Fading, Faking and Lying as an Unbelieving Jehovah’s Witness: A Moral Criticism

I want to use this post to examine a purely moral problem that pops up occasionally in discussions. Let’s take a quote from an internet forum as an example. After a long and hateful tirade on the evils of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their teachings, a Mr. Jordan ends with this line:

“I am a Ministerial Servant and lifelong JW, though I am only staying in so that I don't lose my family.” - Jordan

Do you notice the immediate problem here? Here is a man, who is trying to convince us of the truth of his own position while tearing down the truths held by his opponents. Here is a man launching moral condemnation at Jehovah’s Witnesses with no holding back. Here is a man trying to take the righteous high ground. But what does his last line really show him to be?

Nothing less than a moral coward. A hypocrite to end all hypocrites. A man who tries to pluck straws out of the eyes of Jehovah’s Witnesses while forgetting the rafter in his own eye.

Let me explain with a pair of stories:

There was recently a young man living in the Fiji islands. As the young man was sitting under a tree meditating, he was approached by one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The two had a long conversation, and by the end the young man was deeply interested in what these Witnesses had to teach. He returned to his home island and, excitedly, tried to tell his friends and family and neighbors about these wonderful new teachings, but they would have none of it. Witness teachings were contradictory to official church teachings of the village, and could not be tolerated. His friends quickly abandoned him, his family cut ties with him, and his neighbors even set fire to his crops. But the young man never relented in publicly declaring what he thought to be true, even in the face of loss and persecution. He kept pursuing truth openly and in whatever way he could, even crossing miles of open sea every week just to attend Witness meetings and learn more. He placed a very high value on truth and was not afraid to sacrifice for it.

I myself chose to pursue Witness teachings in my late teens. It brought a lot of tears and grief. My own parents turned violent against me and threatened to throw me out on the street. My grandparents turned against me and wrote me out of their will entirely. My grandfather, who was my childhood hero and best friend, went to his grave declaring disappointment in me. I had to watch my own mother break down in tears in front of me, begging me to stop my association with these people, and it felt like a knife through the heart. But I did not ever quit pursuing what I felt to be the truth just because of the fear of losing relationships. I was willing to sacrifice if it came down to it, because to me it meant intellectual integrity and the attainment of ultimately higher ends.

And if I ever come to disagree with the Witnesses enough that it merits a break, then I would not hesitation to break with them, even if it meant loss of more relationships. There are no regrets as long as one stays consistent with one's own values, and truth ought to be one of man’s very highest values.

Even the 1st century Christians understood this lesson well. Jesus himself said

"17 Be on YOUR guard against men; for they will deliver YOU up to local courts, and they will scourge YOU in their synagogues. 18 Why, YOU will be haled before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they deliver YOU up, do not become anxious about how or what YOU are to speak; for what YOU are to speak will be given YOU in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just YOU, but it is the spirit of YOUR Father that speaks by YOU. 21 Further, brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and will have them put to death. 22 And YOU will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my name; but he that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved."

The original disciples of Christ understood that they would lose much and suffer greatly if they chose to pursue what they felt to be the truth, and yet they made the choice anyways. They never hesitated to speak publicly and openly defend their beliefs. They were true examples of courage and conviction, even if one doesn't agree with Christian theology.

Now let's go back to our original quote, where we have Mr. “I hate everything that Witnesses teach yet I still pretend to be a Witness” Jordan.

Mr. Jordan keeps himself shoulders deep in what he clearly considers to be lies. He considers Witness teachings immoral, unloving, evil, a rebellion against nature itself, and yet there he is, King of Hypocrites, still pretending to be one of them and publicly associating with them.

I myself would never, under any circumstances, publicly pretend to hold values that I secretly detest, solely for the sake of maintaining relationships. It would be utter hypocrisy and moral cowardice, a violation of integrity. It would be outright lying to and deceiving those whom I sought to maintain relationships with, drawing them to myself on false pretenses and with a false face. It would be an outright rejection of truth as a value.

