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! >:(
