Michael Jackson, did filed a lawsuit against WT, that shunning was against human rights, but the court's outcome, that it is the right of each religion to have internal rules. But it was in US, so maybe he would have better chance to win the case if he was in Europe
Research on legal implications of group shunning
by BreathoftheIndianNose 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JWdaughter
I wonder if the new awareness of the implications of BULLYING could be used in this kind of case. Yes, we all have a right to like who we like and associate with those who we want to, but group intimidation and bullying is now being prosecuted when people commit suicide or hurt themselves. Even now they are cominng back and blaming bullies who mess with the guys who turn into the mass murderers at malls or schools.
That trend could work towards ending the legalized bullying of people who no longer wish to be in a religion. Think about it. That announcemet is made for the very PURPOSE of ruining another's life. If someone doesn't like you or want to be around you because of your actions, that is one thing, but to be announced as a person to bully, publicly and privately. . . which is what they are doing-seems a bit like mass bullying to me.
-
rebel8
The UN has a Declaration of Human Rights (IIRC that's what it's called), which seemingly prohibits shunning. It's not a law.
There is case law around an Amish shunning taking place at a business, and the court intervening. You may be able to find it.
-
Giordano
BOTR "No one puts a gun to our head to become Witnesses."
It doesn't have to be a gun that is put to one's head. "Junior if you don't get baptized before turning 18 you will have to leave your home and find other living arrangements."
Or "I love you so much that I couldn't bare to lose you when Armageddon comes so unless you become a baptized JW we will not be getting married".
Adult converts for the most part can decide to become JW's for themselves thats not an issue it's the leaving and shunning that is the issue.
As far as the Supreme Court goes our discussion is not about how the law reads now but now it should be or could be. The 'world is not fair' is not part of this debate. A big part of our progress has been to make our religions fairer (they don't burn witch's) as well as our governments.
I agree with JWDaughter the WTBTS does promote and encourages bullying. But the umbrella is bigger then bullying, we also have the use of coercion/fear of losing ones family and if the umbrella still has some room what about the civil rights a JW has?
The shunning policy is so wrong that I don't care what argument will defeat it somewhere within the context of the law a brave attorney and their shunned witness client will find the proper legal route to follow and or they will make law.
The WTBTS and other religions have been paying out fortunes to the victims of child abuse to cover up their mistakes. The Conti case has shed some serious light on this issue by finding an approach that worked.
-
Band on the Run
Well, I have the legal education. Few lawyers will support you. The First Amendment is viewed as essential. The Witnesses don't bully. You keep using general words when bullying has a precise, legal definition. Hold your breath and see if it happens. What will happen is that the movers and shakers of American society will actively support the WT. I shall be one of them.
You don't think of the realm of the possible or doable. No Court will mess with First Amendment protections. You can't get around the First Amendment by terming it bullying. It is a religious practice. A practice not started by Jehovah's Witnesses. Why would you want to be part of a religion that doesn't want you. Your relatives do not live at Bethel. It is their individual choice to shun you. Is it fair? I don't know. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone would ever be part of the Witnesses.
American society is not going to be upturned b/c of the actions of a minority of a minority. You can't prove intent to bully. They are keeping their religion clean.
Courts will not manage a religion; nor will they micromanage. What isi m ore the American public could not care less. If people started an Internet and TV campaign to warn people that Witnesses shun, it would accomplish more than wishiing what American courts would do in alternate universe. Government has no place regulating religion. We aren't too many years from the Inquisition.
-
lisaBObeesa
Let Jehovah’s Discipline Mold You (2 occurrences)
17 Disfellowshipping is another type of discipline from Jehovah.
w13 6/15 pp. 24-28 - The Watchtower—2013
1) Disfellowshipping is discipline according to the Watchtower.
The Watchtower (2007)w07 1/15 pp. 17-20
The situation is different if the disfellowshipped one is not a minor and is living away from home. The apostle Paul admonished Christians in ancient Corinth: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) While caring for necessary family matters may require some contact with the disfellowshipped person, a Christian parent should strive to avoid needless association…..
…Rely on Jehovah in prayer. Regularly associate with the Christian congregation. Support the discipline of appointed shepherds. By doing so, you will be able to remain steadfast.
2) Shunning is ‘supporting the discipline’ …actively participating in the discipline that has been given by the elders. This is obviously so since the shunning ends the moment the elders end the discipline (reinstate a person). The shunning IS the discipline that the elders are applying.
From the blog “Church Discipline” under the post “Why not keep going on with discipline after a member leaves”
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-not-to-keep-going-on-with.html
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.3) The courts have found that continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.
-
Giordano
Thank You LisaBOeesa for the above site. Protection under the law takes place after you have quite a church.
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html
"This case presents a wealth of topics. First off, the Oklahoma court found against Marian regarding the issue of internal confidentiality. Again churches are not required to maintain confidences there is no expectation of privacy............ Readers here should note that if they want to maintain their legal rights, they should not discuss things in church or in a church capacity! Second, the court again affirmed a high bar for oversight of those actions that occurred while she was a member of the church. A church can do whatever it wants without any legal oversight unless such actions endanger peace, safety or public order. The third point though is one many conservative churches most certainly went against the notion of church covenant. The court held that binding commitments to a church had no effect in law. Quite simply after withdrawing a church court was just another entity: .........While the First Amendment requires that citizens be tolerant of religious views
different from and offensive to their own, it surely does not require that those
like Parishioner, who choose not to submit to the authority of any religious
association, be tolerant of that group's attempts to govern them. Only those
"who unite themselves" in a religious association impliedly consent to its
authority over them and are "bound to submit to it." Parishioner voluntarily
joined the Church of Christ and by so doing consented to submit to its tenets.
When she later removed herself from membership, Parishioner withdrew her
consent, depriving the Church of the power actively to monitor her spiritual
life through overt disciplinary acts. 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. This bears repeating. Once a withdraw has
occurred the first amendment protections don't belong to the church, rather they
belong to the individual. All religious activity in the United States is
consensual, a person who publically claims not to be a member of a church is
legally not a member of that church and church discipline cannot continue
without consent. A church attempting to discipline a person that has withdrawn
can be found to be engaging in a form of harassment. GIO here. It seems to me that the WTBTS does engage in continuous discipine and harassment by encourageing it's followers to shun a DA or DF person especially when it comes to a person's family. -
lisaBObeesa
It seems to me that the WTBTS does engage in continuous discipine and harassment by encourageing it's followers to shun a DA or DF person especially when it comes to a person's family.
I would add that the WTBTS does not encourage its followers to shun a DA or DF person, the WTBTS requires its followers to shun a DA or DF person.
Also, in the WTBTS, the word 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociating' is used as if it is separate from the shunning of the congregation, but this is not the case. In actual fact, DF is: the judgement that the person is removed from the congregation along with the announcement that is the signal that the congregation is required to shun the person.
DF and DA ALWAYS include the group shunning.
Shunning starts and stops when the elders announce DF/DA starts or stops.
DF/DA and congregation shunning are one and the same thing. You can't have one without the other. They are both part of the same one process, the discipline process used by the elders.
The WTBTS goes to a lot of trouble to hide that fact by playing word games, but it IS the fact.
-
Oubliette
What is LAWFUL and what is RIGHT is often two different things. For example, at one time in this country it was perfectly lawful for people to own other people as slaves.
Aren't we glad enough people fought against that particular injustice? An estimated 620,000 men died because of the fight to end it.
-
Band on the Run
No one is saying the WT is correct. They have a right to decide who is in their community. Law represents the status quo. I recall when I started doing worldly things. I made certain there were no spies b/c I wanted to keep my extended family. The First Amendment is the First Amendment. I don't believe there is a body of law that does not have tensions in it. Many things in life are unfair.