These types of people try to tear others down and argue truth while they themselves, through their actions, show that they despise truth and place no value on it. They try to turn Witnesses away from their faith while they themselves are too cowardly to walk away or declare their opinions in the open. In my humble opinion, ones like Mr. Jordan deserve no respect and no attention from anyone, Witness or non-Witness. 

Minersville School District v. Gobitis: A Discussion

In June of 1940, during a high point of war hysteria, the Supreme Court of the United States (supposedly the great defender of rights and freedom) dealt a devastating blow to individual liberty. The case was Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which two young Jehovah's Witness school children were permanently expelled from their school, for the simple act of refusing to salute a flag on religious grounds. Despite two lower courts rulings in favor of the expelled children, the Supreme Court overturned both and declared the expulsions valid, on the basis that public schools may force children to violate their own personal beliefs and convictions so long as the interest of the State is involved. The decision itself also led to a brutal wave of persecution for the Witnesses throughout the country that included beatings, lynchings, arson, tar and featherings, rape and even castration.

In his majority opinion, Judge Frankfurter invoked a purely collectivist argument:

"When does the constitutional guarantee [of freedom of speech and freedom of religion] compel exemption from doing what society thinks necessary for the promotion of some great common end, or from a penalty for conduct which appears dangerous to the general good?"

"The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

"...the question remains whether school children, like the Gobitis children, must be excused from conduct required of all the other children in the promotion of national cohesion. We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values"

"The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment."

"A society which is dedicated to the preservation of these ultimate values of civilization may, in self-protection, utilize the educational process for inculcating those almost unconscious feelings which bind men together in a comprehending loyalty, whatever may be their lesser differences and difficulties"

Or in other words, the Supreme Goal of government is not protection of individual liberty but instead the promotion of something called 'national cohesion,' which itself is a dictate directly from the mythical Will of Society, also popularly known as the Government. All other legal principles are secondary in nature to the need for 'national cohesion,' and therefore the government is perfectly justified in violating any right or trampling any liberty in pursuit of this ambiguous term, this demand from 'Society.' Cohesion must precede a Free Nation. A Free Nation cannot exist without it, therefore we will strip away your freedoms, in order to achieve cohesion and give you freedom. You will be free do do whatever you wish, so long as your freedom does not stir any dissent by eroding cohesion, or interfere with the Government's definition of a "great common end" or a "political responsibility" or the "Will of Society." Don't worry about how those words are defined or who will define them or even whether those definitions are subject to change on a whim. The Government will get it right. The Government is always right. Long live Animal Farm!

If all of this sounds ridiculous to you, then there is good reason. It is ridiculous in every sense of the word. Trying to argue that to foster and protect freedom we must first destroy and limit freedom, makes about as much sense as proclaiming that the beatings will continue until moral improves. Thankfully however, at least one of the Justices saw through the silliness and laid the foundation for the future overturning of the decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. That man was Justice Harlan F. Stone, the lone dissenter. And while he of course doesn't take his own logical arguments as far as he should (if it is wrong to compel a child by threat or force to salute the flag, then why is it not also wrong to compel a child by threat or force to attend school in the first place, or compel an adult against his will to fight and lose his life for a conflict he opposes?), he is still certainly on the right track, and hits the nail on the head insofar as the case at hand goes. 

I will reproduce the full dissent below.

The dissent reproduction was originally found here:

 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0310_0586_ZD.html

Please remember to support sites like the Legal Information Institute, who spend a good deal of time and money making cases like this available to the public.

STONE, J., Dissenting Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

310 U.S. 586

Minersville School District v. Board of Education

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

---

No. 690 Argued: April 25, 1940 --- Decided: June 3, 1940

---

MR. JUSTICE STONE, dissenting: 

I think the judgment below should be affirmed.

