, although a baptisted member of the congregation, deliberately repudiates his Christian standing, rejecting the congregation by his actions or by stating that he no longer wants to be recongnized as or known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses"_____Organized to do Jehovah's Will book page 155

.

" The person who disassociates himself by repudiating the faith and deliberately abandoning Jehovah's worship is viewed the same way as one who is disfellowshipped. A brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating " [ Name of person ] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses____Organized to do Jehovah' Will book page 155

.

Band on the Run

Well, it would seem to be the wise thing to sue the WT. The money will certainly compensate for the loss of your loved ones. Oh, also don't worry about that archaic, silly rule, the statute of limitations.

Giordano

how about there are some things that in real life don't have a statute of limitations maybe there is human suffering that goes beyond that kind of limitation.

quellycatface

The fact that there is no differentiation between the DF or DA status, somewhat vexes me.

I sent my letter of DA'ing and no doubt there was an announcement. BUT I want people to know that I walked away from the Organsation, not that I was DF'd. That it was my choice to leave.

I have a good mind to try and let some of them know, that I am proud to be an apostate and I know the TTATT. So there.

Chaserious

The Guinn case (the one mentioned by Gio in the OP) is not precedent for legal action for WTBTS-style shunning. In fact, I took a class in law school where the Guinn case and Paul v. Watchtower (discussed elsewhere on this site; an unsuccessful lawsuit against the WTBTS for shunning that made it to a U.S. Court of Appeals) were discussed in class on the same day to juxtapose which church disciplinary actions are protected by the Constitution under U.S. law and which aren't.

The Guinn case is different because after the individual withdrew membership from her church, the church continued to treat her like a member. After her withdrawal, they (1) announced her sins from the pulpit; (2) told church members to find and confront her to try to get her to "repent"; and (3) sent letters describing her "sins" to neighboring churches. That was the basis for liability - the church violated Guinn's First Amendment right not to participate in a religious organization. It was not merely shunning that amounted to actionable conduct. The same would obviously not apply to WTBTS policy. If you withdraw, they will announce merely that you are no longer a member, and they will no longer treat you like a member, with all that we know comes along with that.

blondie

If you want to publicize your action as DA not DF, take out an ad in your local paper (within your budget) or

Put flyers on their cars during a meeting (risky)

Send letters or e-mails to all your jw contacts (risk of their not reading)

Put up a billboard where the most jws are likely to drive by

Tell the 2 most gossipy sisters in the congregation prior to turning in your letter

lisaBObeesa

The Guinn case (the one mentioned by Gio in the OP) is not precedent for legal action for WTBTS-style shunning. In fact, I took a class in law school where the Guinn case and Paul v. Watchtower (discussed elsewhere on this site; an unsuccessful lawsuit against the WTBTS for shunning that made it to a U.S. Court of Appeals) were discussed in class on the same day to juxtapose which church disciplinary actions are protected by the Constitution under U.S. law and which aren't.

The Guinn case is different because after the individual withdrew membership from her church, the church continued to treat her like a member. After her withdrawal, they (1) announced her sins from the pulpit; (2) told church members to find and confront her to try to get her to "repent"; and (3) sent letters describing her "sins" to neighboring churches. That was the basis for liability - the church violated Guinn's First Amendment right not to participate in a religious organization. It was not merely shunning that amounted to actionable conduct. The same would obviously not apply to WTBTS policy. If you withdraw, they will announce merely that you are no longer a member, and they will no longer treat you like a member, with all that we know comes along with that.

Thank you for posting that info.

Please bear with me, as I am obviously untrained in the law, but I’d like to try to make my case.

Well, I’d like to lay out some things I think might be used to build some kind of a case, someday. Maybe.

So here, in no real logical order, are some thoughts:

1) Reading http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-not-to-keep-going-on-with.html made me think that there is an argument that could be used in court.

Rather than claiming the shunning itself is the issue (like paul v. watchtower), the issue should be that the church is exercising discipline on people who are no longer members.

2) People who are not JWs are not shunned by JWs. Only DF/DA Jehovah’s Witnesses are shunned.

If a person wants to simply not be a JWthey should fall into the first category, with the rest of the humans in the world who are not JWs. But this is not the case. Instead, these people who have withdrawn their membership are subjected to the church discipline of a church that they do not belong to.

Announcing a person is “no longer a JW” is code from the church that instructs the congregation to subject that person to the discipline of the congregation, something that can only be done to its members.

Therefore, by making such a code announcement about a person who has withdrawn membership, the church is outside its rights and is infringing on the 1 st amendment rights of the person who has withdrawn membership.

3) "After her withdrawal, they (1) announced her sins from the pulpit; (2) told church members to find and confront her to try to get her to "repent"; and (3) sent letters describing her "sins" to neighboring churches."

“So-and-so is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness” is code for ‘So-and-so is an unrepentant sinner’ which IS announcing the person’s sin from the pulpit. (In reality, being an unrepentant sinner is the only punishable sin in the JWs)
The WTBTS tells church members to actively shun the person to try to get them to “repent.”
?sometimes letters to other bodies of elders?

If a person is not a JW, these things don’t happen to them. Everyone has the right to NOT be a JW. If you are a JW, you have the right to stop being a JW no longer be subjected to their coded announcements of your ‘sin’, their attempts to get you to repent, and their punishments.

In other words, if you are a JW, you have a right to withdraw from being a member and not participate in their religion in any way. The WTBTS announcement that is code to shun you (=discipline) after your withdawl from the religion is violating that right.

4) "If you withdraw, they will announce merely that you are no longer a member, and they will no longer treat you like a member, with all that we know comes along with that."

JW do not treat you like a non-member when it is announced (in code) from the platform you are an unrepentant sinner.

People who are not members of the JWs are not shunned by the JWs.

Shunning is reserved for DF/DA people. Only members can be DF/DA.

If a person withdraws membership, then the church has no right to DF/DA/shun them (the JW discipline).

Yes? no?

(For these reasons, I think it is extremely important that people wanting to leave the WTBTS do NOT send in letters of 'disassociation' as this is participating in their religion and what you want to do is to say that you are NOT 'disassociating' but are infact withdawing membership in their group and as such they have no authority to make ANY coded announcement about you that means you are 'disassociated'. <--not legal advice, just a radom person's thinking!! Please get legal advice if you are considering this!)

There is law that can be applied to being DFed or DA

Share this