Minors bound to jw baptismal contract?

by Cappuccino OC 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • Cappuccino OC
    Cappuccino OC

    Hi everyone,

    Are minors legally bound to the WTS baptismal contract? (The two questions that we answer at the assembly before getting baptised)

    The following website says no. Is this true? Has anyone spoken to an elder or the WTS about this trying to break their contract?

    I'd appreciate any information.

    I just found this information at a website. Does anyone know if this true?

    ://www.geocities.com/osarsif/legal.htm

    "Note that the above legalese says that once a person joins the Witnesses, he has only two choices if he wants to leave: disfellowshipping and disassociation.

    These two choices are enforced by American law. However, even if the Watchtower lawyer has correctly stated matters, he has neglected the case of the child who gets baptized and submits to "ecclesiastical law.;

    By law minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts. Therefore by law, people who got baptized when they were children have a third legally enforceable option when they leave:

    to simply quit, without disassociating and without submitting to a judicial committee, or ;ecclesiastical tribunal.; Of course, the Society will not tell people about this."

    Cappuccino OC

    PS. I just changed my screen name from Oveja Callada to Cappuccino OC.
    My new screen name is better description of my favorite drink (coffee).

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    The statement that under American law, minors cannot enter into legally enforceable contracts, is correct. However, to my knowledge this particular aspect has not been tested in the courts. Nevertheless, it was one of the things I pointed out to some elders several years ago when they wanted to come after me. I informed them that I was baptized as a minor at 15 years of age, and that if I knew then what I know now, I would never have been baptized. I hinted that this would come up in court if they tried to DF or DA me.

    AlanF

  • Fatal Error
    Fatal Error

    I've come across this too, there's a set of laws called the Religion Act or something, that has a section designed to protect children from harmful cults, neabling them to walk out of any commitment they make as a minor. I think the situation may be the same in Britain too, not sure..

  • Cappuccino OC
    Cappuccino OC

    Thank you for your comments.

    I was baptised also at 15 and I have stopped attending the meetings for over a month now.

    I spoke to a relative about my concerns regarding the child molestation cases. (My little sister was abused; her father was only disfellowshiped) He, and elder, said "You have only known ONE case"

    Well, this ONE case happens to be my sister. My uncle advised me to go SPEAK with the elders regarding my doubts about the WTS. (yeah right -like they are really going to 'listen' to my concerns.)

    I know that they will be at my door anytime now.000

    Any info will greatly help me.

    Thanks,

    Cappuccino OC

  • LB
    LB

    I would love to see someone test this in court. But again this is a private club with their own rules and bylaws. No real property is exchanged or services either.

    It honestly seems so wrong to bind a minor to this contract though. I have seen many many get baptised very young only to get DFed within a couple of years. It's a very stupid arrangement.


    Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

  • metatron
    metatron

    I think this approach is probably a dead end. If you continued
    as a Witness into adulthood, they can say you accepted the
    "contract".

    I'm starting to feel that there is no way to break their
    cruel use of DF'ing except violence - I'm sorry for even
    uttering that view - there doesn't seem to be any way
    to reform them on this issue.

    Please prove me wrong.

    metatron

  • SYN
    SYN

    When you speak about doubts, all those Elders are hearing is "Apostate"! Believe me, I know!

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Cap: AlanF stated,

    "The statement that under American law, minors cannot enter into legally enforceable contracts, is correct. However, to my knowledge this particular aspect has not been tested in the courts. Nevertheless, it was one of the things I pointed out to some elders several years ago when they wanted to come after me. I informed them that I was baptized as a minor at 15 years of age, and that if I knew then what I know now, I would never have been baptized. I hinted that this would come up in court if they tried to DF or DA me."

    Alan is correct. Religious membership, however, is not under any enforceable law. When a person is baptized into a religion, they sign no agreement or contract, whether adults or minors ... they are free to come and go, in and out of a religion, and cannot be held to meet 'specific performance' under normal contract law ...

    ... the exceptions would be if a contractor performed work on a Kingdom Hall under a written contract, and either party defaulted, then it is enforceable. But that is a matter of a business relationship, rather than a religious relationship.

    Freedom of religion means just that ... and no one can be held or bound to stay with a particular group or denomination. Even Catholic Priests and Nuns can walk away at anytime under law ...

    What JWs are trying to do when they are considering using the courts against the Watchtower is to remedy a situation they do not like, such as ending shunning and/or address issues of Libel. There is nothing that can be done about shunning, because those who shun do so out of their belief under their individual right of freedom of relision ... and, Libel is very hard to prove under almost any circumstance, religious or otherwise.

    The enforceable elements of Contract law means: A written document, between consenting adults (usually 18 years of age or older), agreeing to make a lawful exchange of goods, services, and/or money (consideration) ... the 'object' of the contract must be lawful, that is, the service or product must be within the limits of the law ... you cannot lawfully contract, for example, to have someone murdered.

    Some states allow unilateral contracts, such as Illinois where I live. A unilateral contract that is enforceable might be a Will, for example ... but a religion cannot have a unilateral contract with members, where members are bound but the church is not ... except in cases of Wills, Trusts, and Estates that a decedant awards to a church ... and if a wealthy minor died, having willed his/her estate to the Watchtower, surviving relative could likely challenge such a Will.