Two youths, now fifteen and sixteen years of age, are by the judgment of this Court held liable to expulsion from the public schools and to denial of all publicly supported educational privileges because of their refusal to yield to the compulsion of a law which commands their participation in a school ceremony contrary to their religious convictions. They and their father are citizens, and have not exhibited by any action or statement of opinion, any disloyalty to the Government of the United States. They are ready and willing to obey all its laws which do not conflict with what they sincerely believe to be the higher commandments of God. It is not doubted that these convictions are religious, that they are genuine, or that the refusal to yield to the compulsion of the law is in good faith, and with all sincerity. It would be a denial of their faith, as well as the teachings of most religions, to say that children of their age could not have religious convictions.

The law which is thus sustained is unique in the history of Anglo-American legislation. It does more than suppress freedom of speech, and more than prohibit the free exercise of religion, which concededly are forbidden by the First Amendment and are violations of the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth. For, by this law, the state seeks to coerce these children to express a sentiment which, as they interpret it, they do not entertain, and which violates their deepest religious convictions. It is not denied that such compulsion is a prohibited infringement of personal liberty, freedom of speech and religion, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, except insofar as it may be justified and supported as a proper exercise of the state's power over public education. Since the state, in competition with parents, may, through teaching in the public schools, indoctrinate the minds of the young, it is said that, in aid of its undertaking to inspire loyalty and devotion to constituted authority and the flag which symbolizes it, it may coerce the pupil to make affirmation contrary to his belief and in violation of his religious faith. And, finally, it is said that, since the Minersville School Board and others are of the opinion that the country will be better served by conformity than by the observance of religious liberty which the Constitution prescribes, the courts are not free to pass judgment on the Board's choice.

Concededly the constitutional guaranties of personal liberty are not always absolutes. Government has a right to survive and powers conferred upon it are not necessarily set at naught by the express prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. It may make war and raise armies. To that end, it may compel citizens to give military service, Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, and subject them to military training despite their religious objections. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245. It may suppress religious practices dangerous to morals, and presumably those also which are inimical to public safety, health and good order. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333. But it is a long step, and one which I am unable to take, to the position that government may, as a supposed educational measure and as a means of disciplining the young, compel public affirmations which violate their religious conscience.

The very fact that we have constitutional guaranties of civil liberties and the specificity of their command where freedom of speech and of religion are concerned require some accommodation of the powers which government normally exercises, when no question of civil liberty is involved, to the constitutional demand that those liberties be protected against the action of government itself. The state concededly has power to require and control the education of its citizens, but it cannot, by a general law compelling attendance at public schools, preclude attendance at a private school adequate in its instruction where the parent seeks to secure for the child the benefits of religious instruction not provided by the public school. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510. And only recently we have held that the state's authority to control its public streets by generally applicable regulations is not an absolute to which free speech must yield, and cannot be made the medium of its suppression, Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 514, et seq., any more than can its authority to penalize littering of the streets by a general law be used to suppress the distribution of handbills as a means of communicating ideas to their recipients. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147.

In these cases, it was pointed out that, where there are competing demands of the interests of government and of liberty under the Constitution, and where the performance of governmental functions is brought into conflict with specific constitutional restrictions, there must, when that is possible, be reasonable accommodation between them so as to preserve the essentials of both, and that it is the function of courts to determine whether such accommodation is reasonably possible. In the cases just mentioned, the Court was of opinion that there were ways enough to secure the legitimate state end without infringing the asserted immunity, or that the inconvenience caused by the inability to secure that end satisfactorily through other means, did not outweigh freedom of speech or religion. So here, even if we believe that such compulsions will contribute to national unity, there are other ways to teach loyalty and patriotism, which are the sources of national unity, than by compelling the pupil to affirm that which he does not believe, and by commanding a form of affirmance which violates his religious convictions. Without recourse to such compulsion, the state is free to compel attendance at school and require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country. I cannot say that government here is deprived of any interest or function which it is entitled to maintain at the expense of the protection of civil liberties by requiring it to resort to the alternatives which do not coerce an affirmation of belief.

