by minimus 25 Replies latest jw friends
After reading the threads on Watchtower encouraging 10 year olds to take the baptismal plunge, I wonder if they have an actual legal right to terminate their agreements without any penalty enforced by the Organization.
I think those of us who were "too young" to enter into any contract could be absolved of any agreements, even religious vows, because we were still obviously too young to understand all the "fine print" before signing.
What do you think???
I'm not sure what legality has to do with it. You can't force someone to associate with you through legislation.
I think those of us who were "too young" to enter into any contract could be absolved of any agreements, even religious vows, because we were still obviously too young to understand all the "fine print" before signing.
What do you think???
As much as it sucks, it's just one of those deals in life that you have to come to terms with on your own. If the government can't control fundie Mormon cult compounds and the atrocities committed in the name of their God and prophet do you really think they'll ever be able to keep more benign groups from shunning and ostracizing "apostate" members, no matter their age or circumstance?
There is one small legal manuever that might work. Before being "announced" from the platform, a person could get some kind of legal order put upon the congregation not to announce any disfellowshipping or disassociation or anything from the platform, based on them entering into a contract as a minor, not knowing the implications of violating that contract.
I am pretty certain nobody has successfully had such a legal order, but it might happen one day.
But it doesn't prevent the JW rumor-mill from starting and everyone suggesting that person be shunned. The shunning is alledgedly originating from individual JW's and not from marching orders.
The shunning is alledgedly originating from individual JW's and not from marching orders.
And that is the Borg's "out" on most of their most heinous rules. "We don't control our members. They choose their associates themselves. They choose for themselves to let their kids die rather than get a blood transfusion. They chose to forego an education and planning for retirement themselves. We don't control our members."
All valid points.
Still, i think the inhumane treatment could be contested based upon the technicality of accepting a contract when not of legal age 9or close to it).
I think that unless the GB can prove beyond reasonable doubt under laboratory conditions that they are God's direct channel of communication we should all get our baptisms rescinded with no repurcussions regardless of age.
Plus, each time they change or flip flop a doctrine you should have the right to null and void your baptism on the grounds that the current thinking has changed from what you originally signed up for.
Like any of that will actually happen!!!
Sure Min. The courts could tell grandparents and parents not to shun and even tell others not to shun. They will avoid the person as much as possible and when they are old enough, grandparents and parents will simply say, "You are not welcome in my home, but I spoke to you."
Sorry, but this is as sore a spot for me as it is for you, even though it doesn't really apply to me.
So far, the elders and the majority of JWs are fine with me. Only my family, except for my mother, treated me in a bad way. I'm surprised they don't go after me.
contract1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.
Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements:
a) an offer;
b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds;
c) a promise to perform;
d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form);
e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments);
f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises;
g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday).
Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement.
________________________
This is true for Business. Does this apply to Religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
Can parties to a contract specify that their obligations will be governed by religious law? UCLA's Eugene Volokh thinks not, relying on a series of cases that prohibit U.S. courts from deciding issues of religious doctrine. He concludes:
And I think this rule is right, even though it does “seem[] like discrimination against a religion, telling its adherents they are not allowed to specific religious law in their contracts” (or rather like discrimination against religion generally). The alternative, after all, is for courts to take sides in deciding which rival religious view — say, which understanding of Islamic law — is right and which is wrong, which would itself involve discrimination in favor of one religious subgroup (the one whose view is adopted by the civil courts as the true view of Islamic law, Jewish law, etc.) and against another religious subgroup. That strikes me as worse than civil court abstention from all attempts to decide how to interpret religious concepts.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer (thank God) and I'm sure the cases say what he says they say. But this line of reasoning strikes me as unpersuasive. After all, the government is not "discriminating" against anyone when it decides a contract dispute. If the parties specifically agree to have their dispute judged by a government court using Sharia or the Code of Canon Law or (for that matter) the Code of Hammurabi, the law is not inserting itself into religioius affairs. No one except the individual parties will be bound by the decision, and even they are bound only to the degree they agreed to be. Where's the discrimination?
Maybe I'm missing something.
FGS
______________________________________________
