The Washington Post response to my letter
by Terry 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Terry
My letter to Lillian Cunningham was as follows:
What is my interest in all of this?
I served time in Federal prison from 1967-69 as a 'neutral' Jehovah's Witness as a result of a conviction for violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act.
I was privately counseled by my congregation leaders not to accept alternative civilian service. I was further counseled not to reveal I had been influenced in any way by other than my own conscience. This same deliberately invisible influence was carried out as a coordinated policy nationwide.During the Vietnam war, 5,000 draft-age men turned in their draft cards rather than be conscripted. These were protests. 200,000 men were accused by the Federal Government of being Draft Offenders. 25,000 were indicted. Out of the 25,000, only 8,750 were convicted. Out of the 8,750 who were convicted, only 4,000 were imprisoned. Most of these, with some exceptions, were young men--Jehovah's Witnesses, like myself, who surrendered our loyalty to an organization and its leaders claiming to speak on behalf of the only true God.
Five years before my appearance before a draft board, the Watchtower Society had quietly and unceremoniously changed the official interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2 rather quietly, flip-flopping back to the traditional plain reading Christendom had held for two thousand years!
In fact, the JW texts I was operating from had not been updated to include this change. I found out the hard way!
The Watchtower headquarters would not provide me with a membership card nor a letter attesting to my ministerial status. I later found out this was only provided in special cases where a "special Pioneer" was involved who spent 100 to 150 hours monthly knocking doors.I had the legal right to serve alternate service working in a hospital--had it not been for the private counsel of my JW elders in strict accord with their covert (by this time) policies on Christian neutrality.
This policy too, like the previous Romans 13: 1, 2 policy, was reversed many years later. Apparently, the malleable nature of Watchtower ‘truth’ repudiates its value as the divine mind channeled by an Almighty.
First Amendment champions? I think not!
I would argue the actions of Jehovah's Witnesses against their own interests, and the interests of their local community, as well as nationally, were coerced by fear of ex-communication in extremis, or at least insidiously coaxed into their beliefs through loyalty and disinformation.This religion is fraudulent in premise and has a historical track record of trampling on human rights.
...
I included snippets and links to the Australian Royal Commission and the Walsh Trial transcript. -
waton
Five years before my appearance before a draft board, the Watchtower Society had quietly and unceremoniously changed the official interpretation of Romans 13: 1,2 rather quietly, flip-flopping back to the traditional plain reading Christendom had held for two thousand years!
yeah, that was done hidden in the question from readers.
suddenly, again, the superior authorities to be obeyed were The deity and his son after all.
BABYLON THE GREAT was right, wt proven to be the false prophet, spokesman.
-
Longlivetherenegades
Nice one @ Terry
From the pages of Crisis of conscience page 122 - 123 issues having to do with supreme court cases worn by the organisation was discussed....
Their decisions were applauded in the Society’s publications.
Sadly, however, the high standards of judgment and the approach to emotionally charged issues shown by these judges often appeared to be on a higher level than that manifested in many Governing Body sessions.
The expression of one Supreme Court justice in a particular Witness case comes to mind. He stated: The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intelligently and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. . . . freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
The confidence that the justice expressed in the ‘existing social order’ and the freedoms it espoused seemed considerably greater than the confidence expressed by some Governing Body members in their fellow Witnesses and the effect their freedom of conscience, if exercised, could have on the existing “Theocratic order.”
If the Supreme Court justices had reasoned as some of the Governing Body members reasoned, the Witnesses would likely have lost case after case.
My take............
The real winners are the judges who worked hard towards the interpretation of the laws as it were then and ensure that freedom of speech and conscience is not deprived.
-
Terry
Media in general approaches stories concerning Religion by simply accepting a PR statement or by
chasing a titillating story of abuse.
Religious sentiment and push-back are "hot potato."
The GB has cynically steered rank and file members into becoming Martyrs for PR purposes (proving the point by the end result: persecution.)
JW Brothers refused ALTERNATE SERVICE freely offered by the LAW only because the GB declared they must.
Would you suggest Jesus remain behind bars for two years or would you want him out in the community at a hospital?
That's really the insidious bottom line.