The guaranties of civil liberty are but guaranties of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them. They presuppose the right of the individual to hold such opinions as he will and to give them reasonably free expression, and his freedom, and that of the state as well, to teach and persuade others by the communication of ideas. The very essence of the liberty which they guarantee is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion. If these guaranties are to have any meaning, they must, I think, be deemed to withhold from the state any authority to compel belief or the expression of it where that expression violates religious convictions, whatever may be the legislative view of the desirability of such compulsion.

History teaches us that there have been but few infringements of personal liberty by the state which have not been justified, as they are here, in the name of righteousness and the public good, and few which have not been directed, as they are now, at politically helpless minorities. The framers were not unaware that, under the system which they created, most governmental curtailments of personal liberty would have the support of a legislative judgment that the public interest would be better served by its curtailment than by its constitutional protection. I cannot conceive that, in prescribing, as limitations upon the powers of government, the freedom of the mind and spirit secured by the explicit guaranties of freedom of speech and religion, they intended or rightly could have left any latitude for a legislative judgment that the compulsory expression of belief which violates religious convictions would better serve the public interest than their protection. The Constitution may well elicit expressions of loyalty to it and to the government which it created, but it does not command such expressions or otherwise give any indication that compulsory expressions of loyalty play any such part in our scheme of government as to override the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and religion. And while such expressions of loyalty, when voluntarily given, may promote national unity, it is quite another matter to say that their compulsory expression by children in violation of their own and their parents' religious convictions can be regarded as playing so important a part in our national unity as to leave school boards free to exact it despite the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The very terms of the Bill of Rights preclude, it seems to me, any reconciliation of such compulsions with the constitutional guaranties by a legislative declaration that they are more important to the public welfare than the Bill of Rights.

But even if this view be rejected and it is considered that there is some scope for the determination by legislatures whether the citizen shall be compelled to give public expression of such sentiments contrary to his religion, I am not persuaded that we should refrain from passing upon the legislative judgment "as long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed." This seems to me no less than the surrender of the constitutional protection of the liberty of small minorities to the popular will. We have previously pointed to the importance of a searching judicial inquiry into the legislative judgment in situations where prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may tend to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, note 4. And, until now, we have not hesitated similarly to scrutinize legislation restricting the civil liberty of racial and religious minorities although no political process was affected. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284. Here we have such a small minority entertaining in good faith a religious belief, which is such a departure from the usual course of human conduct, that most persons are disposed to regard it with little toleration or concern. In such circumstances, careful scrutiny of legislative efforts to secure conformity of belief and opinion by a compulsory affirmation of the desired belief, is especially needful if civil rights are to receive any protection. Tested by this standard, I am not prepared to say that the right of this small and helpless minority, including children having a strong religious conviction, whether they understand its nature or not, to refrain from an expression obnoxious to their religion, is to be overborne by the interest of the state in maintaining discipline in the schools.

The Constitution expresses more than the conviction of the people that democratic processes must be preserved at all costs. It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free government can exist. For this reason, it would seem that legislation which operates to repress the religious freedom of small minorities, which is admittedly within the scope of the protection of the Bill of Rights, must at least be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as legislation which we have recently held to infringe the constitutional liberty of religious and racial minorities.

With such scrutiny I cannot say that the inconveniences which may attend some sensible adjustment of school discipline in order that the religious convictions of these children may be spared presents a problem so momentous or pressing as to outweigh the freedom from compulsory violation of religious faith which has been thought worthy of constitutional protection.

Response to Marvin Shilmer: Responsiblity of Organizations

The blog Author has very recently received a reply to the post “Response to Kyle: Apostates and Violence,” found over here: http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2013/03/response-to-kyle-apostates-and-violence.html

While I normally do not waste a great deal of time sorting through comments, again, as in Kyle’s case, I will make an exception due to both the quality of the comment and the man who made it. The comment is as follows:

“You’re correct that a viable organization is made of people.

