In the context of child custody diputes, there might be an argument that shunning is not in the child's best interest.
That argument is laid out here: http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/child_custody_jehovahs_witnesses.html
Witness for the Truth
Ostracism: anyone with legal background on this forum who could help?
by Nick! 41 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dgp
Band on the Run, I like your post. Particularly this:
Most Western democratic societies abhor interference with freedom of religion. I understand that some issues are very different in Europe. Your separation of state from church seems more absolute. Altho I am a NYer and was a downtown NYer on September 11th, the ban on head veils in school in France is shocking from my perspective.
I like it because it reveals to what extent your own view of the world corresponds to your having been raised in the United States.
Yes, most Western democratic societies abhor inteference with freedom of religion. But, most Western democratic societies see a lay government as one thing they fought tooth and nail to achieve. America had that for granted from its very beginning. What about Spain? Ireland? What about Italy, for Christ's sake? Many a social achievement was only possible after the church, whatever church it was, lost its power to lay parties that that worked hard to separate state from church. Even in Latin America, once a 100% Catholic land, separation of the church and the state was seen as a great achievement.
The debate in France was very interesting because, for the French, "laicité" has always been key. They don't want to become a society where civil matters are controlled by a church. Any church. You have to remember that the French Revolution took place there, nowhere else, and the Age of Enlightenment had many a French as a distinguish promoter. Voltaire, anyone?
In my opinion, it is this difference of starting points that leads American witnesses to dislike public demonstrations, while other people think they make a lot of sense. These people are asking that Jehovah's witnesses be given the same treatment as every other church, not more. Public opinion in these countries wouldn't like to see a smaller version of the Inquisition. There is no persecution whatsoever. The real problem would be if a church were allowed to treat people in a way contrary to reason.
That said, I agree that you can't force witnesses to stop shunning people. But, if it wanted, the Governing Body could let the people have normal interactions with their relatives. That could happen if public opinion were informed. Demonstrations have that effect.
I understand that active or former Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't want a public demonstration to shake people on the fringes so they would come back. I also understand that many an active witness will see this as proof of "persecution" and "the end of times". What I wonder is, is there a way to inform public opinion and, at the same time, not push witnesses back in?
Roberto, where in Belgium are these demonstrations taking place? Can you post a link? What about Italy?
-
Justitia Themis
The aim is not to argue against the right of any religious movement to expel members who do not abide by the internal rules, but to prevent that the regulations around this procedure go against the human rights. The
I'm a first-year law student, but I have researched the issue deeply and recently.
The Establishment Clause trumps just about everything thing...including allowing your child to die from refusing blood transfusion (JWs) or from not believing in and therefore not seeking medical treatment (several other religions). After a child with diabetes died a horrible death in Oregon, it passed a law requiring basic medical care despite a parents religious beliefs, but the law was later struck down as an unconstitutional infringment on the religious liberty of the parents; the child's liberties did not matter. If the courts are unwilling to step in with the death of a child, one can infer, and indeed it has been the case, that they will not step in to monitor whether adults choose to speak with one another or not.
As far as human rights, I have discussed this issue in depth with a dear political science professor who is very knowledgable on the subject and is in the process of writing a book on the subject of the International Declaration of Human Rights and religious beliefs. The problem that arises is that the United States (along with Iran) refuses to sign key portions of the International Declaration of Human Rights that covers religious issues. Since we are not parties to the agreement, no cause of action exists from which one could pursue a case at the Hague. On a side note, the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify the Rights of the Child convention, which leaves only the U.S. and SOMALIA as the world's only non-adherents.
-
wobble
Thanks JT,
So for us here in the Uk where the church and state are one, we have a very good chance of playingg the Human Rights card.
As stated above, we cannot expect to overturn their practice of DF'ing, but we could make it impossible for the GB to force families to shun their own blood relatives.
-
lifelong humanist
Roberto
I trust you had a relaxing break in the Malaga area, and you felt the heat of the sun on your face.
Here in Scotland, this winter has been even more extreme than last.
I read this post yesterday with interest. I know that you're very much a 'man on a mission' as far as naming and shaming the shunning practice so successfully employed by the JW/WT religion. Of course it would be fantastic if someone could exert a position of influence to bring about a sea change and stop this practice.
I have subsequently spoken with David in an attempt to try and find some contacts that might be able to assist you in what would inevitibly be a huge, expensive legal battle. Within the EU things are not as 'black and white'as they seem in the USA, so maybe something positive could occur.
