A Hypothetical DA Letter for Faders

by DT 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  I feel there are some weaknesses in the legal defenses that the Watchtower Society uses when enforcing shunning on former members. One is that they claim that getting baptised makes someone a Jehovah's Witness and implies that they are willing to live by Watchtower rules. However, they don't use baptism as the criteria for counting their members. They only count people who go from door to door identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses, whether or not they are baptised. While baptism can be viewed as a private matter between a person and God, starting in the ministry involves actually representing the organisation and involves meeting with the elders so they can be sure that the individual is complying with Watchtower standards.

  With this in mind, I wrote a hypothetical "DA" letter that assumes the person has faded for several years. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually use this or apply the arguments in a lawsuit involving enforced shunning. I just hope that this will prompt an interesting discussion and maybe give us some useful ideas for dealing with the Watchtower Society.

  Dear Body of Elders,

  I request that my name be removed from all records of this congregation and of the Watchtower Corporation. I make this request in compliance with my personal privacy rights.

  It has been several years since I performed unpaid labor for your organisation by distributing literature in behalf of the Watchtower Corporation. Before I began this work a few of the congregation's leaders met with me to insure that I met certain standards that were expected of someone who publicly represents the Watchtower Corporation.

  Every month I reported the results and length of time spent in this activity. As a result, I was considered a publisher of that corporation and counted as a member of your organisation. For several years, neither party to this arrangement complained or attempted to alter the terms of this arrangement.

  Eventually I decided, for personal reasons, to discontinue this unpaid labor and also stopped attending the sales meetings that are offered by your organisation. Afterwards, I made no attempt to claim any of the little "perks" or "privileges" that were made available to me while I was performing that unpaid labor.

  This resulted in a change to the terms of this arrangement. It was the decision of your organisation to stop counting me as a member of your organisation in figures that were advertised to other members and the general public. I did not contest this change. I understood that I was not required to perform these unpaid services for longer than I wished and that your organisation was not obligated to recognise these services after I stopped performing them. Our arrangement effectively ceased at that time. Neither party contested that change.

  This is not a letter of resignation. I merely point out that my membership in your organisation was terminated years ago, as was indicated by your organisation no longer counting me as a member. Therefore, I feel I am justified in asking that all records pertaining to me or my former membership be destroyed or handed over to me. You no longer have permission to keep records about me.

  I know you have retaliated against others who have made similar requests. Be forewarned that any attempt by you or your organisation to retaliate against me for exercising my rights to privacy will be met with appropriate legal action. This includes, but is not limited to, any public announcement about me that brings my morality or character into question, or any attempt to interfere with my family, personal or business relationships. If you felt that your rights were violated or that you had cause to pursue any punitive action against me, then the appropriate time would have been when our arrangement ended years ago. It is now too late. My nonmembership in your organisation has been established for years. You have no justification for doing anything to me that would not be tolerated by someone who was never a member of your organisation. Given my established nonmembership, you cannot use the concept of a court's inability to interfere with internal religious affairs as a defense in this case.

  You records may indicate that I made a personal dedication to God. This was a private religious matter between my God and myself. Any attempt by you to modify that arrangement or use it imply that you have rights as part of a private agreement that you were never a party to will be viewed by me as a gross violation of my religious rights and result in legal consequences.

  I have evidence that your organisation used fraud and threats to unlawfully extract years of unpaid labor form me. I'm willing to forgo legal action concerning this, provided my requests are honored in a prompt manner, without retaliation, and I receive written confirmation that this has occurred.
• 

  sooner7nc

  Great point on the "publisher" thing. I'd never thought of it that way but you're right, by going inactive you effectively remove yourself from their embrace. Good letter.
• 

  Gayle

  I like it when the elders and WTS gets letters like this. I do believe the WTS & elders do not want "legal" issues like this. I think anyone leaving the WTS should not allow their personal name to be publicly "announced" from their platform because it is a form of character smear and instills fear in their remaining members at the same time. There are many finding that their name is not "announced" when they talk "legal." Just think if everyone did that, maybe it could affect some loss of "control" of the WTS.
• 

  yesidid

  Hi DT,

  That is very good thinking and a very good letter.

  It deserves to get as much exposure as possible.

  Thank you

  yesidid
• 

  SirNose586

  I like this letter. I'll save a copy and give you some credit if I end up using it.
• 

  darthfader

  I have been fading for over 10 years. I'll bookmark this for future reference -- hoping I dont need it and I can stay under the radar...

