Does Disfellowshipping violate the Constitution?

by YoursChelbie 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  YoursChelbie

  Maybe this is just my observation but ...

  With the exception of crimal offenses, is not disfellowshiping by the WTS Unconstitutional? At the very least they violate the right to Freedom of Speech.

  (I know about the separation of church and state...)

  But in light of religious extremists and the like, we know that horrible abuses do occur under the veil of religion.

  Governments, then MUST intervene to protect people from abuse when it is disguised as part of a religion.

  When you think about it, if a DF person wants to have contact with his family again, he can't form obvious alliances with "worldly people" and at the SAME TIME their lifelong friends and relatives can not speak to them EITHER without risking expulsion! How is that humane?

  Is then the WTS above the law?? The government must intervene to protect people from abuse of basic human rights when such is disguised as part of a religion.

  The Bible repeatedly states that sinners are forgiven on the basis of God's mercy.

  When elders under the guidance of the WTS disfellowship someone, are they not in essence invalidating the sacrifice of Christ?

  They, at their sole discretion take the liberty to decide such things as; how long a person is to be shunned, which sinners have shown repentance and which have not. (This matter is best left to God who can read all hearts.)

  Is there not enough proof of the vast suffering and emotional pain that results from WTS policy of stripping people from their sons, daughters and long-time friends?

  Even convicted murderers who are jailed up have some visitors and other human contact. They aren't kept in solitary confinement for months at a time are they?

  If Jesus were alive today, He would be appalled that the Sacred act of Baptism is being used to enslave people to the whims of a "judicial committee."

  No one at their time of Baptism ever signed a legal document entrusting the final outcome of a "judicial committee" led by the WTS to be completely valid under every situation. (Those who were minors at the time of baptism especially should not be held to the dictates of the WTS.) The WTS is violating citizens' right of freedom of speech. Their disfellowshipping practice should be declared unconstitutional.

  Edited by - YoursChelbie on 27 June 2002 19:0:56

  Edited by - YoursChelbie on 27 June 2002 19:9:42
• 

  Gopher

  Oh if only!

  But the courts are unlikely to dictate to a religion what its rules should or shouldn't be. Shunning has survived court tests before, under the assumption that a person joining the religious group knows that it is a distinct possibility.

  This having been said, the majority of the public has no idea how harmful in human terms this practice is. Suicide (or attempts) are not unusual. Yes the JW's have a slash-and-burn mentality towards any who dare raise one syllable of protest against them! Unfortunately, not enough of the public understands this, since JW's are still numerically a minor religion.
• 

  SPAZnik

  Doesn't violate the constitution anymore than letting an employee go or kicking a member out of a club for infringement of rules. As far as i can see.
  
  I agree with Gopher though...I doubt if very many can truly understand the farreaching impact DFing has on people. Not unless a person has gone through it.
  
  SPAZ
• 

  ARoarer

  Shunning can be a form of child abuse, in my opinion. I know of one instance where a minor child was left homeless after the df'ing, and when we took him in the elders told us he was not permitted to live in our house or he would never get re-instated. One elder actually suggested that the boy live in a car rather than our house. My husband told the elders to take a hike. The other instance is a son of an elder who was asked to leave the house while they invited the congregation over to celebrate his sister's engagement. Can you imagine not being allowed to attend your own sister's engagement party???!!!! So he went to the movies. Sick!!
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Doesn't violate the constitution anymore than letting an employee go or kicking a member out of a club for infringement of rules. As far as i can see.

  Sadly, I think you're right. In court, the obvious question would be, "What real power does the WBTS have to make people refuse to associate with ex-members?" Without the willing participation in shunning by the rank and file, the whole sick practice would collapse. Easy to say from the outside, I know. The JW's really believe they have to go along with this policy. It can't be easy to imagine being the one to stand up and refuse to play along. The normal human instinct is to go along to get along. Remember the TV show "Candid Camera"? Alan Funt was once interviewed by Psychology Today about what he learned from doing the show. He said the biggest surprise to him was how very willing people are to obey authority -- any authority, no matter how outrageous the demand or how little proof was given of the reality of the "authority". For example, they once set up a roadblock on a country road at the state line. They put two men in state trooper suits (no badges, of course) and had them turn motorists around by saying, "Sorry, the state of Tennesee is closed today." Nobody questioned how a state could be closed down, or asked to see their badges. They just turned around, cursing their bad timing.

  Spooky.

  Robert Frazier
• 

  Oroborus21

  Here is a quick primer:

  The U.S. Constitution applies to the Federal Government, specificially the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments and principally the First Amendment--that you are talking about). The 14th Amendment made the amendments applicable in full force to the States and State entities.

  In short the Constitution protects persons rights against the GOVERNMENT not Private "Persons".

  This is what we call State Action and State Action must be shown before a claim under the Constitution can be raised. In other words in any suit against a private person/entity, such as the WT&BTS, based on a Constitutional violation there must be some showing of a nexus between the Government and the private entity.

