Okay, thanks for all the replies, ‘preciate it.
james_woods – “They are more like a leftist-socialist group as far as war, guns, and politics are concerned. The only right-wing thing about them is that they are also a large corporation.”
I dunno, kinda hard to visualize them as “leftist-socialist”; the old Eurasian Marxist groups of the early 20th Century would have been appalled at what the Soviet Union became, for example. Canada has some minor but distinctly “socialist” leanings, so I have some idea of what I’m talking about.
I’ve read Bob Altemeyer’s research into authoritarian personality types. In the Western World, it’s an overwhelmingly right-wing phenomenon, and the WTS – although it would never come right out and admit it - is fundamentally authoritatian. I remember once reading about a poll regarding social issues in the US a while back, and it happened to mention that the few JWs who were asked agreed almost overwhelmingly with most basic Right-Wing stances on what the US government should do regarding gay marriage, homosexuality in general, abortion, teaching creationism in school science class, etc.
It’s mainly why I asked the other question about the WTS “playing ball” with the Christian Right if/when they acquire real political power.
james_woods - “I simply cannot imagine any GB member saying that they need to "start all over at Gen 1.1" in matters of doctrine. IF someone really said that, I would suspect that he would soon become the next Ray Franz.”
Soldier77 - ”… it was a comment made by a GB1.0 member, Dan Sydlik IIRC.”
GB1.0? So he’s passed away? If this came out after he died, it would explain why he WASN’T the next Ray Franz.
Heaven – “The Canadian move may also be about political freedoms being curtailed in the U.S.”
Such as? (not being snarky, just curious)
OnTheWayOut - “The problem lies in defining a fader. If it's total lack of meeting attendance, then I could go to the memorial and sit in silence and leave right at the end. If it's an inactive status, then I could turn in a bogus report of 1 hour every 6 months. Another problem lies in defining a fader's "sin" so as to be judicial on him. They would have to elevate the importance of spiritual association or the preaching work to define not doing it as a sin. Right now, they have so many believers that are inactive, they might be afraid to rock that boat.”
Hmm; hadn’t thought of that. Now that you mention it, I also remember reading an article in Canada’s “McLean’s” magazine (the one about the Vancouver JW sextuplets); at one point, it mentioned that there was the possibility of a very large number of current JWs who would leave if they felt they could without experiencing “sanctions”. I was surprised at the time, because it had never occurred to me that there might be more XJWs (and nonbelieving - what I now know is called the “conscious class”) than active, believing JWs.
What if one were “brazenly” fading? ;D
OnTheWayOut - “I go along with the violence part, but not the "potentially dangerous" part. In their own love of persecution, they have been shown to get people upset at them for their blitzing a town with recruiting efforts. The internet is revealing just how dangerous and how much of a hate-group they are. This could backfire on them one day. I mean, all non-Christians and Christians alike are hated by them, fornicators and adulterers and homosexuals are hated by them. Heck, colleges are hated by them.”
I dunno, the Southern Poverty Law Center has laid out some pretty clear criteria as to what constitutes a “Hate Group”. The WTS might skirt the edges on some of them, but all? (BTW, my devout JW parents put me through college; Mom has a Master’s degree, in fact)
That being said, blowback almost always comes to those who react to the short-term, but fail to take into account the long-term effects of their actions. Just my opinion.
OnTheWayOut - “I am pretty sure that Hare Krishnas and Moonies were/are not known for violence, but they would be branded as potentially dangerous to many.”
Moonies, sure, but Hare Krishnas? Yeah, they’re weird, but what qualifies them as dangerous?
OnTheWayOut - “I doubt they are prepared to abandon their "peaceful" stand on violence. It's a trademark they exploit in being "neutral" to war and avoiding bloodshed.”
Like I said, I think it’s a big part of how they were able to continue as a fringe group for so long, but maybe not. See below.
OnTheWayOut - “I think "playing ball in order to survive" in Europe led to the UN membership and their doubletalk on blood. They played by different rules in Mexico to survive and thrive. They used to segregate in the US to appease the states.”
Heaven - “And yes, the GB 2.0 will 'play ball' in order to survive. If they can use the Bible to back up whatever they need to implement, all the better.”
Damn, I was afraid of that.
I remember learning about Right-Wing Christian Nationalist/Dominionist movements even before I started fading, and thinking at the time that NO WAY would the GB ever get involved with these people, but then the WTS quoted the Discovery Institute (who, despite what some may think, IS a Christian Nationalist outfit; it’s partly funded by Howard Ahmanson, Jr. – Google him) in an Awake article attempting to debunk evolution, and I thought “WTF?”, so lately, I’ve been reconsidering it (although I hoped I was wrong).
Heaven - “Makes me shudder to think of this.”
You and me both, man.
Jwfacts – “That is an interesting point. I did feel that way when I was in Australia's Bethel, which is in a farm setting on the outskirts of Sydney. Whilst mainstream JWs are too integrated into general society to be labelled a dangerous cult, being at Bethel had a very commune cult feel.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Jwfacts – “Whilst JW's do not promote violence, they are ideally primed for any change directed by the leaders. It would not take much for a new leadership, or a breakaway group, to convince members to become a security threat. Look over the previous century at Africa, Germany, Yugoslavia to see how easily normally peaceful people can be incited to violence… It is only a small shift in mindset to say that the murder of humans preceding Armageddon should be done by both the heavenly and earthly parts of Jehovah's Organisation. If the Watchtower was to declare that a literal violent attack by JW's was required as the start to Armageddon there are people that would follow orders. It would not be possible to convince all Witnesses to follow through on such an order, but there would be the few.”
Yeah, I hated myself for suspecting it, but I couldn’t deny what was in front of my nose; one of the things that helped me in my decision to fade was the disturbing realization that the vast majority of R&F JWs were authoritarian “follower-types”. I didn’t want to believe it at first, but when I found that I could actually predict their behavior based on Altemeyer’s research, well…it sure rocked my world.
Jwfacts – “It is unlikely for the above scenario to occur, as it would spell the end of the religion, but it is a possibility.”
Maybe in a last-ditch circling-the-drain act of desperation. Remember, some animals will even eat their own young to avoid starvation.
Mouthy – “Many years ago I remember a couple sued the WT. It cost them thousands, & they lost. Because the lawyer ( JW) kept post postponing ,postponing ,postponing the case & in the end the couple couldn't afford to continue .”
Funny, I’d have thought that a representative of “God’s Earthly Organization” wouldn’t feel the need to obfuscate like that; he’d just automatically assume he’d win by virtue of possessing the moral high ground.
Shows what I know, huh?.;)