But it’s not all the people inside an organization that are responsible for misdeeds. It’s top leadership in an organization that’s responsible for any misdeeds.

When top leadership of any organization acts contrary to the best interests of its membership that leadership deserves exposure for the misdeed.

Watchtower leadership invites members into its company with the lure of answers to questions. Yet once inside the same leadership vilifies members for insisting on answers for important details it imposes under pain of its harsh shunning program. This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Watchtower leadership is evil enough to convince youth among its membership that transfusions accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses are safe compared to those forbidden. This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Watchtower leadership is evil enough to sit idly by while young children suffer persecution refusing to pledge allegiance to the United States when Watchtower presidents all pledged allegiance to the United States. This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Jesus was disfellowshipped the old fashioned way by evil leaders among God’s chosen nation of Israel. Today Watchtower’s Governing Body claims itself ‘the faithful slave.’ Who’s going to warn Jehovah’s Witnesses when a self-proclaimed ‘faithful slave’ beats its fellows and associates with drunkards as Watchtower does?

Who?

Marvin Shilmer”

Since it does seem that Mr. Shilmer put at least some thought into his words, I will grace him with a point by point response.

Shilmer: “You’re correct that a viable organization is made of people.

Teary: Well I am glad that we can at least agree on something. Organizations are made up entirely of people, and not monsters, dreams, ham sandwiches, etc. Sadly, some people never do quite grasp that idea…

Shilmer: But it’s not all the people inside an organization that are responsible for misdeeds

Teary: All men are born sinners, and all men, whether high or low in status, commit misdeeds no matter how saintly or noble others perceive them to be. We are all susceptible to the same wants and the same vices – it is the human condition.

Shilmer: It’s top leadership in an organization that’s responsible for any misdeeds.

Teary: All men are responsible for their own actions alone, whether a leader or a recruit. The backdrop of an organization does not change this truth. One should not attempt to shift the blame for the actions of A onto B and then hold A as guiltless, merely because you like A and hate B. If B is the leader of A, C & D through voluntary agreement and not force, then the responsibility for any actions that B takes through A, C & D as agents are shared by all four. And that responsibility many carry down even below A, C & D to the very bottom of the chain of informed, voluntary action.

Shilmer: When top leadership of any organization acts contrary to the best interests of its membership…

Teary: this is a somewhat confusing statement to me at least. Who exactly gets to determine what the “best interests” are? Is it not logical that the “best interests” of the “membership” of a voluntary organization should naturally be determined by the “leadership” of said organization? Who else is going to do it? Those outside the organization who have nothing to do with it? And if the “membership” does not agree with the “leadership’s” determination of “interests,” then the membership is free to find other leaders. In fact, most of the membership would likely have not become members in the first place if their own perceived “best interests” did not align with the expressed interests of the “leadership.”

Shilmer: …that leadership deserves exposure for the misdeed.

Oh, “deserves?” That is a strong word isn’t it? Honestly, who really “deserves” anything? Thank God above that we all don’t get what we really deserve or the human race would be in deep trouble…But back to the statement: you make implicit assumptions in your employment of the word “exposure.” The word assumes that something is hidden or out of sight before being exposed. But taking action on behalf of others, whether Shilmer thinks that said action is contrary to the best interests of others or not, is after all rather difficult to do secretly, especially in a public leadership position. That action which is taken on behalf of the membership openly does not need “exposure” because it is not hidden. The individual affected membership may look upon the action and judge for themselves whether said action is in harmony with or contrary to their own best interest. They do not need a Marvin Shilmer to judge for them.

Shilmer: Watchtower leadership invites members into its company with the lure of answers to questions.