  So to answer your question DF'ng is not unconstitutional because you are talking about the actions of a private entity (the WTS) and not the government or its entities and thus the constitution is not involved at all!

  The above is not to say that I agree with DF'ng as it is practiced, only to clarify what is a very common misperception among people.

  --Eduardo
• 

  dungbeetle

  On the OTHER thread you posted this topic on, I metioned:

  when you join a religion you agree to abide by its rules, in this case being shunned if you leave.

  In addition, think of the horrendous effects if people were FORCED to associate with each other no matter what. It works both ways. No one likes to be thrown out of anything, but I wouldn't want to be forced to stay either, and thus you have to take the good with the bad.

  some exceptions that might be made:

  1) Children. How could a CHILD legally agree to possible shunning? Good poin that the Pandelos brought out.

  2) If you became a JW without the realization of what shunning was. Believe me, Witnesses don't tell you about their extreme shunning policies very easily. It wouldn't be easy to PROVE you didn't know, but I think if you could, that would be worth a try.

  3) Shunning that was ordered becasue a person was in compliance with a law, such as Bill, and Barbara and the Pandelos. Tampering with a witness in a court case (as Bill Bowen is likely to be) is against the law in all fifty states and the US government. Here I believe is the strongest case, even more so than children.

  It can easily be proven that Watchtower used its shunning/expulsion specifically to control people involved, or who could be involved, in civil/criminal court cases. This behavior could get them in jail, and in the case of any lawyers who may be involved, they could lose thier license to practice law.

  If one single lawyer for Watchtower can be caught LYING in court (and this includes Canada) I think all of the more than one million ex-jw's in the world should start clamoring to the appropriate bar committee. They should be disbarred.

  AMAZING, where ARE YOU?
• 

  Salud

  Spaznik,

  You make valid points. In fact my wife and I were discussing these very ideas today. We were wondering about our situation as disfellowshipped members. Sometime ago we spoke to one of the attorney's handling Erika's (Dateline) case. His words to us were that we would not win even though our complaints were legitimate. If it would have been a corporation or any other organizaiton besides a religious one we would have had a case. But since it falls into that untouchable universe of religion we are out of luck. It all has to do with religion and the rights they have toward their members. It figures that if you voluntarily join a religion then you adhere to all it's by-laws.

  What goverments fail to realize is that once a person is in a religious organization it does not have to follow the same by-laws by which you agreed to when you first joined. They can at will change their rules and teaching on issues and you as a person have no rights. Take for example the baptism questions, when I got baptized in the early 70's you dedicated your life to Jehovah and Jesus, plain and simple. Since the early 80's the wording of the baptismal questions at the assemblies have changed to include your dedication to the Organization now. So what I once thought was true as to my dedication has now taken a new life of its own where I do not have any say so, and pity me if I speak up for I may be disfellowshipped.

  I feel that maybe in the future this tide may turn, especially with the pedophile issue that has been raised. But at the present the courts will not touch this, especially in light of terrorist problems and how many people right now look to religion for the anwsers.

  I hope that one day this government will see that the constitution was written for individuals and not religious organizations. Unfortunately our rights as indivdual were and will continue to be violated by these.

  Edited by - salud on 27 June 2002 19:36:34
• 

  SPAZnik

  Salud

  once a person is in a religious organization it does not have to follow the same by-laws by which you agreed to when you first joined. They can at will change their rules and teaching on issues and you as a person have no rights.

  Very good point also. It's like a "contract" wherein the other guy can change the rules on his end as often as he sees fit. Somethin' wrong wit dat. Double standard of sorts.
  
  Oh well, like dungbeetle said too....at least not forced to stay. (altho they try their darndest)
  
  SPAZ
• 

  abbagail

  Robert V. Frasier wrote: "The normal human instinct is to go along to get along. Remember the TV show "Candid Camera"? Alan Funt was once interviewed by Psychology Today about what he learned from doing the show. He said the biggest surprise to him was how very willing people are to obey authority -- any authority, no matter how outrageous the demand or how little proof was given of the reality of the "authority". For example, they once set up a roadblock ona country road at the state line. They put two men in state trooper suits (no badges, of course) and had them turn motorists around by saying, "Sorry, the state of Tennesee is closed today." Nobody questioned how a state could be closed down, or asked to see their badges. They just turned around, cursing their bad timing. Spooky."

  LOL! Thanks for reminding me. I SAW that episode of Candid Camera and it was, imo, THE MOST INGENIOUS STUNT they ever did! It was at the State Line of Texas, if I remember correctly, and the two State Troopers told the motorists, "Sorry, the State is TOO FULL, TOO CROWDED, and we cannot allow anymore people to come in." It was absolutely hysterical funny, 'cuz the motorists just scratched their heads in disbelief, yet none really fought against what they were told. The Troopers told the motorists they were so sorry, but this action was necessary; and that the motorists could go up and drive through Arkansas (or wherever) to reach their destinations...

  That show should get an Emmy Award. Totally Brilliant!

  GRITS