@listBObeesa:
Correct. An announcement is made that a person’s status has changed doesn’t mean the announcement is the discipline itself.
But it also doesn’t mean the announcement is NOT the discipline itself.
Every JW and exJW knows that the discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning. One does not occur without the other. We all also understand that discipline for a "DA" is exactlythe same as for "DF."
Only a nonJW who doesn't understand the process would mistakenly think the announcment was nothing but a membership announcement.
I think I see several differences between your thinking and my thinking. First, I wouldn't say that "discipline=DF=announcement=congregation shunning". The "=" sign imples an equality, as if they are the same thing. They are not in practice, and I wouldn't think so legally. The announcement lets everyone know the membeship status of the individual. From there, the congregation members actually impliment the discipline.
When you said, "The same way the kiss on the cheek from a mafia boss can amount to an assassination order." The kiss isn't the discipline, it is when one of the mafia goons sits you down and puts a bullet through your head. To me, there is a distinct difference. Let me put it this way, what if the signal wasn't a kiss, but a hand shake? You would most likely view the hand shake the same way. I asked the same question in relation to a membership list hanging on the board. Let's say you got your way and the courts step in and say, "Hey, that announcement is over the line." The next step would be to simply maintain a congregation membeship list on the board (as all churches do), and the congregational members would take their cues from there.
In other words, if you had your way, nothing would really change; also, the courts would have set new precedent for overreach.
But this might all be irrelavant. Question: why don't you view the announcement as part of the separation process? It seems you are saying that the separation comes sometime before. When the separation comes - there are processes that both sides can go through as part of the entire separation process. After the entire process is complete - announcement, documentation to headquarters, etc - clearly, then any "discipline" by the WTB&TS directly would be innapropriate.
As I understand it, by saying the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, the first amendment is implicitly stating that the people have the right of free exercise of religion.
From The National Constitution Center website:
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment's free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-1-freedom-of-religion-press-expression
You have the right to participate in any religion you wish. And, you have the right to be a non member of any religion you wish.
Churches can only discipline their members. If I stop attending and tell the elders I am no longer a member, they have no legal right to discipline me. Disciplining a non member is not covered under the church's freedom of religion.
The bill of rights was constructed to put limits on the governement. If a private organization is interferring with your choice to be free of said organization, then I don't see that as a first ammendment issue at all - rather is is just an issue of harassment. Notice, on the link you posted, if you read the full text, it continually talks about freedom of and from religion in relation to goverment activities: "The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join."
I would be interested in knowing why it would be viewed as a first ammendment issue.
Glad midterms went OK for you. What are you studying?
MMM