I appreciate that you're concerned primarily with locating experienced legal counsel on upholding people's Human Rights to be treated with respect and decency, and to outlaw shunning as a means of controlling religious groups. Sadly, neither of us can provide any names that might help. We're both unsure of how effective lobbying the EU would be, other than just to create more awareness of how extreme JW/WT are. But, religions are given such leeway in how they interpret any Bill of Human Rights 'for contolling their membership' re. doctrines/practices.
Humanist organizations deplore the shunning practice, too. However, there is nothing they can do to prevent JW/WT from acting in this way, as they could claim that their HRs are being ignored, due to their own interpretation of their religious dogma. Maybe, some seriously prominent JW test-case could generate enough adverse publicity from those shunned to help the general public understand how brutal this practice can be, and damaging it can be for families caught up with it.
When I DAd in 2003, I was fully aware of how nasty it could turn out for me. Fear of shunning didn't deter me, though, as I just wanted absolutely nothing more to do with JW/WT. I'd do it all again, if necessary. I just wish I'd 'wised' up a whole lot sooner!
The only, and probably best way forward, that I can contribute to your cause is simply to remind you that this is all about education. Specifically, targeting any that want to join a religious/political or commercial cult that currently is permitted to exercise their right to hold fast to such a practice. For example, how many that decide to undergo baptism into the cult really understand the consequences if they wake up one day and want to exit? As many are often quite young children, I very much doubt that they would even care if their JW/WT parents were to spell it out to them.
Probably, HRs within the EU are still a bit too 'vague'. There's maybe too much 'wiggle' room. Any 'test-cases' that might arise (e.g., the Belgian case) could cause a re-writing of the legislation. Then, cults like JW/WT might have to step back and reassess their official stand on shunning former members. Somehow, I don't think this will happen soon, although I believe it will probably happen some day! For that, I'm reasonably optimistic.
Kind regards to you and yours
lifelong humanist
-
lisaBObeesa
"The freedom of religion stops where individual rights are infringed. No one can claim freedom of religion, if their religious practices include stoning to death those who want to leave the religious movement.
"Shunning is social stoning to social death, not by personal choice but by order of the religious leaders of the WT!"
There has got to be a way to persue this. It is so frustrating that it is so difficult...
The problem that arises is that the United States (along with Iran) refuses to sign key portions of the International Declaration of Human Rights that covers religious issues. Since we are not parties to the agreement, no cause of action exists from which one could pursue a case at the Hague.
So could exJWs in other countries that ARE paries to the Declaration of Human Rights pursue a case at the Hague against WT Branches in those countries? Or does the fact that the WT headquarters are in the US make that impossible?
-
lisaBObeesa
I've always thought that the weekness in the WT possition was in the cases of people who were baptised as children and then later shunned. How can a child be held responsible for entering into this most serious contract...?
-
Band on the Run
If the authorities know about a child needing a blood transfusion, courts regularly order temporary transfer to someone other than the parent to permit the blood transfusion. If I were a nonWitness, though, I would fret about Witnesses going underground with sick children to avoid such a ruling. The First Amendment does not require child sacrifice. As a child reading the orange book, I clearly recall the drawing of the infants offered to Baal. It was very graphic, esp. for young children. It terrified me. I could hear jungle music (racist) in the background.
As long as the law applies to everyone equally, religious practice can be curbed. If the law stated,"children of certain religious groups...." it would be struck down immediately.
This is the classic American view. I'd love to hear more about the European view, esp. since it would help me understand that America is not exceptional. Today's western democracies are lovers of freedom of religion. We no longer live in the olden days of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation battles. Also, I am doing a presentation on this topic for a class. The contrast would be a superb teaching tool. Freedom of religion need not equate to the American model only, altho I was taught so in school.
Law reviews don't cover European law enough. I think it is more difficult for Am. lawyers to find. All I've seen are hints in a few sentences. I can't see the US ever ratifying the Human Rights conventions. I'm still pinching myself that a black man for whom I voted is president! First, my preference has only been elected twice in my lifetime. Second, I adored his oratory on progressives asserting that they are just as Christian as the right at the first convention. When his name was mentioned as a presidential candidate in Dem circles, I laughed out loud in front of the person proposing it.
A prof'l marketing campaign against shunning would be nice. First, Witnesses and exWitnesses would lose some of their victim mentality by asserting themselves. One catch is the public can't see themselves as ever being stupid enough to join such a cult so what is it to them. Human values would abhor shunning. I'd love ads or something using Jesus' commands to love one another, followed by the concrete results of shunning.