  Darth Fader
• 

  Farkel

  Very interesting approach. I would add that if and when you bring legal action make it clear that you will be suing the elders PERSONALLY. The WTS will not back them up unless the case is so significant it could result in a ruling that would permanently infringe on the WTS's power to enforce shunning.

  The latest baptismal vows starting in1985 make you agree that your baptism identifies you as a dub:

  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization ?"

  The WTS would likely try to make a legal argument out of that.

  If I were ever to DA, I would be a little more succinct, but still be polite and tactful:

  "Take your bullshit scam religion and shove it where the sun don't shine."

  Farkel
• 

  DT

  Thanks for all the comments.

  "I would add that if and when you bring legal action make it clear that you will be suing the elders PERSONALLY."

  Yes, a very good suggestion.

  "The latest baptismal vows starting in1985 make you agree that your baptism identifies you as a dub:

  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization ?"

  The WTS would likely try to make a legal argument out of that."

  Yes, they like to use that argument. The approach in the letter would probably work better for those who were baptised before the questions changed. Still, I think their defense about baptism is week. They claim that baptism identifies you as a witness, but start counting you as a member when you start representing them in the ministry, doing the work that Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for. If you are already a Witness, then becoming a Witness again is just a ritual without much meaning.

  It's also clear that freedom of religion requires that this association with Jehovah's Witnesses can be terminated at any time by either party. (Of course, the Watchtower Society likes to impose sanctions, which is questionable from a human rights perspective.) However, it can be argued that in the case of a fader, it is the Watchtower Society that terminates that association, by no longer counting the person as a member and perhaps by actually warning against association with such weak ones.

  If the Watchtower terminates that association, then they can't impose further sanctions at a later time on a nonmember. The Mormons have gotten into trouble for later imposing sanctions on people who have already resigned, so there is a legal precedent for this, one that the Watchtower Society has managed to avoid, so far.

  Of course, there are counter arguments for my arguments. I think the important point is that this argument can be made. The Watchtower Society has avoided lawsuits by just having the case dismissed on the basis that it would involve the court in internal religious matters. It doesn't matter if the it is possibly a case where an individual's religious rights transcend the rights of an organisation, if the court never gets to hear the arguments.

  However, if the argument can be made that a case of enforced shunning (I'm referring to an organisation using threats and intimidation to enforce shunning, not the rights of individuals to shun whoever they want to.) is not an internal religious matter, because one of the parties has not been a member for several years, then a court might decide that they have to investigate this kind of case and might actually get to decide that a person's right to resign from a religion without sanctions should be upheld.

  These are just my opinions. I'm not qualified to give any kind of legal advice.
• 

  Aeiouy

  Very, very interesting post. I believe the elders will soon be looking for a way to DF or DA me, so this is very useful. I haven't been in circus for over 6 months now, so I should be able to use this as I'm considered inactive. The only hold up with this letter I can see is this:

  Within the past few years, the WTS made an adjustment to how they announce DFings and DAings. I thought nothing of it at first, but now realize why they did this. All they announce at the meeting now is, "Brother So-and-So is no longer one of JW's." They don't actually mention anything about your moral character or anything like that, and they don't specifically say to cut off all communication with that person. The only way I can see around this would be to prove from their own literature that they command the R&F to cease talking with anyone who used to be a witness but no longer is. Any thoughts on how to incorporate that into the letter? I figure they could use the excuse that they are only announcing the termination of your membership, and nothing about your moral character. Thoughts?

  Aeiouy
• 

  djmac1031

  interesting approach, but I see a few minor flaws:

  First; while as you said people do not have to be baptized to represent the JW's in "field service" they are differentiated from the baptized members by the lable "Unbaptized Publisher."

  Second: With the changing of the public announcement statements, the wording has been altered enough so that the WTS can avoid the lawsuits threatened by just such a letter. Now instead of announcing that "So And So Has been disfellowshipped from The Christian Congergation" which of course implies the shunning techniques the enforce among its members, the now simply announce "So and So is NO LONGER one of Jehovahs Witnesses." This announcement has no implication against the individuals morals, no mention of asking its members to "disfellowship" with the individual, and yet of course ALL the members who hear the announcement know what it REALLY means anyway.

  and third: personally, I truly DOUBT The Edlers who recieve these letters read much past "I request that my name be removed from all records of this congregation and of the Watchtower Corporation"....once they get the gist, I doubt they continue to read on for fear of being exposed to "Apostate" reasonings.