Hello,
What to see some hypocrisy WTS style?
A cursory examination of its literature yields a rich harvest of cloaked entendre, suggestive conditioning and plain bigotry. For example this little gem from the Awake! June 22, 2000, p6 - ?The Manipulation Of Information? reads in part :
"Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motive instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy to remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-callers strategy has worked"
Now, does the WTS have any labels that *it* likes to stick on people in order to allow a person to be rejected by means of a ?negative label?. How about ?apostate?, or ?ungodly worldling?, or ?unbeliever?, or ?disgruntled opposers?, or 'false religion' etc?
What becomes even more astonishing is that the above paragraph is actually the precursor to the WTS attempting to persuade 'worldings' to stop referring to it as a sect. It says, in part :
For example, in recent years a powerful anti-sect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, creating the image of an enemy, and reinforcing xisting prejudices against religious minorites. Often "sect" becomes a catchword.
An astonishing and perverse logic. The WTS demands freedom from labels that might lend a negative connotation to their work, while also demanding the right to label anyone negatively if it so wishes. One 'negative label' that does indeed comes to mind is that of the hypocrite, and in this instance it finds its own target without any need for further commentary by this 'apostate'.
Best regards - HS