Just quit quietly - the law is on your side!

by Ajax 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Chaserious

  The DF was reversed

  I wouldnt be surprised if it does result at times in lack of disciplinary action and/or lack of announcement. I was mostly commenting that I would be surprised if anyone actually succeeded in a lawsuit.

  In the US, there is actually some authority in some states for action if a church doesn't follow it's own procedures in removing a member. For example, if I remember one of the cases involved a church rule that there had to be a majority congregation vote to expel someone and the church leaders did it anyway without the majority vote. Your story sounds like it might follow those lines. Very interesting.
• 

  SAHS

  “oppostate”: “This will prevent their announcing anything about your not being a JW anymore, all you've done is leave that congregation and that's not a DF'ing offense.”

  If that is all a person is seeking to accomplish – simply leaving or withdrawing from a particular congregation – then there is nothing else he or she needs to do but simply leave that congregation. There would be no necessity for any type of legal letter if that’s all that’s involved – leaving a particular congregation.

  The only situation requiring a legal letter would be if someone wanted to formally leave the Jehovah’s Witness religion itself and no longer wished to be identified as a Jehovah’s Witness. But of course the tricky part is submitting a written disassociation while still expecting to get out of actually being disfellowshipped and having the standard “so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” announcement made at the next mid-week meeting. Unfortunately, I think it looks like that would be a rather impossible outcome to avoid.

  The only way someone can have their cake and eat it too by effectively leaving the Jehovah’s Witness religion and not being formally disfellowshipped is to just do the fade thing while simply telling anyone who tries to interrogate them that they don’t wish to discuss anything whatsoever. And if someone were to do just that – fade away while refusing to discuss anything – and they still got disfellowshipped in absentia, then they would probably have somewhat of a fairly good case for a lawsuit for basic breach of contract under “natural law.”
• 

  TD

  The only way someone can have their cake and eat it too by effectively leaving the Jehovah’s Witness religion and not being formally disfellowshipped is to just do the fade thing while simply telling anyone who tries to interrogate them that they don’t wish to discuss anything whatsoever.

  --And you have a valid basis to do this if the elders are not from a congregation you were ever affliated with. You have no relationship with their congregation whatsoever and they do not have a legitimate claim of pastoral interest. They really have no more business contacting you than the Pastor of a Baptist church you've never attended either.
• 

  Ajax

  TD -

  Your comment regarding conduct is absolutely correct - a page or two ago I mentioned that (If you so chose) you should still be able to attend their Public meetings , but only as an observer, but no longer as a participant - remember , you have already finalized your document declaring that you have abandoned the Wt/JW religious structure, but that doesn´t mean you have abandoned your family who still attend. You still attend to show your support of those you love. (unlike the JWs who shun those they should love)

  You are still labouring under the notion that this is about DFing - it is not.

  It is about exercising a right without interference. We have a right to leave or change our religion without persecution. When you chose to leave a religion you formerly persued , their influence and authority over you ends. Our little document spells out when this happened - thats when the cults authority ended in our case.

  If you prepared ahead and left in good standing (no judicial issues in process) you have left the borg. Do not engage with Hyenas who may proceed to make trouble for you. Take notes of their actions and the actions they incite in others - if they in any way incite others to single you out for exercising a legal right they are in violation of the law.

  Now is the time to make them aware (in writing) of just how much you respect Human Rights and how seriously you intend to act if yours are infringed upon by the local Eldubs. There is an example of serious wording in a post above.

  The local body will be unprepared for this preemptive approach, as most hoping to escape try to pull off a fade and ultimately get sucked into confrontations with hyenas while they are still ¨in¨ and thus in a position to be disfelowshipped.

  Better to prepare your document to solidify your position as 100% ALREADY OUT and then do an appropriate fade - fast if you just want to be gone and slow if you want to hang around for the support and direction of those you love.

  Now individual dubs can display their ignorant self-righteousness anytime they want and for any reason they want- it has never been a crime to be a deluded asshole. But inciting someone else to discriminate is a whole different ball game (read carefully human rights acts).
• 

  Ajax

  Chaserious-

  Thanks so much for participating in this , I had hoped you would.

  Did you ever sell something, issue a receipt to the buyer and then someone comes along and offers you more than the first guy?

  Bad timing - too bad for you- the deal is done and he has his receipt. Thats the power of a little piece of signed, dated paper .

  Only our little document isn´t just to prove we just bought that anti-gravity machine we always wanted, it´s a legal claim, time stamped that we have alredy exercised a legally recognized human right and that no one is at liberty to inerfere with our decision.

  Disfellowshipping can´t happen as we are no longer under the supossed ecclesiastic authority of the abandoned organisation.