Teary: Such is the nature of voluntary association. One side makes an offer and the other side is free to accept or reject it according to their own best judgment. P.S., “lure” is a weasel word and implies deception, that answers are never given. But the Witnesses always answer the questions that they themselves pose and that the recruit may pose to the best of their ability, in all sincerity. Mr. Shilmer should be more precise with his choice of diction.

Shilmer: Yet once inside the same leadership vilifies members for insisting on answers for important details

Teary: And there Shilmer goes right off the edge of the sanity cliff. 1) What does Shilmer mean by “same leadership”? What leadership? Who? The Governing Body? Congregational leadership? Bible Study leaders? Field Service leaders? Family leadership? 2) Who gets to decide what details are important and what details are not important? 3) “Insisting”? What does Shilmer mean by “insisting”? “Insisting” as in being a jerk, in people faces, unrelenting and always pestering with an entitlement or a “I know better than you and I’ll prove you wrong” attitude? That is why some run into friction once in the congregation: because of their attitude and not the mere act of asking a question. Any question at all asked in humility and sincerity, no matter how out of the blue, will merit no rebuke or admonishment.  What merits rebuke and admonishment is the arrogant attitude of the “reformer” who acts and thinks his own way and feels that everybody else should act and think his way as well. The Author’s place of employment gets those types quite often: young, arrogant know-it-alls that come in and want to start changing things around on day 1. Guess what: nobody likes them, and they never last very long.

Shilmer: it imposes under pain of its harsh shunning program.

Teary: a voluntary organization cannot “impose” anything without the willing consent of the organization members. In fact, the only power that the “leadership” of an organization can have is the power conferred upon it by the voluntary consent of the individual members themselves. If the members don’t agree with what the “leadership” attempts to impose upon them then they can simply reject the imposition by either 1) throwing off the leadership or by 2) walking away from the organization entirely. Yes the leadership might say “do not speak to this person,” or “go jump off this bridge,” but if all the members consciously choose to act on the words in the absence of force, then who is really to blame? For the sake of logical consistency, if it is the act itself of not talking to another that Marvin finds abhorrent, then he must call evil all those who partake in the act of their own free will and in the absence of force, not just the leadership. This was one of the main points of the “Response to Kyle” post: you cannot call a voluntary organization “evil” without catching the lay members in net of your accusation.

Shilmer: This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Teary: This is an unsupported personal value judgment, and deserves no reply. Furthermore, the act of disfellowshipping is very much public, and all recruits learn the rules of it prior to baptism, no exceptions. So really there is nothing to “expose,” because nothing is actually hidden and everybody already knows the rules of what they are voluntarily and non-bindingly agreeing to.

Shilmer: Watchtower leadership is evil enough to convince youth among its membership that transfusions accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses are safe compared to those forbidden. This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Teary: And yet bloodless medicine and blood alternatives ARE significantly safer than standard options, and are getting safer every day as technology advances. Those who elect for bloodless surgery have both significantly reduced chances of death and significantly increased recovery time. This is all scientifically proven and has been for a long time. How Shilmer can call the truth “evil” is beyond this Author’s comprehension.

Shilmer: Watchtower leadership is evil enough to sit idly by while young children suffer persecution refusing to pledge allegiance to the United States when Watchtower presidents all pledged allegiance to the United States. This is evil, and it deserves exposure.

Teary: Making apples to oranges comparisons while counting on the ignorance of the reader to not know the difference, is evil and deserves exposure. Wouldn’t Mr. Shilmer agree?

