Im sure that sections of this can be used in a beneficial manner by many here in some form or another.
If that is ok sailaway?
Thank you all for your encouragement and support!
Absolutely, stuckinarut2, copy away!
You may want to name the specific elders to list of those who may be held legally responsible for slander and harassment.
I think is now mostly conducted on a local level. HQ can't be bothered. The local elders don't want to be hung to dry.
Just my $0.02.
I thought of that, AudeSapere, but I haven't set foot in the KH in over four years. Ours was a congregation that always needed to import new elders, ministerial servants, pioneers, etc. It was like a revolving door. Everyone in the two congregations is related in one way or another-- to much inbreede, IMO. I do need to confirm the names of the respective congregation secretaries.
Imagine what would happen if everyone that left sent a letter like this.
Vive le revolution!!
Sparrowdown: Imagine what would happen if everyone that left sent a letter like this.
Vive le revolution!!
Well I would bet that the harsh comments printed (of negativity toward faders and those who leave) would dry up pretty quick!
Oh yeah, they are just bullies in a suit and tie.
Sometimes all it takes is a few to storm the barricades and the rest will find their courage to do the same.
Bravo, you guys keep up the good work, anyone else has a letter they care to share.
Examples of such religious practices may include a formal announcement of my non-member status before the [named] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, shunning, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, slander, invasion of privacy, etc. Should you engage in any such conduct towards me, I will immediately and fully utilize all legal means to stop those acts. Any and all of the above-named parties may be held jointly and severally responsible.
But then in Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) the Supreme Court seemed to suggest that the Free Exercise Clause might sometimes constitutionally mandate exemptions. And in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court expressly adopted the constitutional exemption model, under which sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) reaffirmed this, and the period from 1963 to 1990 is often labeled the Sherbert/Yoder era of Free Exercise Clause law.
Well done Sail away--- go out with a bang!
I was thinking that all JWs should be given the opportunity to know their rights on this matter.
Then there would be many more ready to leave knowing that the law and human rights are on their side. It is the fear of reprisals which keep the "conscious class" in.
I DA'd on principal also a few years ago, it certainly opens your eyes to the shunning! I think though if people choose to shun me I don't want to know them as they can't act as decent humans.
It feels so much better not having anyone hoping I will return or calling me up, having to look over my shoulder etc..