Some Possible Ways to Avoid DF and DA Announcements

by DT 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  The recent events in Australia reveal that the Watchtower is very sneaky. They use a maze of corporate structures to avoid or limit liability.

  Well, it's possible for apostates to be sneaky too. I'm actually beginning to think that there is much we can learn from how the Watchtower Society does things.

  Many apostates have the same problem. They want to leave, but they don't want to be shunned. I have a few ideas of how to use their corporate structure against them to avoid that dreaded announcement that will result in enforced shunning.

  I should first discuss some legal principles in the United States. Please remember that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not qualified to give legal advice.

  Organizations usually have the right to expel members for a wide variety of reasons. Members are also free to leave an organization. This is generally a good thing. I wouldn't want to see these freedoms suppressed.

  An organization has the right to to inform its members that someone has left or is no longer a member. This is also understandable and usually a good thing. However, an organization does have to be careful that it doesn't slander former members. Its rights are limited with regards to what they can say about former members.

  Religious organizations can get away with certain things that would be illegal for nonreligious organizations. For example, they can enforce shunning of former members. A business would likely get sued if they required their employees to completely shun a former employee. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal for a religious organization to do things like enforce shunning. It does mean that the courts are usually reluctant to get involved in internal religious matters.

  Religious organizations don't have the same freedoms to punish nonmembers. If a religion tells all it's members that they must shun a certain person who was never a member of their religion, then they would likely get into legal trouble. This is one reason the Watchtower Society doesn't require shunning of people who were never baptized and is also a reason for changing the baptism questions to indicate that the person accepts the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  It could be argued that a religion doesn't have the right to enforce shunning of former members either, since they are no longer members. (It would be different if they put a member under some kind of probation and enforced shunning while that person is still a member.) However, it would be hard to get the courts to even hear a case about this and they might decide that this is just an extension of internal disciplinary practices.

  The situation is different if a disciplinary action takes place after a person leaves, rather than at the time of leaving. This is an established legal principle that could cause the Watchtower Society some significant problems if they aren't careful. As an example, the Mormons have gotten into trouble for trying to excommunicate people who have already resigned. See this link http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html

  It would appear that if someone resigns from Jehovah's Witnesses, then it would be unlawful for them to form a judicial committee or otherwise harass the person, even if they don't announce the disassociation. If they wait to make an announcement (that results in the punishment of shunning) then that may also be illegal. (I don't believe this has ever been tested and I suspect that the Watchtower Society would prefer not to test it.)

  This suggests some possible strategies.

  Some have avoided disfellowshipping by writing letters that threaten legal action against the individual elders in the congregation. These can be very effective. What if a letter like this also included language that could be viewed as a letter of resignation? Perhaps this could be a further safeguard against any future congregational action or at least increase the chances of a successful lawsuit. I think it might be worth a try, but I wouldn't suggest it if a person is worried about an announcement and shunning. It might be a good experiment for someone who doesn't really care, but would enjoy messing with the local elders a little bit.

  Another important factor is that it is the local congregations that make DF and DA announcements. This helps to shield the Watchtower Society from liability. I wonder what would happen if someone sent a letter resigning from a certain congregation, while expressing a desire to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If they made an announcement that so and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses then that could be viewed as slander. If they do nothing, then they could lose any right to do anything in the future.

  A person could also ask that their records be transferred to another congregation, perhaps one that is far away, so that even if they did make an announcement no one who knows the person would even hear it. This request might be refused, but a carefully worded letter could still be seen as an act of resignation from the local congregation, thereby barring them from taking any judicial action in the future.

  I look forward to your comments.
• 

  Morbidzbaby

  A person could also ask that their records be transferred to another congregation, perhaps one that is far away, so that even if they did make an announcement no one who knows the person would even hear it. This request might be refused, but a carefully worded letter could still be seen as an act of resignation from the local congregation, thereby barring them from taking any judicial action in the future.

  I wondered about this option myself. I mentioned it awhile back, but it was mentioned that there's now an online database that the congregation secrateries have to communicate and send files between BOE's. So, conceivably, they could notify the original congregation that you've DA'ed and it would be up to the congregation there if they want to make an announcement due to the fact that everyone there knows you...sort of like a "warning" to them. I've heard of multiple congregations making the announcement about ONE person being DFed or DAing. This is why I've completely dropped off the grid where the elders are concerned. They don't have my phone number, nor my address...Nothing. I walked away and I'm completely done.

  I think the letter threatening legal action if slander occurs via an announcement is still the way to go for those who just want to leave but still have reasons why they can't be DF'ed/DA formally.
• 

  DT

  "I've heard of multiple congregations making the announcement about ONE person being DFed or DAing."

  I've heard of that too, but didn't think that happens anymore. Can anyone verify if that still happens? I guess it comes down to liability. If the headquarters officially directs and coordinates announcements of DF or DA then it implies that they have liability if something goes wrong. To me, it appears that they are trying to at least give the impression that the congregations are acting independently. If so, it could result in liability for any congregation who makes an announcement about someone who isn't officially a member of that congregation.
• 

  Anony Mous

  Just don't put in your letter of resignation or talk to them, there is nothing they can do if they don't have anything to start a committee on.

  You could threaten with legal action against the elder's person (not against the congregation or Watchtower).
• 

  facebeauty

  yup, that's might be the way to go.
• 

  DT

  I also think it would be interesting to ask the elders who initiate a judicial hearing who they are representing. In theory, they have to represent an organization that has the accused as a member. If they refuse to answer, it may be possible to call the police and accuse them of harassment.

  If they say only the local congregation, then you can ask if they we be sending any paperwork about the proceedings to another organization. If they say no, you can call them liars. If they say yes, that can be the basis for additional legal threats, especially if it can't be shown that you are a member of the organisation that receives the paperwork. The corporate structure of the Watchtower Society has become so fragmented to avoid liability that it's difficult to say what sections have any authority over Jehovah's Witnesses. If it claims authority, it has to accept liability. If the elders consistently claim to only represent the local congregation, then it would make sense to resign from individual congregations.

  I also wonder what would happen if a person who is threatened with a judicial committee immediately resigns from the local congregation and asks for their records to be transferred to another congregation. The other congregation might refuse to receive the records, but that could be even better because the resignation from the first congregation should still be official. Any legal threats to those elders would carry extra weight because they have no authority to punish you. They might be forced to drop the issue or assemble a judicial committee that officially represents something other than a local congregation. It would be very interesting to see who is represented. They would have to prove that you are a member of that organization and I'm not sure that they could.
• 

  DT

  The Watchtower Society likes to have it both ways. They like to rule their organization with an iron fist, but they like to pretend that the congregations are independent to limit liability. However, certain legal issues make it necessary for them to identify which structure is in place. Whenever they assert a certain type of structure it makes it more difficult to claim the opposite when it's convenient.

  They treat DF and DA announcements like there is a central authority. It is supposed to affect all Jehovah's Witnesses and records are kept in a central location. Yet, if a lawsuit happens, they would probably try to say that only the local congregation is responsible. Since there is a central authority, it would be great to identify it so it could also have liability for when things go wrong. They could choose to make announcements a matter for only local congregations, but they would lose control. They couldn't have circuit overseers review cases. Appeals may become impossible when there aren't enough elders in that congregation. It would also make it easy for apostates to simply transfer to a far away congregation or just resign from a local congregation to avoid an announcement. The local congregations could also make their own rules. It would also make it easier for a local body to disfellowship other elders and seize assets. The courts are often reluctant to interfere in these types of cases under the assumption that the person has agreed to follow the rules. It would seem that members should have some right to find out what the rules are and who is responsible for certain types of actions.
• 

  DT

  I wanted to bump this again in case anyone had any comments, especially in view of the denial in Australia that the Faithful and Discreet Slave exists.

  I also had a few more thoughts. Some cases against the Watchtower Society have been dismissed simply because it is viewed as an internal religious matter. I wonder what would happen if the plaintiff claimed to have proof that it isn't an internal religious matter (such as a letter resigning from an individual congregation or asking that their records be transferred). I'm guessing that a court would have to hear the evidence. The case might still be dismissed if the Watchtower Society could prove that it is an internal religious matter, but that might require showing what part of the Watchtower Society has the right to administer discipline and that the plaintiff somehow agreed to follow the rules of that organization. Even if the case is still dismissed, it could be incredibly damaging to the Watchtower Society and it could give apostates a chance to develop better strategies.

  The Watchtower Society claims that baptism involves a person agreeing to abide by the rules of the religion. This may be just an argument that can be used to avoid court interference. It doesn't mean that it would stand up if it were examined in a legal setting. The problem is getting a court to examine it. Former members could make a different claim. They could claim that baptism is not a criteria for membership. They could point out that the Watchtower Society counts people as members when they begin the preaching work and stops counting them when they stop, regardless of whether they are baptized or not. Even the name Jehovah's Witnesses implies an activity, not a state of baptism.

  Also when someone leaves or is disfellowshipped they are no longer viewed as members, even though they have been baptized. If baptism really was a membership criteria, then it should be invalidated once someone stops becoming a member. Yet they don't require that someone who comes back be rebaptized. However, they will continue counting him again when he resumes the witnessing work. I think this is important because someone who becomes inactive for a significant amount of time could argue that he is no longer a member and therefore not subject to internal disciplinary procedures.

  I don't know how a court would rule on these matters. I just think it's possible that if these facts were presented appropriately a court would at least have to consider them before automatically dismissing a case against the Watchtower Society.