    When you get baptized a Baptist, or Methodist, or Catholic, or whatever, you have NOT entered into any lawful contract, as it does not meet the test of what constitutes a contract.

    Were I would attempt a lawsuit, I would attack their failure to 'disclose' material facts as they pertain to and affected my decision to join a religion and make financial contributions. This would likely have to be tested in court under some type of "Statute of Fraud" ... where people are induced to give support that they otherwise would not give have they been given "proper disclosure" about the goods, services, or institution involved.

    For example: If the members of the JWs discovered that the Watchotwer was owned by say, Al Quaeda, or the Mafia, or the Catholic Church, then they may have a case for a class action suit because clearly, this would be a fraud perpetrated upon the JW members at large.

    Another way to view this is to ask, "If a "minor" gets baptized, and subsequently contributes labor and/or money, can he/she seek reimbursement and other court sanctions as a remedy?" As minors they gave without being consenting adults. There could be possible child labor laws violated - working on Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, and door to door canvassing ... and the minor was induced to give financial support without proper disclosure and the like.

    I know that mail order sales companies get into trouble at times when a minor orders products, because minors cannot be made to pay ... and the company has to eat the loss. It is the risk they take ... although some states are now starting to make parents liable.

    Sooo ... the short of it is: Unless you can establish where the religion broke some law in baptising a minor ... then there is little hope of gaining anything from a lawsuit ... and there is no contract even if a person is an adult ... joining a religion does not meet the standards of basic contract law.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    One fact intensifying this curiosity is the WTS’s admission that some of these minors were baptized before their parents thought they were “sufficiently capable” to offer prayer for something as BASIC as mealtime!

    From the July 15, 2000 Watchtower QFR page 27:

      “What, though, if a young son in the family is a dedicated, baptized servant of Jehovah God?... if the father is absent, then the mother should wear a head covering if she conducts a Bible study with the young baptized son and the other children. Whether she calls on the baptized son to pray at such a study or at mealtime is left to her discretion. She may feel the he is not yet sufficiently capable and may choose to offer prayer herself.”

    Given that a child’s parents thinks he “is not yet sufficiently capable” to offer a simple mealtime prayer, a competent person must wonder how a mother or father could have deemed a child CAPABLE of making a PRAYERFUL dedication in the FIRST PLACE!

    Given the ADMISSION in the article quoted above, we know the WTS is keenly aware of this event among their adherents. That they let this happen and later HOLD the same children to a decision they made as persons insufficiently capable of praying for MEALTIME (for goodness sake!) cannot be looked at kindly by courts of the land. I would think that a person baptized as a child who was also disfellowshipped as a child could later sue the WTS for emotional damages resulting from the disfellowshipping action, if indeed they were traumatized by the event. This suit would be based on a person being held to a decision where evidence supports an assertion that the person was KNOWN to be insufficiently capable to have made the choice they made. Evidence could be as simple as an elder refraining from using a child for MEALTIME prayer because they felt he was “not yet sufficiently capable.”

    I think WTS Legal wishes the comment above had never been published like it was.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Marvin: You make an interesting point,

    "That they let this happen and later HOLD the same children to a decision they made as persons insufficiently capable of praying for MEALTIME (for goodness sake!) cannot be looked at kindly by courts of the land."

    What would we expect the courts to do about it, even if they do not like it? What legal 'cause of action' would the minor have? The custodial power of the parents would be the controlling aspect that any court would look at ... and courts are very reluctant to start telling parents that they cannot let their minors get baptized or particiapte in their religious activities ... and think of the tens of millions of Catholics baptized as babies ... clearly minors unable to give consent to the act - this would wipe out the Catholic Church.

    "I would think that a person baptized as a child who was also disfellowshipped as a child could later sue the WTS for emotional damages resulting from the disfellowshipping action, if indeed they were traumatized by the event. This suit would be based on a person being held to a decision where evidence supports an assertion that the person was KNOWN to be insufficiently capable to have made the choice they made."
    Bingo!!! Like the 14 year old boy that we DF'd when I was an Elder ... (I read the announcement but was not on the JC) ... he was DF'd for having mutual fondling with anouther boy his age ... the parents were basically set aside because he was 'baptized' and he was held directly accountable by the congregation ... the other boy was 'not' baptized, and therefore not required to particiapte in any JC hearing.

    As for the baptized boy ... he was not permitted reinstatement during a seven year period where he was trying to get back in ... during which time he had no JW friends due to shunning, and no 'worldly' friends so he could prove faithful to get reinstated ... he finally gave up at age 21 and lost all faith in God.

    Could he now sue for the emotional damages? This would be a most interesting "TEST" case of a civil action vs freedom of religion ... I don't know if a judge would admit the case to trial, unless the plaintiff's attorney argued a good case during pre-trial on the legal merits ... but, I would love it if this happened ... I would think that the boy (now a man) would have to sue his parents, the Elders, the Congregation, and the Watchtower Society as Co-Defendants for messing him up emoitionally ... almost on the basis of conspiracy to cause harm.

    The Case Law from a successful action would change not only what religions could do, but what parents and friends and family could do with respect to how they treat and raise their children ... "Mess your kids up now, and Pay Later" would be the new motto.

    Thanks for the insightful post.

    Evidence could be as simple as an elder refraining from using a child for MEALTIME prayer because they felt he was “not yet sufficiently capable.”

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit