In a business law class I've been learning ALL about contracts. I wonder if for all of those who were baptized prior to the age of 18, if the WT/elders could be forced on our insistence that our dedication/baptism as a minor was made without proper mental capacity and that it be declared invalid, henceforth having never been baptized then family,etc, would be free in WT's eyes to treat as any non-jw vs shunning as an ex-jw.
Are baptisms under the age of 18 valid? Can one baptised/dedicated prior actually be dfed according to law?
- Tried that. What they get you on is, "Even so, you went along with it all this time. Your actions since show you are in agreement."
It's a question that often comes up, we once discussed it here.
Cognac, if a couple marry, have children and reach their 15th Wedding Anniversary before she discovers that her husband slept with her sister the night before the wedding and had continued to be unfaithful ever since would it be reasonable to say that her marriage vows hold or not?
Just because a baptised JW child remains a JW into adulthood doesn't mean he can be held to those baptism vows once he discovers that the other party has been dishonest or fraudulent.
Yeah, like employment contracts - going along with things is deemed to be 'acceptance' so even if you got dipped at 16 or less, if you were still handing out mags and stuff at 18+ then you are out of luck.
Ultimately though it's meaningless - there is no contract or promise. The only thing they have is what any group has - control over who can be classed as a member based on the groups own criteria.
They are just like Blockbusters ... except they had better movies to watch.
It doesn't mean they aren't morally corrupt slime balls with the spirituality of a half-eaten maggot ... but it's not something that I think is likely challengeable in court unless someone has spare money to throw at it.
- Even if you somehow got your baptism legally annulled, the loyalists would (unofficially) shun you for having gotten it annulled.
- If allowing an unbaptized minor to bleed to death is legally allowed, then this fucking cult can get away with anything else.
Even if you somehow got your baptism legally annulled, the loyalists would (unofficially) shun you for having gotten it annulled.
I agree. It's simply impossible to force people to welcome you and talk to you. Is the government going to assign an armed guard to threaten people to "talk to him OR ELSE !! (and make me believe it's genuine ...)"
People who have a chance at a successful legal claim would be those where the congregation has ripped them off in some way, maybe and elder-associated investment scam or fraud. Being kicked out of a group is not, in itself, an actionable offense.
The only action the WTS can take is to say you are not a member ... which is surely what the action of claiming you were never baptized is meant to achieve. Neither prevents them from shunning you.
Asserting secular established laws with religious activities is futile at best.
In some countries religion has played a large engaging part in creating secular laws.
Religions for most part conduct themselves out the regulation of secular laws, except when there is physical danger or harm to a individual in most countries.
Unfortunately this separation perhaps goes too far as to children's indoctrination or the eventual disassociation of that child or adult who wishes to leave the religion in its entirety.
They'll never get into legal trouble for shunning.
The bad PR, however...
DarioKhel - "If allowing an unbaptized minor to bleed to death is legally allowed, then this fucking cult can get away with anything else."
Finkelstein - "In some countries religion has played a large engaging part in creating secular laws."
Fun with paradoxes...