A SHORT COMMENT ON THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
Three judges voted in favor of JW, and two voted against. Why? There was agreement that, if a Witness disassociated himself or herself, he or she would, in effect, be disfellowshipped: there should be no contact with the individual, unless contact was unavoidable, such as when living in the same household.
The question was whether the treatment of dissociated/disfellowshipped individuals constituted undue pressure that infringed the right to freely disassociate, thereby constituting grounds for denying state funding and registration.
In addition to differing views on the requirement of evidence, the differing votes were likely based on whom the judges believed – JW or the state.
In all three court instances, JW argued that there was no requirement for individual members to shun those who had disassociated themselves, but that each member would decide for themselves how much or how little contact he or she would have with the disassociated member. This is patently untrue! There is an absolute requirement that all Witnesses not have contact with disfellowshipped or disassociated members.
In a letter to the County Governor of Oslo and Viken dated February 17, 2022, JW wrote:
and it is up to each individual associated with the congregation to use their personal religious conscience to decide whether they wish to limit or completely avoid contact with that person.
In the District Court, I noted the following statements made by the JW counsel, Anders Ryssdal:
There is no specific, established practice.
There is nothing in the teachings that requires one to sever contact with disfellowshipped persons.
There is no established practice among Jehovah’s Witnesses, but each individual’s conscience must determine the extent of contact they wish to have with disfellowshipped persons.
I interpret this as a deliberate attempt to lead the court to believe that disassociated/disfellowshipped individuals are not shunned and completely isolated, as the State claims.
It is clear that the judge delivering the first opinion, Therese Steen, believed JW’s inaccurate claims that disfellowshipped individuals are not shunned and completely isolated. She writes:
In my view, the guidelines for handling a possible disfellowshipping of a minor indicate that the process is now more lenient than previously. (99)
Therefore, disassociation does not result in total social isolation, including from the family. (128)
Although I assume that members normally follow the religious community’s teaching on disfellowshipping former members, Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that members make decisions in accordance with their conscience. This may also influence how individuals choose to relate to disfellowshipped members, particularly within their close family. (131)
The judge delivering the second opinion, Thomas Chr. Poulsen, reached a different conclusion from the first judge regarding the treatment of disassociated/disfellowshipped members. He had clearly delved deeper into JW’s literature, and his conclusion was that the treatment of disfellowshipped members infringes the right to freely leave the organization. He cites seven passages from JW’s literature indicating that disassociated/disfellowshipped members should be completely avoided. Here is an excerpt from one of the quotations:
We have no spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped persons …Is it really necessary to avoid such a person completely? Yes, for several reasons.” (Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, 2008, page 207)
What particularly demonstrates that the first voting judge and two other judges believed what JW claimed in court, while two judges did not, is the following: The first voting judge quoted from Remain in God’s Love (2018), pages 39–40, where she writes:
I note that this book covers the same themes as the book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love from 2008, to which the minority refers, among other things. Remain in God’s Love, published in 2018, is more subdued and less detailed in several areas, including its treatment of former members. When assessing what constitutes current practice within the religious community, I base my considerations on more recent texts, including the 2018 book, as the County Governor also does in her decisions.” (40)
The dissenting judge reacted strongly to these comments by the first voting judge. He writes, “I find it appropriate to repeat this [the quotation] here.” He then quotes the passage in its entirety once again, and subsequently writes:
In my view, the State is correct in stating that the practice is not merely advisory but appears to be the result of a rule-based directive. (author’s italics) This is particularly true because having unnecessary contact with former members may result in sanctions from the religious community and, in extreme cases, may lead to disfellowshipping.
Here, we see the issue in a nutshell: JW have argued that the isolation of disassociated/disfellowshipped members is advisory and that each individual’s conscience determines how much or how little contact he or she wishes to have with disassociated/disfellowshipped members. The dissenting judge demonstrates that having no contact with disassociated/disfellowshipped members is “a rule-based directive.”
The reason the book Remain in God’s Love (2018) is “more subdued and less detailed” is not because the practice of shunning disassociated/disfellowshipped members has changed. Rather, this is part of deliberate efforts to conceal from the courts and the public how these individuals are treated.
Having served as an elder for 56 years, I can confirm that what the dissenting judge states is correct. There has been no change in the requirement for congregation members to completely isolate disfellowshipped persons, which was introduced in 1952. The aim is for the disfellowshipped person to see how bad it is to be shunned by everyone, in the hope of pressuring them to return to the congregation. The slightest contact with the disfellowshipped person would undermine this pressure.
A detailed discussion of the requirement of totally isolating disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses is foun in the article, “The deman of shunning disfellowshipped and resigned Jehovah’s Witnesses in the year 2026.” (https://mybelovedreligion.no/2026/01/25/the-demands-for-shunning-in-the-year-2026/)
