Beep,Beep:
One note plainly has (Very Rare) at the end.
If a law enforcement official was told to write "(Very Rare)" beside a hand written note regarding the frequency with which motorists run stop signs, would that make the statement "(Very Rare)" true? Obviously, that would be an incorrect observation and the fact that the note was present would in no way reflect on the actual prevalence of the criminal conduct.
That said, I do not believe the problem of pedophilia/child molestation and the cultural resistance to disclosure of that behavior is more pronounced among Jehovah's Witnesses than in other high-control, clan-centric religious groups. I also do not believe it is less pronounced, which would be the expectation given their advocation of themselves as a "cleansed" people, chosen by God as representatives to the world who are without blemish.
I believe that any injustice can be corrected without resorting to theft, lying or any other form of dishonesty. Using your example of the company dumping toxic chemicals, couldn't there be another way? Video the dumping maybe or maybe just tell someone in a position to do something about it? The irresponsible course is the "the ends justifies the means" course. If you steal once for a "good cause" what's to stop you from stealing when you will profit from it? Or lie when it serves your interests?
I really don't know where to begin, here. You believe that the God disclosed in the Bible opposes the concept of the end justifying the means?
What, then, do you say of the woman with the flow of blood? According to the Mosaic Law, what should have been done to her for entering a crowd in an "unclean" state? Jesus did not even heal her, she was simply healed through him.
What, then, do you say of the woman who was of Samaria and selflessly referred to herself as a puppy begging for table scraps to impress Jesus with her sincerity of faith that he could make her child well?
What then do you say of David's deceit with the Phillistines, pretending to be stark-raving mad while running from Saul?
What, for that matter, of the attack of Gideon? Was this not trickery to achieve a specific objective, an end in sight, a purpose or goal in mind that justified the methods used?
This is not to say that I applaud such "end justifies the means" thinking, I just find it particularly sharp to the palate when such an objection comes from a member of a group that frequently relies on dishonesty in order to gain converts then relies on dishonesty in order to retain converts. Especially when the same group publishes its perspective that lying is appropriate for certain "ends" to be achieved.
An outstanding example of their duplicitous nature is available in the form of their judicial policy. There is only one possible reason to forbid an accused wrongdoer from choosing to record their proceedings. If there is no actual record that can be referred to as a witness, the judges can later lie about what occurred if that is deemed necessary.
Why do you think courts have a court recorder whose job it is to record the proceedings? Do you think the recorder is present to embarrass the wrongdoer, or to provide a RECORD of what actually transpired for later reference? Even the Pharisees conducted court openly so that all could witness the proceedings. And Paul stated that this should be done publicly, as a warning.
But the organization you are a part of lyingly says that recording of judicial proceedings is forbidden in order to protect the accused—whether or not the accused wants to record the proceedings. In my case, I would have gone through the JC process if I could have recorded it. I know for certain who would have been embarrassed by the proceedings.
If you have as high a standard of honesty as you claim and you are as sensitized by dishonesty just as strongly as you claim, I invite you to account for the organization's gross abuses against the principles you hold so dear (Malawi/Mexico, lying about what the Bible Students were teaching prior to and after 1914 about 1914, lying about the context of the declaration that "Millions Now Living Will Never Die", lying about the intent of their current policies, lying about abstaining from blood while accepting all blood fractions—which fractions equal 100% of whole blood, etc.).
How can you turn a blind eye to their blatant, published rejection of decency on this point when they claim to be mature teachers directed by holy spirit, but be willing to pillory a 17-year-old man—who doesn't claim to be anything more than a 17-year-old man—for stealing a book that belies their claims of spirit direction and demonstrates that they are nothing more than a human organization following the edicts of human decision makers?
I am very curious to read your response.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul