the right to not disclose your religious preferences to those who would discriminate against you or use this information to violate your civil rights? I think so, but this results in a confusing situation for Jehovah's Witnesses. In theory, Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to change their religion without fear of punishment. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses claim the right to punish those who leave. The courts are reluctant to get involved. What if there was a way to change your religion without notifying the Watchtower Society? It seems to make sense that if you leave a religion, you should tell them. However, that may be an assumption that is worth questioning. Of course, you can just fade, but that is unsatisfying to many people. It also leaves you open to future harassment by the elders. Suppose someone resigns from the Jehovah's Witness religion this way. He prepares a document. It includes these facts. The person was baptised as a minor. He asserts that this makes the baptism invalid in terms of implying any sort of agreement or relationship with an organisation. He was baptised before the change in questions, therefore the baptism is between him and God alone and doesn't involve any third party. He asserts that a change in the ritual of baptism since then cannot insert a third party into any implied agreement where it was originally absent. He also asserts that his baptism was a personal expression of his freedom of religion and any attempt by someone to change the terms after the fact is a violation of his freedom of religion. He points out that Watchtower rules about disassociation by involvement in politics imply that the current members of the governing body have disassociated themselves by their actions on the basis of their willing participation in the United Nations as an NGO. Therefore, they are neither legitimate members nor rulers of the Jehovah's Witness religion. He points out that there are two major factions within the Jehovah's Witness religion, those who follow and agree with the governing body and those who do not. The evidence from the Internet indicates that the group who disagrees is very large, but the brutal policies of the governing body prevents them from speaking openly if they wish to maintain their freedom to maintain normal relations with family and friends. He claims that he was never officially a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion because his baptism never established that relationship. He also maintains that he does not wish be called a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion and does not consider himself as such. However, he claims to be a witness of Jehovah in the Biblical sense and points out that this designation precedes the establishment of the Jehovah's Witness religion. He asserts his right to view himself this way and indicates that it would be slanderous for someone to deny this. He intends to have a group of friends sign as witnesses to the document and have it notarized. He asserts that this should be valid since the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses has no legitimate leadership and he has an absolute right to resign or establish his nonmembership in a religion. He also points out that he has a right to only notify those who he wants to know of his religious preferences. He asserts the right to not inform members of the faction that control most of the physical resources of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Doing so would result in discrimination and a violation of his right to make this decision without coercion. He concludes by saying that if any court finds this document invalid because he didn't inform the faction of Jehovah's Witnesses that he considers illegitimate, then this would be an unconstitutional interference with freedom of religion and a favoring of one religious faction over another. This might make him feel good. He exercised his freedom to resign without conferring legitimacy on the governing body. However, it might not seem that this is much different than a fade. If he is found out he will probably be disfellowshipped or viewed as disassociated. It's tricky though, because a religion is not allowed to punish former members or nonmembers. (I believe this has been well established in cases involving the Mormon church.) In practice Jehovah's Witnesses punish former members by shunning them, but this is considered to be part of the process of separation. What if someone has a document from two years ago that proves he isn't a member of that religion. Could the Watchtower Society impose this sanction after such a long gap? If they announce he is no longer a Jehovah's Witness, couldn't this be slander because it implies he once was a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion and it implies that he is not a witness of Jehovah when he claims the religious right to view himself this way, a designation that precedes the Watchtower Society? It also raises the question of whether a faction within a religion can punish someone who didn't identify himself with that faction years after he leaves the religion. In any case, it raises some interesting moral and legal questions if he decides to sue. At the very least it could be used to intimidate the elders to just leave him alone. What do you think?
Does freedom of religion include...
by DT 3 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
purplesofa
I get what you are saying but
I think anyone that wants to still claim to be a witness of Jehovah, is still basically a Jehovahs Witness.
-
WTWizard
You cannot reason with those witlesses. They prepare stock answers to take away your right--those answers are intentionally confusing to make it impossible to defend against. You have the right to change your religion, but doing so violates an agreement you made in the name of God to do whatever this organization directs you to, no matter what. At some point, they might even start enforcing it as a legally, as well as a morally, binding contract to do whatever they say, even if they change the rules in the middle of the game, and even if it is bad for yourself and society.
Their goal is getting people trapped for life. You are perfectly free to join, but you will be hounded and harassed (and maybe even vandalized, recaptured, or otherwise harmed) if you try to leave them. People have had things vandalized (this happened a few years ago with Lady Liberty getting a Christmas ornament trashed by the witlesses), and have been taken to court for petty reasons (just to coerce them back in). Families are busted up, at the very least they are not allowed to speak to those who choose to leave.
So much for freedom to choose or change your religion.
-
ColdRedRain
Good theory, but religions in this country are protected by the constitution. It's a good way to prevent the government from infiltrating the pews (That's why any churches that preach politics at the pews have to register as political action comitees). It's also a good way to set up insular cults.
The average JW is screwed if they stray and the WT knows it. Find a new faith and fade away. Move if you have to. Go to church in a different part of town. Since you live in an area with multiple core cities, that's not a hard thing to do, since both cities tend to be insular.