Quit Quietly now more than ever (page 6)

gone for good

LongHairGal -

Thanks for elucidating the discomfort that many faders must feel at a kingdom hall. JWs do not really welcome visitors as they rather look to groom victims

.Glad you're out.

I've always enjoyed your insights over the years

gone for good

Steve2 -

As always your comment is spot on - thanks for good advice.

I feel the future of the litigation surrounding this issue of religious rights is going to be so useful and important that no details should be overlooked in preparation for that possibility.

If class actions come about - easy but careful preparation now might qualify many for quick inclusion as the actions move forward.

TD

The amazing exoneration of Info Sekta in Swiss Court has finally reinforced the proper way to exit an abusive cult.

???

Are you talking about the defamation case brought against psychologist and cult expert Regina R Spiess?

Explain it for a slow UBM. How does this affect leaving the JW's?

gone for good

Dubstepped-

In what way exactly, can timely exercising of a guaranteed civil right be considered a "loophole"?

In case law - you see that others stumbled at getting courts to care because they were still members of the religious group,when "the sh*t hit the fan" whining about something that they themselves implicitly agreed to -ecclesiastic authority of their chosen group

Timing ones' claim tof s state-guaranteed right to religious freedom, such that it pre-empts another parties ability to exercise their (former) legal right of ecclesiastic authority over members is no loophole but simply necessary legal practice if the issue wants to ever be settled in courts.

Timing is and always has been critically important in legal matters. Real estate closures have defined time lines - the violation of which may make a party legally liable, contracts of many types have integrated time frames legally enforcible. Offering a buyer more money for a product after it is already sold is just tough luck for you. Weddings offer a brief time for opposition to the contract- in- progress to be expressed - then the knot is tied. Planes ,trains, and ships are in no way liable if you are late

Religious membership is voluntary - not contractual as JWs are led to believe. There are no periods of membership enforceable by law. If a person is able to provide a date of their own emancipation the other party has no legal structure from which to challenge a free-will decision on what was always a purely voluntary endeavor.

WT/JW will never attempt to force ecclesiastic authority on non-members through secular courts.

Internally, JWs puff themselves up as the only legitimate faith in their imaginary little theocracy,

But (like every religion in every democracy), they possess no legal power beyond their own shrinking membership.

Phizzy

Just to reiterate what I Posted above, if you are threatened with Disassociation , then this move by the Congregation is NOT Ecclesiastical.

They make that plain in the Elders Book, therefore, in this situation, a Notarised letter, or whatever it may be called in your Country, that shows you left entirely a while before any action by the Elders or Congregation, is a great tool.

You can then claim that your Human Rights, to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion are being breached, also your Human Right to a Family life. Personally I would threaten to Sue any Elders, and the Congregation involved, if any Announcement were made about me, or any rumours circulated. I would claim such action is Defamation of Character.

Just a word of caution, if you threaten Legal Action, you must intend to go through with it, it is illegal to threaten with no intention of carrying out the Threat here in the U.K.

Again, Good Luck to all in this situation !

TD

I don't pretend to know how it works in the UK.

Here in the US, disassociation is not an exercise of ecclesiastical authority.

It is a voluntary action initiated by the congregant and the function of the Elders is only to confirm that the individual really meant it.

Unless things have changed (?) I'm not sure how the letter you guys are taking about would not be construed as a formal disassociation in and of itself.

Fadeaway1962

A notarized letter is a great idea but as phizzy said "if you threatened legal action, you must intend to go through with it"

A average JW would probably not have the funds to follow through with legal action and the elders will also know if the person had the means to see it through, if they do have the money they would possibly accept the letter and do nothing.

And the way JW lawyers have treated others that have taken the org to court we can be sure that they will be as difficult as possible to increase the costs and drag it out as long as they can, and if they lose they will appeal to drag it even more.

gone for good

TD -

I have no idea what a UBM might be.

By the way (BTW) It is considered good etiquette (and good logic) to only use acronyms after having first used the full form of the phrase at the opening of the discussion.

Why claim to be dumb when you can obviously read?

In an online interview with one of Ms. Spiess' fellow activists at Info Sekta, the gentleman being interviewed describes the lady as possessing a brilliant intellect coupled with unsurpassed personal courage.

Watchtower did not attack the activist group, it attacked Ms. Spiess individually.

She could have capitulated by saying her harsh published criticisms were merely her "opinions' but she bravely defended her statements as all being truthful and thus elevated to being considered as "facts".

The court exonerated her on all issues-moving her published criticisms from mere opinions (worth nothing at trial) to legally documented facts as acceptable to a court of law.

The charge of defamation is a CRiMINAL charge in Switzerland and carries huge financial costs along with a criminal record for the person convicted - .

This lady and her fellows are modern-day heroes of justice - show respect for what they have done and educate yourself.

if you can't figure out the significance of her exoneration just wait for the flood of human rights litigation against Watchtower/JWs.

TD

gone for good

I have no idea what a UBM might be

Sorry,

UBM = UnBelieving Mate. It was a very common term here on JWN, because there were a lot of us participating, at least at one time. Like JW, xJW, NWT, PIMO etc., it didn't usually need an explanation

I'm not abysmally stupid (Egentlich spreche ich drei Sprachen und lese zwei weitere...) but am not as up on JW things as those of you who have lived it and consequently sometimes miss something obvious.

Long story short, I paid an attorney a boat-load of money to research this subject when my wife was starting to fade and the prognosis was pretty dismal. There is virtually no legal recourse here in the U.S. for JW's who want to exit the faith unscathed. (I would be happy to elaborate if you want...)

If the Zurich decision has repercussions for JW's in Switzerland, that would be great. If it also extends into Germany and Austria because of the strong bilateral relationships between the three, that would be even better.

But I'm not grasping the connection to the English speaking world, especially here in the U.S. with our strong sentiment of caveat emptor. (And would add that the current political climate is driving us even farther in that direction.)

gone for good

Phizzy -

Thanks again for your contributions. Could you clarify your comment:

:"Just to reiterate what I Posted above, if you are threatened with Disassociation , then this move by the Congregation is NOT Ecclesiastical."

I am wondering if there is confusion about to whom the term ecclesiastical applies...? or did you mean to state (correctly) that if a person was already in the process of disfellowshipping that it would be too late?

I mentioned in a previous post your right must be exercised 'while in good standing'. O one of the more known cases (not JWs) was rejected by the court because the ecclesiastical discipline was already in process.

adjective
relating to the Christian Church or its clergy.
"the ecclesiastical hierarchy"
Similar: priestly ministerial clerical
Ecclesiastical authority is hierarchical hitting bottom with elders (in more ways than one). thus legal recognition of responsibility can go right to the top as doctrine and conduct and enforcement practies originate there.
Individual rights are not ecclesiastic in any way because they are proffered by the state for the benefit of everyone who claims them.
Ecclesiastic laws are valid only on church members unless there is a violation of state law. Honor killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) for examples. Shunning is not illegal but the extent to which individuals' rights are violated by it will soon be scrutinized at last.

Quit Quietly now more than ever

Share this