Ostracism: anyone with legal background on this forum who could help?

by Nick! 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  In Canada, the Jehovah's Witnesses have successfully used the Human Rights charter to prevent "religious persecution" such as attempts to ban door-to-door work, and the freedom of a "mature minor" to refuse blood transfusions. These are study topics in Canadian classrooms.

  http://www.historyofrights.com/events/court.html

  The Jehovah's Witnesses are regularly recorded among the groups suffering "religious persecution" in United Nations documents.

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract society would very much like to "own" human rights legislation to bolster their right to worship any way they please.
• 

  blondie

  I can see why the WTS in the US carefully sets up and works through WT organizations in each country. That way the BS does not flow back to Brooklyn/Patterson. The WTS has used the Declaration in situations in Greece regarding their "religious rights." So if jws and ex-jws are using those rights in their own countries re religious rights, it would be basically tit for tat.

  I am not a lawyer, but I see how WT Legal knows how to twist laws and keep to the letter of the law but not the spirit. They are from a long line of spiritual Pharisees.

  *** g00 4/8 p. 14 Religious Intolerance Now Admitted ***Mary’s Legacy

  After becoming queen, Mary said that she would marry her cousin Philip, heir to the Spanish throne. He was a foreign king and an ardent Roman Catholic, the last thing many of the English wanted. A Protestant uprising organized in protest against the marriage failed, and 100 rebels were executed. Philip and Mary married on July 25, 1554, although Philip was never crowned. However, their childless marriage was a source of distress to Mary, who wanted a Roman Catholic heir.

  Mary’s health failed, and after a short rule of five years, she died at 42. She went to her grave grief-stricken. Her husband had tired of her, and most of her subjects hated her. At her death, many Londoners held parties in the streets. Instead of rebuilding Roman Catholicism, she had furthered the cause of Protestantism by her fanaticism. Her legacy is summed up in the name by which she is known—Bloody Mary.

  Wrongly Motivated Conscience

  Why did Mary order so many people burned to death? She had been taught that heretics were traitors to God, and she thought it her duty to cut out their influence before they infected the whole nation. She listened to her conscience but ignored the rights of others whose conscience led them in another direction.

  However, the Protestants were equally intolerant. Under Henry and Edward, people had also been burned for their religious beliefs. Mary’s Protestant successor, Elizabeth I, made the practice of Roman Catholicism a treasonable offense, and during her reign more than 180 English Roman Catholics were executed. Over the next century, hundreds more died for their religious opinions.

  Why Apologize Now?

  December 10, 1998, marked the 50th anniversary of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 recognizes "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," including the freedom to change one’s religion and to teach and practice it.The Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales chose the 50th anniversary as "an appropriate occasion for Catholics to examine their consciences in these matters" and to acknowledge the "terrible wrongs" committed, particularly in the time of Mary Tudor.

  ------------------

  Yes, the WTS can chastise the Catholics and the Protestants for killing people because of their religious opinions, but it they condemn people to eternal death and have people treat them as if they were dead...that is all right.

  They can condemn everybody not in their own religious organization as doomed to eternal death along with their minor children.
• 

  Nick!

  To LisaBOBeesa

  Your point is well taken. I have been, myself, baptized when I was 12 and this is one issue I brought up in my dissociation letter, that I did not recognize the baptism of minors as legitimate. But of course, they couldn’t care less … but on the other hand they criticize the Catholics because they baptize babies … what is the difference? Who, in his sane mind can believe that a 10-12 years old kid is mature enough to make a decision he cannot withdraw from all his future life?

  Even Christ, in spite of being, as the Bible exposes him, son of God, waited until his adult age of 30 before getting baptized. Why should JW encourage baptism of younger ones? Just to ensure that they do not leave the borg when they grow up, otherwise they can be shunned.
• 

  dgp

  Great, wonderful post, Roberto! You can of course articulate these ideas much better than I can.

  Three thousand cheers for you!
• 

  Giordano

  I wonder if treating shunning as a violation of ones civil rights might be one possible approach. That's the approach that is being used to try to legalize gay marriage (Let's not get side tracked on that debate.....thankyou).

  It seems it's one thing to ban or shun or excommunicate a member from the authority of the church/organization but isn't it another thing to compel a persons family to shun them on penalty of being shunned themselves? It is a religious belief for a few religions, but when the family is compelled to shun a family member isn't that also a form of intimidation? Are not many families coerced to shun because of the fear of being shunned themselves? Why isn't that a civil rights issue?

  Because the outcome of this form of shunning can be hideous in the extreme causing mental issues, potential suicide and physical health issues as one tries to deal with the loss of one's family isn't that the same result as being tortured? Torture is not allowed to be inflicted by any religion in this country no matter what the religion believes.

