Also, I didn't want to get embroiled in a debate with KS, but just for the record, he's wrong when he tries to minimize the contradiction between the two quotes. Regardless of the context, the 2009 quote quite clearly uses the words "no one" to imply that NO person, JW or otherwise, should have to choose between family and religious belief.
Well, you don't have to publicly acknowledge that it's NOT a contradiction, but insisting that it IS won't make it so.
- A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
If it appears contradictory to you, you don't understand the concept presented in the statement.
Perhaps the confusion stems from misunderstanding the definition of the word immediately following "no one": "SHOULD"? (since you didn't mention it, although it's actually more important than "no one")
'Should' is the operative 'weasel word' in the sentence, as it implies that while it may be desirable to attain a certain outcome, it's NOT a requirement or mandatory that the end-point is achieved (if so, then the word "MUST" would've been a better word choice).
From Wiki, the definition of "should":
- Should has, as its most common meaning in modern English, the sense ought as in I should go, but I don't see how I can. However, the older sense as the subjunctive of the future indicative auxiliary, shall, is often used with I or we to indicate a more polite form than would: I should like to go, but I can't. In much speech and writing, should has been replaced by would in contexts of this kind, but it remains in conditional subjunctives: should (never would) I go, I should wear my new dress.
- ( obligation ) : Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must , which indicates that the subject is required to execute the predicate.
- ( likely ) : Contrast with stronger auxiliary verb must , which indicates that the subject certainly will execute the predicate.
"Should" is a way of saying, "it would be great if this were to happen, but it's OK if it doesn't".
Hence the WT is tactily acknowledging that in some cases someone MAY feel forced to choose, but that's up to their response to the situation (which is of their own making, in the WT article; the son CHOSE to pursue "sin" over God).
So in fact, YES, by that one choice of words, they ARE excusing themselves AND other religions from the situation, if it should arise.
HOWEVER, THAT'S not a contradiction, since it IS disclosed in the article in one word (should). If you're not familiar with law, it's quite easy to overlook such "weasel words" and miss their widespread use exactly for such purposes: fooling people who don't understand their use.
I think Cedars has offered a powerful image that aptly illustrates the horrible harm DFing does.
Trying to pick them apart diminishes that. NO ONE should be made to choose between their family and their religion.
My point remains that you're only likely deluding yourself if you think this IS an example of a contradiction, as the only reason I'm aware of this article is I pointed the same quotation out to a relative (elder), only to have HIM explain the subtle semantics which I didn't catch on first reading: he explained it to ME, which is NOT a good position to be in when you're trying to discuss JW beliefs with them. Sure, be my guest to go in to a debate unarmed with facts and ignorant, if you LIKE, but you lose credibility when YOU go in without your facts straight and they end up "witnessing" to you.
Whether intentionally or not, Cedars is propagating ignorance by repeating an inaccurate understanding. Worse is, as always, he tries to squelch an attempt to offer truths. Sorry, but we're not all JWs still (well, he IS, but I've been away for 35 yrs).
And who knows, the contradiction angle MAY work if someone's JW family is dim-witted, and don't ask their elders for direction. HOWEVER, my point is not to get one's hopes too high on a false claim of contradiction, when it's actually NOT a mistake: it's COMPLETELY harmonious with their policies, and most JWs understand the cold-steel policy (that is, until THEY are the ones being shunned: then, it's funny how quickly they forget...).