The two cases Mr. Shilmer refers to are publically reciting the pledge of allegiance in the presence of a flag and traveling outside of one’s country of origin using a passport, neither of which are exclusive to school children or Watchtower presidents. Watchtower presidents at some point in their lives, if they were Witnesses as children or if they ever attended a sporting event, had to make a moral judgment about public flag salutes and public pledges of allegiance. A school age child or young adult traveling abroad must typically sign a passport that may or may not contain pledges or promises of loyalty to the Parent country, depending on which country and which time period we are talking about. The public pledges of allegiance are fairly morally clear in the context of the normal Witness hierarchy of values. Signing a passport to travel abroad that contains a patriotic message or promise of loyalty, when said message or promise has nothing to do with the practical function or purpose of the document, is much more morally ambiguous. It would fall in the same category of using coinage with “In The President We Trust” imprinted on it. Standing and pledging allegiance to a flag in the presence of a group is a public display of one’s loyalty to country. One does not normally associate getting a passport or using a coin with any kind of patriotism or public display of loyalty. That is why a special case like a passport issue is left to the individual conscience. The Witness leadership has no position. It might be moral or it might be immoral depending on slight variations in the value hierarchy of the individual, but that is for the individual to decide.

Really we cannot even call Marvin’s claim hypocrisy, because both the President and child can go through either situation, and both will have to answer the same questions and weigh decisions against the same basic code of values. There is not a different standard for the President than there is for the child or vice versa, and so irrationally claiming “hypocrisy” makes no sense.

The rest I do not think warrants any response. It is nothing but ad-hominem and insult with no substance.

Teary

**Disclaimer**

The above article was written in one sitting, at 1:00 am in the morning, with no revision. If you want to be a grammar Nazi and point out mistakes then too bad I don't care! I am much too tired and grumpy to care right now so there! >:(

Response to Kyle: Apostates and Violence

The Author of this blog as recently received some comments from a user named Kyle. I could simply let them show up in the comments section, but that wouldn’t really do them any justice, and so instead they will get their own entire post dedicated to responding. One of the comments is as follows:

“Here you're painting all apostates with the same brush, a common logical fallacy. You've commented on Ad hominem before, look up Guilty By Association: 

After speaking with hundreds of ex-witnesses, I have yet to come across anyone who has advocated violence against witnesses. All I speak to have friends and family still in and hate the organization, not the individuals. Most would be happy to see the organization peter out and die, but no harm come to actual individual witnesses.

But instead you've cherry picked an example that asserts all apostates want to physically exterminate Jehovah's Witnesses, which simply isn't true.” --Kyle

In reference to this 2011 post here: http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2011/11/examples-of-apostate-love.html

And this actual quote from a news article dealing with Russian persecution of Witnesses: “Ha ha! Russia had the right idea: rid the world of Jehovah's Witnesses by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!”

With that background in mind, let’s begin:

“After speaking with hundreds of ex-witnesses, I have yet to come across anyone who has advocated violence against witnesses.”  Haven’t ever found “anyone”? Not a single person? You are either a liar or you just aren't looking very hard, or both. I saw it almost constantly when I wrote more often.

Number one, you make no distinction between ex-Witnesses and apostate Witnesses in the psychological sense. I agree with you that the vast majority of ex-Witnesses faded quietly and without much fanfare. But those types are not the problem. You rarely see or hear from those unless you actively seek them out. The problem, however,  is the small minority of highly vocal apostate Witnesses that more or less dedicate their entire lives to “fighting against the organization” and “bringing it down at all costs.” These are the more ruthless, more violent, more obsessed, and more apathetic kind of ex’s.

These are the ones who applaud governments separating Witness parents from their children. These are the ones who cheer for nations that throw conscientious objectors in jail and say that they deserve it. These are the ones who find no fault with schools that beat and humiliate and expel Witness children for not displaying nationalistic pride and loyalty to the ruling political party. These are the ones who use the comments of articles reporting on the tragic deaths of Witnesses to stir up hatred and intolerance of the same group. These are the ones who track down the real identities of online Witnesses and then send fake accusations of crime and domestic abuse and pedophilia to their employers and neighbors. These are the ones who view forced deprogrammings and kidnappings of Witnesses as justified. These are the ones that, as in the original quote, support, ignore, play down or even help to incite the violent persecution of Witnesses around the world. These are the ones who lie and deceive and manipulate so much that they make their own accusations of “Theocratic Warfare” look like children playing with squirt guns.

