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

by Giordano 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Giordano

  Second it is a violation of international human rights law: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief , and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18).

  The Organization of American States is even more explicit:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private. 2. No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12)
• 

  Londo111

  marked
• 

  Chaserious

  As the law views it, announcing that someone who has withdrawn from the congregation/organization is no longer a member does not constitute discipline of that person. Telling active members to, in turn, avoid association with persons in that class is, in a direct sense, control of the active members, not discipline of those who have withdrawn. Just as a religion would have every right to tell its members to shun drug users, homosexuals, or members of another religion, an unfair as it might seem, it has every right (under U.S. law) to tell them to shun former members of its own religion. A court is going to view a chuch telling its members to avoid a certain class of people in the name of their doctrines as part of their right to free exercise, not as improper discipline of former members.

  As for letters that have resulted in non-announcements, I am sure they work sometimes. Empty legal threats can sometimes be quite effective. Companies send baseless cease-and-desist letters all the time to individuals without legal training hoping that the letter will intimidate the recipient with the threat of legal action, even though there would be no hope of the sender actually enforcing the threat. It would not surprise me at all if bodies of elders may decide not to anncounce a DF/DA if they are afraid of legal action being taken against them personally and they will have to hire a lawyer, etc. There are also those who have sent letters and they have been announced anyway, with nothing they could do about it. As for the idea that the announcement coupled with coded messages to shun is a violation of the law, that is fine as a novel theory, but it has been rejected by courts. It is black letter law in the U.S. that WT-style shunning and announcements are entirely legal.
• 

  Island Man

  " Just as a religion would have every right to tell its members to shun drug users, homosexuals, or members of another religion, an unfair as it might seem, it has every right (under U.S. law) to tell them to shun former members of its own religion"

  The difference is that the Watchtower's own literature makes statements to the effect that shunning former members is with the goal that they'll return. So Watchtower's own literature damns them as exercising disciplinary action on non-members who have terminated membership with the organization. JWs do not shun homosexuals, members of other religions and drug users in the way that they shun former members and I don't think it's legal for a religion to teach members to completely ostracize to the extent of not even saying a single word to someone on the basis that they belong to another religion. Individuals may decide of their own free will to do so. But no religion, medium, or other teaching authority respected by a following should actively advocate this. It is just like hatred. An individual may decide to hate another individual. But no person should be teaching an audience to hate a person or group because that amounts to hate speech and/or inciting hate.

  It is also like slander. An individual may have his own personal reasons determined on his own for poorly esteeming the reputation of another person. The law permits this, no problem. But when it comes to actively influencing others to poorly esteem the reputation of someone that is a different matter. I suppose a fundamental moral/ethical principle is that no one should incite others to treat a person or group in a negative way. Individuals should only treat another person negatively based on their own personal motivation based on the other person's treatment of them. This serves to minimize the chances of someone being treated negatively without good reason.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I am so delighted that members giving legal advice concerning WT shunning are holding themselves liable to you when you follow their advice. It is interesting because I would guess that the topic would take at least 30-40 pages of case analysis. Their legal credentials are most impressive. Yes, I was taught to find exactly what I want from legal cases back in ancient days.

  I look forward to reading their posted legal memo. Don't worry if your facts are different from those of other members. They will cover that situation, too.