Questions on Stephen Bates Article WT attack

by messenger 12 Replies latest jw friends

messenger

Thought you'd be interested to know that I have just been forwarded a note from the Watch Tower, belatedly in response to the tiny little story I got in on 17 November about that Chicago JW couple accused of beating their daughter to death. It is interesting that they shld respond - on headed notepaper, apparently from Pennsylvania - nearly a month later about something that really got very little space and I can't help feeling it's not unconnected with the other stuff I was writing at that time. This is it, in full:
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
25 Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn,
New York
Phone: 718 560-5000
December 14 2001
Emily Bell
Editor in Chief, Guardian Unlimited (ie: our electronic website)
3-7 Ray Street,
London EC1R 3DR
Dear Ms Best (sic!),
In the United States, the Guardian has regularly been regarded as a source of reliable news. I have been among those who considered the information in the Guardian to be fair and unbiased. Our international journals, Awake! and The Watchtower quote from it extensively. Sadly, my opinion has been changed as a result of the coverage given to a subject that I am quite familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses.
The last piece written about Jehovah's Witnesses, by Stephen Bates, repeated a story on a tragic incident in Chicago, Illinois, in which the parents of an 11 year-old girl were charged with causing her death (November 17 2001, "Devout couple accused of flogging daughter to death") We checked with our office in London and found out that no one contacted them for the facts of the story before the piece was run. We have no record of anyone contacting our office here in Brooklyn, New York, either. We feel that Mr Bates gave insufficient attention to facts and put more emphasis on sensationalism. Had Mr Bates inquired, he would have been supplied with a relevant statement given by the uncle of the victim who wished to set matters straight after seeing inaccurate reports in the media, some of which were repeated in the Guardian's November 17 article. We are enclosing a copy of that statement for your information.
I am writing you to call this matter to your attention in the hope that the normal, high standards of the Guardian will extend to the coverage of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Sincerely,
J. R. Brown
Director
Office of Public Information for Jehovah's Witnesses
The attachment is a four paragraph statement by Leon Slack, dated November 16 in which he contests the "false impression" that the horrible events on November 10 were the result of his brother Larry Slack following the beliefs of JWs: "In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a father myself; and I am also one of Jehovah's Witnesses,as are other members of our family. None of us
could ever even imagine doing such a thing to any of our children no matter what we thought they did wrong.
"Larry and Constance Slack were not devout Jehovah's Witnesses as some reports said. Larry has not been a practicing (sic) Witness for Jehovah for many years. He was baptised as...a teenager many years ago. For the last 10 years they have not shared in our worship services, although there were a few relatively short time periods that they would sporadically show up at meetings with the
congregation.
"It was the hope of the family and the local congregational members that he and his family would actually practice the faith...as this could help them just as it helps many people in a spiritual way. But...he fervently insisted on not being pressured in that regard and we respected his decision. We have no idea what was going on in his head that made him capable of doing this to Laree.
"On the other hand, something I appreciate about being one of Jehovah's Witnesses is that we abhor all violent actions and behaviour. Life is sacred to us. To physically harm, abuse or kill others is diametrically opposed to the Bible principles we believe in and strive to practice. Among the qualities we study about in the Bible and are strongly encouraged to inculcate in our everyday family lives are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness,
faith, mildness and self-control. We love our families and cherish our children, viewing them as an inheritance from God."
___________________________________________________________________
Where do you think the truth lay? Was laree's family really inactive? If you go back and review the articles, why did the uncle not say this to begin with? Could it be the work of WT spin doctors? Did the articles refer to them attending meetings and going out in service? Did the articles mention the children not being allowed to play with neighbor children?
metatron

If you really believe what the Watchtower teaches,
why not risk beating your children to death?
Remember, if they aren't faithful, they will be destroyed
forever at Armageddon. If they have a measure of adult responsibility,
they could get killed in a traffic accident tomorrow and never
be resurrected. Furthermore, the organization has allowed
physical punishment of children - even quoting the Bible to
recommend it. If nothing else works, why not beat them?
If you find this reasoning repellent, good.
The spin doctors can prate on about love all they wish.
They'll probably convince many Witnesses that nothing is wrong
with this sick, twisted organization (always their goal).
Extreme beliefs create extreme actions.
I's just that simple.
metatron
messenger

recall the 12-01 Watchtower last year?
. http://wt1201.homestead.com/index.html
Lionel_P_Hartley