  The same issue with family members who feel that they must go along to keep their families intact, isn't that a form of captivity enforced by the shunning decree? Holding someone captive by vailed intimidation is also against the law. Many people stay in cults against their will because of a fear of consequences.

  The key here is to stop the society/congregation from mandating shunning by the DF DA person's family not the organization or non family members. To seperate the religious rights of a person from the right to make up one's own mind. One thing we all know the WT will cave if they are hit in the pocket book. And finding a way to attack this practice in court would have a profound affect on those held captive or subjected to this form of torture.

  As far as the law goes, the law does evolve and change. A Women's right to vote, Social security and Civil rights eventually became the Law of the land.
• 

  Nick!

  Band on the Run and dgp

  Thank you both for your comments. It helps lighting up the issue.

  I believe that people like you with your insight into the subject should keep on exchanging knowledge, ideas and concepts to help the others to grasp the deepness of the issue.

  I am revolted when I see signs of defeatism. Nothing was done in one day and if we do not start somewhere small, no one will ever be there even in twenty generations.

  To answer your question about the demonstrations in Italy, these took place in Rome, in front of the Italian Parliament on Dec 1 st of last year, followed by TV interviews, conferences, and tracts distribution in different Italian cities. The initiative is ongoing. We will meet again on March 26 in Pescara to increase public awareness of the issue, inform the public opinion and the local governing class.

  In Belgium there is no demonstration, I would say … yet.
  The 4 th trial of an ex JW who sued the WT on the discrimination teachings issue will take place on April 4 th , if it is confirmed tomorrow. I plan to be there as well.
  I will prepare the details of the case when I have time. It will be posted on Barbara’s web site and mine.
  You will hear about it.
• 

  cameo-d

  In the end, WatchTower will not admit to any responsibility in the shunning dictate. They are only a publishing company. They will defer that the actions of shunning are up to each individual according to how his conscience guides him. End of story
• 

  Band on the Run

  Someone mentioned commencing civl actions in tort law, such as libel and defamation. While a lawyer may be willing to state this in a letter, I can't see an action being filed unless there are very unusual and compelling circumstances. In the hierarchy of American rights, free speech and free religion are the most celebrated and cherished. B/c they are const'l rights but tort law is statutory or case law, const'l provisions would bar such actions. If a lawyer will threaten such an action and the elders are not very sophisticated, it may work.

  I don't know how centralized df is or who sets the policy.

  Since my exposure during law school, I read English const'l history voraciously. The accounts of the Tudors and the Hugeunots in France are bone chilling. People murdered for kneeling at communion or not kneeling for communion. These years were chaotic with many battles. Depending on the day of the week, local Christians had different religions to observe. Today's rosary beads that had better be conspiculously obeyed but result in execution by burning at nightfall. Of course, I don't believe doctrine was the cause. Rather, the underlying political tensions of the day were projected onto these religious debates. Nationalism was becoming a potent force.

  This is history and an explanation for why First Amendment rights are the most cherished and upheld. Somehow it is so easy for me to access history but obtaining a feel for other countries, even beyond Europe, is more difficult. One factor is that I have no idea of the political structure and law system of any country, other than England and US. It is not a matter of casually skimming a topic.

  Again, I'd highly value input from non-Americans. Americans are welcome,too. I don't have a clue as to what Canada does or Mexico.
• 

  tresdecu

  Thanks Justitia-T. I thought this spoke volumes:

  "...the United States (along with Iran) refuses to sign key portions of the International Declaration of Human Rights ..."

  &

  " 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"

  Very interesting thread. Thank-you!
• 

  Justitia Themis

  The First Amendment does not require child sacrifice.

  No, but it does, in essence, allow it.

  Additionally, I attended the following program today:

  WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW STUDENT PRESENTATIONS: TODAY
  Wednesday, February 2, Room 117, 12:30-1:20PM
  ****************************************************
  When religious officials commit torts, like sexual assault, can the churches they work for be held liable? Is the Washington Law Review a stockholder in the Pizza Hut on 65th? Find out at today’s Washington Law Review student presentations in room 117 from 12:30pm–1:20pm.
  
  
  Today’s presenters:
  • Kelly Sheridan, Class of 2011. Staying Neutral: How Washington State Courts Should Approach Negligent Supervision Claims Against Religious Organizations (85 Wash. L. Rev. 517). •

  The short answer to the question is absolutely not in Washington. Case law is such that a plaintiff cannot find an attorney who will even file because it is considered a 'loser case.' The First Amendment and the Establishment Clause were cited by the court as the basis for its refusal to examine religious practices. Additionally, the court refuses to adopt from employment law the idea of respondeat superior or agency. It makes them uncomfortable to place religious leaders in the context of common workers. As the author opined, the court is therefore carving out a higher status for them.

  For those who are students, most university databases give you access to Westlaw or Lexis where you can find the article.