Bingo!!! What if you beat them to the punch, do a 'pre-emptive strike'?
There is more to this idea than meets the eye.
What if one REPUDIATED their DF'ing in public legal notice????
What if you can't sue the WTS over a DF'ing??? What if they are hiding behind a law that YOU CAN EQUALLY HIDE BEHIND??? What if you REPUDIATE the DF'ing & they are stuck with your protest???
What if this means that it is A RELIGIOUS DISPUTE, OVER WHICH SECULAR COURTS HAVE NO RULING OR JURISDICTION???
Or, what if you bailed before the ~84 baptism question change? So you don't pledge allegiance to the WTS; what if you wanted to announce that?
What if you felt it was your religious duty to periodically announce such feelings? What if you were a church of even as few as one person, and this was your religious charter?
What if you were just following your religious conscience doing this??
What if this gets you the same religious recognition as a LARGE church??
What if this means that it is A RELIGIOUS DISPUTE, OVER WHICH SECULAR COURTS HAVE NO RULING OR JURISDICTION???
What does a Legal Notice ad cost?
Mustang
Reference:
"It is axiomatic that the guidance of the state cannot substitute for that of the Holy Spirit and that a courtroom is not the place to review a church's determination of 'God's appointed.'"
Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F2d 1164, 1170 (4thCir 1985).
"The reason for this ECCLESIASTICAL ABSTENTION DOCTRINE rests squarely with the non-secular nature of the subject matter of the dispute:
The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of the contravened questions of faith within the association, and for the
ecclesiastical GOVERNMENT of the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned. ALL WHO UNITE THEMSELVES TO SUCH A BODY DO SO WITH AN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND ARE BOUND TO SUBMIT TO IT. But it would be a vain con-sent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organization itself provides for."
Id. at 710-11, 96 SCt at 2381, 49 LEd2d at 163-4 (citing Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall 679, 728-29, 20 LEd 666 (1872)).
All that I write or utter is considered to be protected by religious freedom under the Constitution of the United States, as the "free exercise" and "freedom of speech" clauses.