This area is compllex but riveting, Perhaps it is riveting to me only b/c of the Witnesses. When I talk to normal people, though, people have strong gut reactions. I can't predict how certain people will measure up. Right now I feel like a colonial hick. Europeans always know more about the US than vice versa.
I just thought of one enormous difference that reflects the divergent views. Most European democracies are more homogenous than American society. We are a nation of exiles. Studies show Scandivian countries have the best lifestyle but it is easier to reach a consensus when everyone is part of two or three religions rather than countless religions. Everyone mistrusts everyone else's conduct in the States. Separation of church and state was coined by Thomas Jefferson, after ratification of the Constitution. A baptist congregation in Danbury, Conn. wrote to him b/c they feared the power of the dominant Congregationalists in Connecticut. He replied that he supported separation of church and state. It was a poltical statement delivered by a politican. Clearly, some separation of church and state was envisioned but no bright line was drawn. His statement is only his personal view. After all, this man improved the Bible and confidently removed all portions he did not like. Next, he published the result so others could improve their outlook. He was a tad grandiose.
-
dgp
Band on the Run, again, I like your post and I can see you know your subject. I am not an attorney. I can share, however this question which, by the way, came to me before I even saw your post. Honest! In the hope of making a contribution to the discussion.
If I declared myself a follower of the ancient Aztec religion and tried to sacrifice virgins so that my angry God wouldn't have the whim of destroying the world, would American courts say that they cannot legislate on matters of religion? I know for a fact that public opinion would be outraged if the courts didn't act. It would be seen as murder, and it wouldn't matter much if the believers in that religion claimed they were being persecuted.
Now, a judge or the average Joe might say that shunning is a matter of personal preference and religious freedom, if the question is looked at from the point of view of the shunner. You can choose to say who belongs to your club and who doesn't. No one can force you to like someone else. All right. But, if you see it from the point of view of the shunned, then it is a matter of a violation of personal preference and religious freedom. I don't think anyone in this forum will argue that shunning isn't made so that pain and isolation will lead the person to "come to his senses". This is bullshit-ese for "do as we say, or else". I believe that a public information campaign would have the effect of helping public opinion see it this way. So far, it is the first point of view that prevails. I must say, out of the WT, some of those espousing that view are people who think that the witnesses are better left in a corner where they can opress each other, provided they don't knock on your door early on a Saturday morning and make you buy a magazine.
Now, on to more points in your post. These ones didn't came to me before I read your post.
I agree with you that the founding fathers chose to have a secular constitution because an union among such a diverse lot would have been impossible. But you are missing one point: I don't think there are many countries in the world where everyone was of one and the same descent and one and the same religion. Think of India. Think of China, or China, or Africa. People tend to think of Latin America as more or less homogeneous, but that is only because the melting pot started boiling there much earlier than in the United States. You'd believe Spain is homogeneous, but ask the Spaniards and see what they tell you. Societies around the world became "homogeneous" only after one particular tyrant, or a number of them, managed to bring everyone under the same roof and made sure they kept to their place. As in Yugoslavia.
I remember that someone told me that one day, an American president (I think it was Kennedy) said that he was the president of I don't remember how many million Americans, to which Charles de Gaulle retorted that he was the president of sixty million presidents.
In other words, your post seems to suggest that the rest of the world consists of homogeneous peoples who find it easy to agree with each other, except in America, and that is simply not the case. Quite to the contrary. Scandinavians, by the way, split into five countries. Norway gained its independence from Sweden. Iceland got its independence from Denmark. I agree that they usually come to terms, but I don't think the Norwegians were happy to live along the Swedes.
I still believe that the American legal approach is fundamentally different. You suggest that a law would be "struck down immediately" if it didn't apply equally to anyone. Yes. Let me go back to my example of the Aztec religion. If my religion were the only one that held that I have to kill virgins to appease the Gods, would the law apply equally to my religion? Could I claim that my religion is being singled out and persecuted because it would be the only one whose religious ceremonies are interrupted by the authorities?
I think you will agree with me that lay government was made so that decisions regarding common life were NOT left to the religious. I think we should all continue along that way.
-
Nick!
Hi lifelong humanist and ... Justitia Themis
Nice to hear from you. We are all OK, and … about to leave … again for Malaga. Will be there next Sunday. Can’t stand this cold weather anymore here in Switzerland! Will tell you more about it.
I appreciated your comments on the subject I have opened.
I hope I am not misleading people with my post. So let me clarify again my position and my wishes and what I plan to do to attain my goals.
First of all, I do not pretend any single way of dealing with the subject to be the ONLY way, nor the BEST way. It is just another avenue open to some of us who have the opportunity and the means to pursue it.
The law in the US, as I understand also from Justitia Themis , is such that basically, any religious beliefs is acceptable, which, to me sounds horrendous, but this is just my feeling.
Luckily for us, in Europe, basically all countries have signed up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drawn in 1948.
The Council of European has adhered to the “ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ” opened for signatures in 1950 and entered into force in 1953.
47 European countries have signed up the convention between 1953 and 2006.See: http://conventions.coe.int/Default.asp
Most of these European countries, but definitely all the 27 countries which are now part of the European Union not only have signed the convention but have included the basis fundamental rights referred to in their national Constitution.
In most of these 47 countries the Watchtower has a legal entity representing the Jehovah’s Witnesses, legally constituted recently or many years ago.
The question which may come to the mind of our US friends is, why then in spite of the clear protection of the law, a legal organism such as the Watchtower who violates these human rights, was able to constitute the legal entities representing the Jehovah’s Witnesses in so many countries?
The answer is, first of all, that the content and the essence of the individual Charter of these legal entities does NOT violate the law. Of course, it spells out clearly the admission and the exclusion procedures which we tend to equate to, respectively, the JW baptism and the Dissociation and Disfellowshipping. What violates the law, is not the actual provision for the exclusions, but the inseparable instructions to discriminate ex members, not the actual act of discriminating, but teaching it and imposing it mandatorily.
Anyone is free to hate his neighbor, no matter the reason: maybe because he is gay, or just of another race, or because he is Christian, jew or muslim, but no one has the right to teach hate and to impose hate. This is against the Constitution.
Unfortunately, when these Watchtower legal entities were established in the different European countries, their Charter did not spell out the hate and discrimination instructions, as these are kept away from any legal document, but widely taught in their publications, at their meetings and privately.
Had these hate instructions been included in the official legal Charter document, I bet that no European State would have ratified them.This is why, in addition to any other initiative, which I do applaud, exposing this legal issue, at least here in Europe, with the different parliaments is key to their reconsidering the authorization to operate as a Watchtower legal entity in these countries.
We have started to do so in Italy, in particular because, in addition to the State recognition of the Moral (legal) Entity called Congregazione Cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova, in 1986, now this organism is pretending more privileges than just the ones they already have, in particular the right to collect 0.8% of the income taxes. The law proposal we have protested against on Dec 1 st has not been approved yet, this is why we continue our project of public opinion awakening and parliamentary lobbing, pointing at the law violations which have been occulted by the Watchtwoer at the time of their first request for recognition as a legal entity in 1986.
Sometimes, the JW pretend that they have received legal recognition in such and such European country, but very frequently, people do not know what they are talking about. For example, the Federal Republic of Germany, simply called Germany, is pointed at as being a country where the JW have been recognized legally. This is all but true. Only 12 of the 16 German States have recognized the WT as a legal entity, and now, one of the remaining 4 States, has rejected their request. This seems to become now a major issue for the WT since, the moment the rejection is recognized by the Court of Justice of that State, the other 12 States which have currently approved the legality, may have to reconsider their position.
Same with the Belgian exceptional case of a single individual suing the WT because it has induced discrimination by its members against him, violating the law. This court case may become one of the first ones to go to the European Court of Human Rights if it is not solved properly at the national level.
Based on all of the above, including the court case in Brazil we all know about by now, I was just wondering if the situation in the USA would open up to this type of considerations.
I understand the cases mentioned by Justitia Themis. By the way, it would be nice to have a link to a website that presents the details of the court cases. Thanks to provide it, if available.
But it is only if we continue to endeavor, investigate and debate the question from both sides of the Ocean that we may have a chance to build something upon it, instead of taking the stand some people like to take … “it has always been this way”, “we will never be able to change the system” .. and so on.
Nothing was ever done in one day, and it is not by sitting back and do nothing that we will see anything done in the future. We should not, neither, ask for the moon. Our expectations should be reasonable. No one is pretending here that we want to see the WT down the drain, even if deep inside some of us have this hidden desire. We simply would like to be treated like human beings, with our dignity not the way the Watchtower is instructing its members to treat, hate and segregate the ex members.Who care if these treatment is pretendingly a biblical command. We are not here to discuss its merits and its legitimacy from a theocratic viewpoint but from a human, legal, civil rights view point.
I thank all of you who have been involved in such legal issues in one way or another, and wish we could continue to exchange information on the subject to learn from each other.
Roberto.