Religion is a voluntary undertaking - by remaining a member you willingly choose to be governed by its' internal laws
This is the reason courts of law refuse to overturn religious judgments against members - you volunteered for this crap with your baptism.
The Randy Wall vs Watchtower 2018 case in Canada is instructional - Supreme Court Canada case 37273
.Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Religious freedom – Freedom of Association – Courts – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – How do the fundamental freedoms of religion and association protect membership decisions of religious communities and other voluntary associations from state and judicial interference – What are the boundaries between what is and is not justiciable with regard to membership and other disputes between members of voluntary associations – Whether the public law remedy of judicial review applies to membership decisions made by voluntary associations such as religious communities?
Mr. Wall was a member of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, an unincorporated religious association. He was disfellowshipped by a Judicial Committee of elders because he was not sufficiently repentant for two incidents of drunkenness, one of which included verbal abuse of his wife. This required Jehovah’s Witnesses, including his wife and children, to shun him. He is a real estate agent and lost congregation members and other Jehovah’s Witnesses as clients. He appealed to an Appeal Committee which upheld the disfellowship decision. The Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Canada decided not to overturn the decision. Mr. Wall applied for judicial review. Wilson J. conducted a hearing to determine whether the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta had jurisdiction to hear the application.
The supreme court refused to even do the judicial review of the lower court ruling.
What one single factor cruciified Mr. Wall? Membership in a religious organization that does hateful things.
Read lines 3 and 4 in the case overview -
What are the boundaries between what is and is not justiciable with regard to membership and other disputes between members of voluntary associations.
The word justiciable means (a state or action) subject to trial in a court of law.
If Mr. Wall had quit quietly sometime prior to his troubles, the elders would have not been able to take ecclesiastical action against him as a non-member. He may have been shunned by individuals for his conduct but he could not have been disfellowshipped.
To take ecclesiastic action against non-members would violate that persons freedom of religion - an action that could be tried in court.
Elders cannot imply that a nonmember is apostate as they don't know what you do or don't believe because they no longer have any right to grill a non-member - nor should you tell them if they ask - nothing- they are no longer your elders.
For them to even encourage others to shun a non-member would certainly violate your new freedoms of religion and association - both justicial actions
Can you imagine the dissention this action could cause in a congregation - not knowing who had already claimed their freedom by private document and the absurd situation of those same people still freely associating with family and friends as simply regular 'visitors' to the hall? and the elders powerless to do anything lest they commit a justiciable action?
Happily, the same separation of state and religion that gives cults limitless powers over their membership also supports those who exercise their right to freedom of religion anytime anywhere, for any reason. One quarter of the US electoral population is now "unaffiliated" religiously. Many have happily escaped the JWs.
Quit quietly now and never worry about a judicial committee again
