'Religion is a consensual affair, not a permanent contract'

lisaBObeesa

I came across this blog, "Church Discipline," some time ago, and it's been going through my mind ever since...

Check out part of this post from Dec 2008...

Why is a bad idea to continue church discipline on non members?

First off it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent. Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, " No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts." A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.....

...To appreciate the breadth and unanimity of this I'll note that Jehovah's witnesses have a similar notion with different terminology. A member who is excommunicated is called, "disfellowshiped" while one who leaves on their own is "disassociated". There is a clear understanding that the Watchtower bible and tract society cannot claim disciplinary authority over a person who no longer considers themselves a member of the society...

Could it be that JWs have no legal right to shun people who disassociate?

I'm very interested in what others think of the points made in this blog post... Please do share!

I think the JW's would get around it by saying they are not enforcing their will on those who leave. They are merely telling those who remain that certain association is rebellious. But the exmember is free to do as they wish. and the members would just assert that they have a right to associate with whom they choose.

NC

Band on the Run

They have their current members shun you. A court will see that the members do it, not Brooklyn. The First Amendment gives the right of association and religion. Once one is not a member, they cannot commit civil or criminal actions. When you read legal cases, the differences in facts between the precedent case and your case must be analyzed with a fine tooth comb. Religions are never exempt from laws that apply to everyone and have no intent of targeting a specific religion. They can be sued. The elements that the law requires must be present. Mere categorizing something as unfair does not meet the burden.

If so, no religion could exist. Once you have members, you would have trouble. We are far from the only people ever aggrieved by a religion. Quakers have had bad things happen to them.

lisaBObeesa

A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.

As I understand it, whether or not a person is disfellowshipped or if a person disassociates, the announcement and the results are the same...am I right about this?

If yes...if the announcement and the results (being shunned)are the same in every way, then how could they say what is happening to the disfellowshipped person is discipline, but what happened to the DA'd person is not discipline? Wouldn't the announcement be a 'continuation of disciplinary process' and thus violating the DA'd person's civil rights?

AND, If the announcement made for a person sounds exactly the same as the announcement for the DF person, then how could the announcement made about a DA person NOT be defamation? (yeah, that other thread has me thinking...)

Band on the Run

I reported the basic elements of defamation. It does not ruin your reputation in the larger community of reasonable people. My notes from bar review state this is the most crucial element. For each item I listed, there were flowcharts with many additional elements and rule for each category.

The case you cite is not from a federal court. It considered contract law. We can walk. The most serious part on the church's conduct was broadcasting the allegations (they were not proven) of her affair to every church in the area. It became a community scandal. Her lover was mayor.

Truth is always a defense to defamation suits. If you commit the acts that the WT no longer states publicly, they are covered. People today don't care what every church does anymore. Recall the Scarlet Letter. She remained a communicant. There was only the vast wilderness to escape.

lisaBObeesa

I reported the basic elements of defamation. It does not ruin your reputation in the larger community of reasonable people

Ok, Ok, I got it...no defamation. Thanks for being patient with me, by the way....

But what about this part of my comment?

A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.
me:

As I understand it, whether or not a person is disfellowshipped or if a person disassociates, the announcement and the results are the same...am I right about this?

If yes...if the announcement and the results (being shunned)are the same in every way, then how could they say what is happening to the disfellowshipped person is discipline, but what happened to the DA'd person is not discipline? Wouldn't the announcement be a 'continuation of disciplinary process' and thus violating the DA'd person's civil rights?

Again....thanks for your patience with me if you have already covered this...

Band on the Run

You did not link the case itself. I have no idea what civil rights violation was alleged. Since it is not in federal court, I am assuming a state civil rights. States cannot offer fewer civil rights than guaranteed by the U S Const'n but they can offer more protection. Civil rights is a broad field. I don't know the theory. Without reading the case, I have no clue. The article does not summarize the reasoning very well.

Also, I don't mind giving legal info or some hints on how to manage the process to save money. It annoys me that wealthy people routinely sue and know the ropes. I cannot give legal advice. First, I am only admitted in New York. I can get into serious trouble. Second, an Internet forum is no place for such advice. More often than not, vital facts are not mentioned by clients b/c they don't how important a certain event or document might be. Relying on broad advice can be detrimental. There may be some fact or procedural posture in your case that means the general rule is not applied.

Many lawyers offer free consultations for about half an hour to forty-five minutes. All the relevant details can be discussed. You should have some idea if it worth proceeding and retaining a lawyer. Before retaining one, I would interview several and think about it. One thing that is paramount is the statute of limitations for each cause of action. Once it tolls, you lose your rights forever. Organizing every document and all the info first saves a lot of money and time.

I only know the broad contours of this area. It is not my area of expertise. First Amendment Establishment Clause law is much more familiar.

I suspect something special and out of the ordinary existed in these cases. The individual facts matter. The state matters. There is no substitute for seeing a lawyer. Most people become lawyers to earn a living. Most lawyers prob. don't want to become involved in internal church matters. These are general statements, not a guaranteed result in any case.

lisaBObeesa

Thanks, Band On The Run.

I think these cases may be why we have seen stories reported here on JWN where people have had legal letters drawn up saying they were leaving the JWs and that there should be NO announcement to anyone under threat of legal action and it seemed to have worked.

If anyone knows someone who has done this (had a legal letter drawn up and NOT been announced 'no longer a JW' and so NOT shunned, I'd be interested to see links to the posts...I know I've seen them over the years...