How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  The judgement of the New Mexico case (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-mexico/nmdce/1:2017cv00763/367869/35/) basically illustrates the point I am making:

  You have these Judges who look at the Paul vs WT case as a presedant without ever noticing that the enforcement of the shunning makes a big difference in statements as follow:

  To allow the imposition of tort damages on a religious organization for shunning a former member would essentially criminalize and force the church to forego the practice, thereby, imposing a direct burden on religion.
  

  In these cases, too, courts have concluded that even where the religious organization engages in conduct that, in other circumstances could be actionable under tort law, the First Amendment does not permit judicial interference in what are, essentially, ecclesiastical disputes concerning membership in religious organizations.

  In short, you want to make a difference, you have to question the angle at which the decision was made in the Paul vs WT. I believe that the angle is the enforcement policy.

  1) Doing away with mandatory shunning would not prevent parishioners to engage in the practice, thus, would not be a direct burden on religion.

  2) Courts need to understand that mandatory shunning is not an ecclesiastical disputes concerning membership in religious organizations. It is about abusively punishing ex-members by controlling their association, thereby, denying the very humans right they so strongly claim: The right of freedom of association.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  People have the right to shun whoever they want.

  Progress!

  The issue with JWs, is that only a minority would actually put it in practice if it was considered a conscience matter. We all know that “left to the conscience” is synonymous with “Yes! You can do that!” to most JWs.

  So? This is irrelevant. The fact is this has been the policy, and still is. And it is no secret. In just about any position a religion takes, we could imagine what it would be like if the religion actually didn’t hold that position. But this has nothing to do with thinking it’s a good idea to force groups to behave the way you think they should behave.

  When the WT presents the shunning practice to the courts and tell them that it is a personal religious practice that must be protected, they are lying.

  It’s an official rule of the group, and they haven’t been shy spelling that out. When the rubber meets the road, the members have to inforce it. For that to occur, each member has to choose to go along with it. They have the choice to leave too.

  People who do not comply with the rule or simply talk against it can be excommunicated and become victims of shunning.

  Yes. Those are the rules.

  If JWs want to prove that this is indeed what individual JWs want, they will need to make it a conscience matter.

  This is illogical. For example, I can assert that most JWs would love to be swingers, and IF ONLY the WT would change their position on this, most would find some other couples to hook up with, and in order to prove otherwise, the WT has no choice but to make it a conscience matter. Nonsense. They don’t have to do anything. The rules were set out before hand. There is no bait and switch here.

  Sadly, the only way for this to happen is likely government intervention.

  No. They may change their mind in the future. But you should not force it because it sets an incredible legal presedent.
• 

  JC323

  Again Stephane. You are looking only at the Paul case and saying what you want to read it as. Again the New Mexico case took the argument that the religious faith enforced ostracization or shunning, that those that disobeyed the commands of the faith's leader would suffer consequences. The court ruled that such a determination of bringing a civil suit would be in violation of the constitution.

  But let us look at it in another way. We can both agree that someone can choose not to speak to someone that is a given fact. Your assertion that it is a violation of a person's right to be told not to speak to someone. Then it would be who has the standing to file suit. It would not be the person who is not being spoken too. No one is infringing on their right to choose to speak to someone or not. The person who might have standing is the person who is being told not to talk to someone else. As a member of a church, the courts have ruled that the final arbiter of what is allowed within a church, under neutral law, is the church itself.

  Let us take the Amish for instance. it is the right for someone to choose to own a iphone or not right? but if the Amish say to its members if you use an iphone and that is considered as modern technology that is against our religious beliefs you will be cast out of our community. The court cannot come in and tell the Amish community you must let that person use an iphone.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Please explain how preventing the JWs from ENFORCING the shunning practice (that is, excommunicate people who do not practice it) would undermine their freedom of association.

  People have the right to form groups, with the rules they see fit. Others can join and agree, or leave. If the group is forced to behave, not in the way the members agree upon, but rather the way YOU think they should behave, and they have no recourse ... because accoring to you they can’t enforce the rules, then there are a myriad of rights being trampled on, one of which is freedom of association. (They can’t kick out people associating with other people they see as “bad”).

  Again, I am not saying they are moral for doing this. They could be ass holes. But you can’t legislate away ass holes.

  Then compare this to the freedom of association of the people being shunned by their entire social circle all at once.

  Yes, the person that left the group has great freedom. He/she left!! Even if they were kicked out, they had the freedom to break the rules and the group exercised its freedom not to associate.
  
  
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Then it would be who has the standing to file suit. It would not be the person who is not being spoken too. No one is infringing on their right to choose to speak to someone or not. The person who might have standing is the person who is being told not to talk to someone else.

  YES!!! That is exactly what I believe!
  
  
• 

  JC323

  Ok Now we are speaking the same language. Again the court after court after court has stated that the decision of membership, discipline and polity within a religion is up to the religion. What you are asking the court to do is say that this part of someone's faith is wrong and that it should be outlawed. That would then put the courts in deciding what is correct and what is not correct in religion. That would then put the government into a place that lifts one religion or one type of religious practice up over another, which would be a violation of the First Amendment in the US.

  It seems like you are from Canada. That was the crux of the Wall case. That can a church decide how to discipline it's members when they do not adhere to the rules of their faith, who is allowed to be a member of their religion.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  People have the right to form groups, with rules they fit. Others can join and agree, or leave. If the group is forced to behave, not in the way the members agree upon, but rather they YOU think they should behave. And they have no recourse ... because according to you they can’t enforce the rules.

  If their rules has a serious negative effect outside of their group and on society as a whole, government can and will intervene (Ex: Polygamy, female genital mutilation, etc). What I am proposing is that no one should have the right to organize and enforce such shunning in the personal spheres, especially with relatives.

  The person that has left does not have great freedom as she might have lost touch with everyone she personally knew up to that point. Parents, close family, friends, even employers and work colleges.

  And the people that have actually lost their right of freedom of association are in fact the JWs that are still in and too afraid to loose their religion and suffer the same treatment.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  That would then put the courts in deciding what is correct and what is not correct in religion.

  Yes, government already does that. Polygamy, anything that involves crimes, etc.

  Heck, I believe that Organized shunning is actually worst than Polygamy! Deliberately following up on individuals in order to control their association should be seen for what it is: A form of abuse.
• 

  JC323

  The court has ruled on polygamy that there is a compelling governmental interest. That it has been considered as social propriety that a family unit consists of a single marriage and not multiple marriages at the same time. And you used female genital mutilation, again the government has a compelling governmental interest in stopping their citizens from being physically assaulted.

  But also those are neutral law. just like a church was formed on the belief that marijuana was a part of their religious belief. But the law that was written was neutral stating that marijuana is a class 1 narcotic and is outlawed under federal law.

  So please propose how you would want a neutral law to be written that doesn't violate the free exercise of religion and free association of the constitution.
• 

  vienne

  I would hate to have a court tell me that I must associate with or allow into my house someone I detest. Isn't banning 'shunning' the same thing? Individuals and groups have a right to choose their associates. Anger at being shunned does not erase that right.

  In America, the right to form associations is a constitutional right. Implicit in that right is the right to forego association with others.