  Please respond as I highly respect your knowledge and input.
• 

  Ajax

  Chaserious -

  I forgot to respond to your querey about damages. The Human rights commission in my jurisdiction does indeed award damages, for legal costs as well as actual expenses incurred, and damages for injures/ distress suffered.

  Furthermore there is a clause of ¨Extended Application¨ meaning that the outcomes of the case may apply to more than just this applicant (obviously some cases are unique) but the outcome of our cases would effect Mormons Muslims and a whole host of immigrant communities trying to throw off the religious restraints of primitive cults.
• 

  TD

  You are still labouring under the notion that this is about DFing - it is not.

  I have to admit that I did interpret preemptively disassociating oneself because, "The congregation cannot take ecclesiastic judicial action against nonmembers" as a means of avoiding disfellowshipping. I guess I'm still confused here, but maybe things will be clearer as others comment.

  ...if they in any way incite others to single you out for exercising a legal right they are in violation of the law.

  What law? You've mentioned general principles of human rights, (Which I agree with) but laws themselves are seldom stated that broadly because they exist to define how general principles work in specific situations. Yes you have a right to renounce a religious faith without persecution, but what constitutes persection under the law?

  It sounds like you live in a country with better laws on this matter than mine.
• 

  Ajax

  TD-

  Human Rights laws are probably administered by your state rather than national- and they vary fron one to another. I noticed that many US states seem more obsessed with threats and damage to propert than damage to people!

  You are correct that they are worded somewhat broadly and that is for a purpose. To benefit from them you have to challenge the person or persons who violated your rights -and show how their actions violated those broad principles.

  It is inevitable that humans will violate laws of specicity - the more specific and plentiful such laws would be the more the likelyhood of violation. But consider a law which is based on principle, and broadly applied... you might accidentally come close to violating someones rights, (talk foolishly, act in ignorance, not be too socially aware etc), but to actually violate and cause harm to apersons individual freedoms requires a certain amount of intent, possibly even malice.

  Intent is absent from mistakes and acts of personal ignorance and can often be remedied by apologies and restitutions. but when there is intent then the perpetrator is likely aware that a violation is taking place, ant the consequences to him is more severe, even punitive., hence damages.

  The Watchtower in a 1947 Awake article decried excommunication as a device of pagans to exercise and expand their ecclesiastic power over the layety - then a very few years later the WT adopted the same practice under the name Disfellowship.

  Not much doubt about their intent either, stern directions to include more and more imaginary offences and to strike closer and closer to the family unit - separating parentsand grandparents from their children - real malice -courtesy a real bunch of bastards.
• 

  Balaamsass2

  Ajax, I found your thread interesting....a different slant.

  Just from my own experiences as an elder and listening to family who are still-in Elders most JW elders will freeze up with a simple demand letter from an Attorney. The "desk" usually tells Elders to drop any actions if a lawsuit is even threatened. Most Elders shake when asked to testify for custody battles.

  I know I may be twisted, but I would love to see an Elders get sued for slander and "Tortious interference" if only in Small Claims Court by a small business owner with a clientel of Jehovah's Witnesses. In California Small Claims can be for $10,000. OUCH!!!
• 

  Chaserious

  Did you ever sell something, issue a receipt to the buyer and then someone comes along and offers you more than the first guy?

  Bad timing - too bad for you- the deal is done and he has his receipt. Thats the power of a little piece of signed, dated paper.

  I don't think this analogy holds up. First, I don't think that one's relationship with a congregation/WTS is governed by contract law. But even if it is, principles of contract law requrie you to communicate something with your counterparty before it's effective. The traditional rule is called the mailbox or posting rule, which makes something in writing effective when you place it in the mail to another party; not when you write it yourself intend for it to secretly have effect.

  Shunning lawsuits definitely fall under tort law, not contract law, where the defendant's state of mind is relevant. In general, someone has to know about something in order to be liable for it under the law; you certainly will have to prove that a church knew you withdrew if you want to hold them liabie for wrongly treating you like a member. If no mental state is needed, that is called strict liability, which almost never applies. Products liability and dangerous animals are the most notable exceptions where someone can be held strictly liable. Imagine if you never told your boss what religion you belong to or did anything to indicate such, and then tried to sue your boss for religious discrimination for making you work on your religious holiday. You would never be able to hold your employer strictly liable for not knowing your religion. That's a more sensible analogy.

  I forgot to respond to your querey about damages. The Human rights commission in my jurisdiction does indeed award damages, for legal costs as well as actual expenses incurred, and damages for injures/ distress suffered.

  I assumed you were in the US, as that is really the only place that imposes extensive tort liability where this would even be a discussion. Are you referring to the human rights commission of a US state? If so, those enforce specific statutory schemes in awarding damages, not general human rights principles.