I saw all these things coming from the online apostate community for years. Every group and every site and every community I looked at was exactly the same. All were overflowing with negativity and vitriol and intolerance and hate, very poorly masked as love and concern. It made me sick to the point that I finally just had to walk away from it all and stop sifting through such trash entirely. Those are the ones I refer to when I speak of “the other side.”

“All I speak to have friends and family still in and hate the organization, not the individuals.” And yet that is a giant fallacy in of itself. It is a completely meaningless phrase, like trying to argue that you hate “Society” but not any of the individuals that make up “Society.” “Society,” “Nation,” “Community,” “Organization,” all these words are just different ways of referring to groups of individual people. You cannot separate the people from the collective noun because the people ARE the collection noun. An “organization” cannot act or think or recruit or expel or teach or reprove – only INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE can do these things. An organization is nothing but a group of like-minded, individual PEOPLE. So to say that you hate an “organization” IS to say that you hate the people that make up the organization, because they are one and the same thing.

Now, in defense of both you and your ‘friends,’ I’ll admit that they probably don’t mean what they literally say they mean, because it is obvious they don’t even understand what it is they are saying. Perhaps we could rephrase it to

“I love my family and friends and consider them merely victims even if voluntarily baptized, but I hate the Witnesses who they hang around with because those Witnesses keep my family and friends away from me.”

This is a much more honest statement in my opinion, even if the factualness of it is debatable. Moving from feelings of abandonment and betrayal by friends and family to anger at the voluntary choices of friends and family to hatred of the individuals that the friends and family choose to associate with to hatred of an abstract, boogeyman “organization” is nothing but progressive scapegoating by those are not honest with themselves and who cannot accept the true nature of their pain.

Bryan R. v. Watchtower

Often times, when discussing the Candace Conti case with pro-Witnesses and anti-Witnesses alike, the Author will be asked the reason for the confidence in his words, for the reason why he does not worry about a possible loss in appeal. The answer is simple: precedent. 

The lower court decision cannot possibly be upheld in the higher courts, because decisions of higher courts, unlike the former, create precedent; and the precedent that upholding such a decision would establish, would be nothing short of catastrophic for California's legal system**. As the Maine Supreme Court stated in a 1999 decision:

There does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor.  "The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action."  Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965).  In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting others from the danger...

The creation of an amorphous common law duty on the part of a church or other voluntary organization requiring it to protect its members from each other would give rise to "both unlimited liability and liability out of all proportion to culpability."  Cameron v. Pepin, 610 A.2d 279, 283 (Me. 1992)

What follows a bit farther below is the Maine Supreme Court decision that the above quote was taken from, reproduced in full for this blog. Take note that the circumstances and claims of the Plaintiff are almost an exact replica, detail for detail, of the Candace Conti case. If the names and locations were removed from both cases, a casual reader would probably have great difficulty distinguishing between them. And yet, interestingly enough, despite the striking similarities, the Maine Supreme Court came to a very different decision on the Bryan case than did the Alameda Superior Court in handling the Conti Case.

Vicki Boer Abridged

As was promised, here is an abbreviated version of the Vicky Boer court transcript, containing the sections deemed most important by the Author. He hopes that you will find it a much brisker read than the full version (coming in a little under 5,500 words compared with over 30,000 in the original, or roughly 1/6 the size); however, if you do not particularly trust the Author (of if you are simply a glutten for punishment), then the full, unabridged version of the court transcript is available here:

http://www.tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2012/09/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

Moving on with the case summary:

The Whole Whole Vicki Boer Truth

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses are an interesting lot. They have a commanding stranglehold on history but only a limp-fish grip on facts. They are wonderful propagandists but pitiful scholars. And they are always wonderfully optimistic even in the face of crushing defeat. Take the Boer case for example.