Here is Steve Bates's reply which he just faxed to WTS PA.
Mr J. R. Brown,
Director, Office of Public Information,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania,
25, Columbia Heights,
Brooklyn,,
New York 11201 - 2483
USA
Dear Mr Brown,
Your letter of 14th December, addressed variously to my colleague Emily Bell, who edits the Guardian Unlimited website, and to someone called Ms Best, who I
do not recognise, has been passed to me as I wrote the four paragraph story about the Slacks of Chicago last 17th November to which you took exception. I am not quite sure why it took you a month to respond but I thought I should at least reply to you.
First of all, may I say that I am very flattered that you state that the Watchtower magazine and Awake! both quote so extensively from the fair and unbiased coverage provided by the Guardian. Since I do not normally see either publication, I would be most interested if you would care to send me cuttings of these articles, complete with the attributions since, as you know, it would be a breach of copyright to use our material without permission in your magazines. Your encomium is nevertheless welcome.
Since my recent writings about the Jehovah's Witnesses have concerned its affiliation (and subsequent disaffiliation) from the United Nations, an organisation it refers to in its loving, joyful, peaceful, long-suffering and kindly way - to quote Mr Leon Slack - as the scarlet coloured beast of the Book of Revelation and since you clearly took no objection to the accuracy of these articles (otherwise we should presumably have received a letter from you) I
sincerely trust that in the interests of accuracy and openness these too willhave appeared in your publications and I hope that this was so. I look forward to seeing them.
My article did not imply that the couple acted as they did because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. It merely stated that they were devoutly religious and, separately, that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. Both these facts are true and not disputed by you or Mr Leon Slack. Since I assume your sect does not condone such appalling behaviour, I cannot see what your problem with the story is. It
does not allege that this is normal behaviour by Jehovah's Witnesses or to be expected by them, so I am at a loss to explain your sensitivity or to see how you can justify the slur on my integrity by suggesting that the story in some unspecified way "gave insufficient attention to facts" in its brief four paragraphs.
I have a confession to make, that in compiling my report on the case of the Slacks, taken from reports in the highly-regarded Chicago press, I did not trouble to contact either your London or your Brooklyn offices. The reason for this was that my experience of dealing with Mr Gillies over the United Nations issue has been that he believes fully in the Jehovah's Witnesses' stated "theocratic war strategy" by which it is permissible to mislead with half-truths and evasions "birdseed" such as we non-members of your sect. Since this is the experience of my colleagues in Britain also over the years, may I suggest to you, as director of the office of public information, that you may have a certain credibility problem in your dealings with the media at least in this country.
In any event, I am not sure in a four paragraph article how much space could have been given to Mr Leon Slack's observations since, despite being a loving, joyful, peaceful, kindly, mild and self-controlled etc person he had evidently failed to spot previous episodes of mistreatment by his brother of his children,
or to act upon them as he clearly should have done had he been aware of them.
This suggests that his closeness to his brother's family and hence his knowledge of his brother's beliefs was not as thorough as it might have been. Perhaps you would care to respond to this.
Yours sincerely,
********************
RunningMan

The Watchtower has a fool proof method for ensuring that the perceived purity of their organization stays in tact.
If any person ever does anything criminal or stupid, then they simply say that this person was not a "real" Witness. Maybe they were inactive, disfellowshipped, disassociated, or something else. Even if the person is an elder, they can always say that he was leading a double life and wasn't "really" a Witness.
So, then it becomes simply a word game. If a JW is defined as any non-criminal who submits a service report, then, by definition, there are no JW criminals. And, isn't it a credit to Jehovah's organization that it is so pure?
In reality, there is a huge number of persons who are on the fringe of this organization, who have been emotionally damaged. The Watchtower must take responsibility, not just for its inner core of supporters, but for the wreckage within its entire sphere of influence.
Pureheart

Once a person becomes a babtized witness they remain in a babtized condition and accountable to the WTS. That accountability changes if they are disfellowshipped, or formally disassociated. 1. They can disassociate themselves formally by writting a letter to the elders and expressing wishes to no longer be recognized as one of Jehovahs Witneses. 2. They can be formally disassociated by the elders.
If these 2 things have not taken place, then a babtized Jehovahs Witness remains in a babtized condition and are still accountable to the laws and regulations of the WTS. And the fact that they attended meetings, even if it was not on a regular bases, showed that they also recognized their standing in the congregation as Jehovahs Witnesses.
Word games does not work for this situation.
Pureheart
messenger

Remember the qoute from the elders school?
"Inactive Publishers are to be viewed as still totally under Gods laws."
They claim you if they want to disipline you but if you kill your daughter they do not want to claim you. A bit inconsistant wouldn't you say?
metatron

Bates comments about Theocratic war Strategy are VERY IMPORTANT.
As I've said many times, this doctrine needs to be heralded
'from the roof tops'! It is important to keep bringing it up
in letters, public relations statements, and courtrooms.
Few Witnesses are awake of a deliberate policy of deception and
lies encouraged by the Watchtower Society. The exposure of this
practice could cause huge headaches for them. By all means,
keep bringing it up - until they are forced to disavow it
publically.
metatron
JonnieMae

messenger, how can I find the Guardian? I've looked everywhere. I think. Thanks.
To each his/her own,
jonnie
Lionel_P_Hartley

JonnieMae: try here http://www.guardian.co.uk/
There's a place you can serach for stephen bates' article by his name. alos there is a link to the article itself in the scandals thread - but you have to copy and paste it in.
LPH

Questions on Stephen Bates Article WT attack

Share this