Our daughter was free to make her own choice.

by StephaneLaliberte 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Scully

  A choice made by someone who has a gun pointed in their face isn't a free choice, nor is it necessarily the choice that is in the best interests of the individual.

  With the WT, the Choice™ being made is, first of all, based on an incorrect premise. Obedience to God's Law on Blood™ is based on someone's interpretation of a biblical text allegedly uttered over 2000 years ago, which interpretation is also based on that someone's claim (a statement without proof to back up its authenticity) that they are guided by Holy Spirit™ to have an accurate understanding of God's™ intentions.

  The other issue regarding this Choice™, is that there is a consequence for the individual should their "free choice" be the wrong one in the eyes of the WT. There was a time when WT published the Suggestion™ that Disfellowshipped™ people should be regarded as "dead to us". This threat is Inculcated™ into JWs from infancy if they are "born in" as Eloise was, and being part of an insular group like the JWs, the flow of contradictory information is severely hindered. The WT and likewise her JW family were the gatekeepers, preventing alternate points of view from entering her thought process and training her to reject those alternate points of view.

  We've all heard (or maybe even said ourselves) "I'd rather die than [insert unpleasant or repugnant something]." For JWs, that phrase becomes "I'd rather die than be DFd and treated like I'm dead / be killed by Jehovah at Armageddon™ / lose all my friends and family / feel ashamed for being Unfaithful™; at least if I die, I will be Resurrected™." That's the gun, with a carrot attached. She had the choice to pull the trigger herself, or everyone around her would have pulled it for her. What kind of a choice is that? The carrot of the belief in a future Resurrection™ is more powerful to JWs than the carrot of being able to live to see your newborn child grow up. That's actually pretty fucked up.
• 

  AudeSapere

  marking for later.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  It would be difficult to prove someone is harassing you because they avoid you. I think we all avoid people we know or believe will cause us injury. The good shepherds at WT headquarters want believers to avoid injury from apostates and and at the same time help them repent by showing them how Jehovah views apostates.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Vanderhoven7: It would be difficult to prove someone is harassing you because they avoid you.

  It would not be hard to prove that elders are harassing you if they disfellowship you for talking to someone.

  I believe they have the right to counsel you on that matter. However, they should not have the right to enforce it.
• 

  Cadellin

  I think the key difference lies in the effect of two (related) areas: (1) organized behavior; (2) coercion. As another poster said, what the WT does is "organized shunning," a very different thing than someone deciding on their own to avoid someone. Context is key. The WT presents itself as God's organization and, as we all know, uses the name "Jehovah" to indicate where direction is coming from, as in--"We want to do what Jehovah requires," etc. when in actuality, we could substitute WTBTS for "Jehovah" in that previous sentence. This imbues them with the veneer of divine authority and for believers, that is everything. So when publications indicate that parents should not even respond to a text message from a DF'd child, Witnesses understand that as a divine mandate and, what's more, see obedience as part of the "us vs. them" scenario. Consider how different it would be if the Society truly presented it as a conscious matter, offering scenarios where one person might decide to shun a DF'd child but another person continued association, both of which were presented as justifiable based on the individual's conscience. That would change the situation entirely!

  Related to this is coercion. As another poster pointed out, if you do an act because a gun is pointed at you, that is not seen as a voluntary act. Under the law, contracts signed under duress are unenforceable. Similarly, disfellowshipping is a tremendous and significant method of coercion, if your entire support system/family is at risk, and so in no way can it be said that Witnesses can freely choose to have or refuse a transfusion. As long as the threat of organized shunning is a real risk, free choice is not available. Choice may be available but it is a coerced choice made under duress (the pointed gun) and so is not free (and therefore true) choice. It is as simple as that.
• 

  2+2=5

  Throw your kids in the trash if they don’t believe the lies.

  Watchower style.
• 

  Diogenesister

  The WT presents itself as God's organization and, as we all know, uses the name "Jehovah" to indicate where direction is coming from, as in--"We want to do what Jehovah requires," etc. when in actuality, we could substitute WTBTS for "Jehovah" in that previous sentence. This imbues them with the veneer of divine authority and for believers, that is everything.

  That's the crux of the matter, really.

  If Watchtower said " we don't speak for jehovah however it is merely our stated opinion you should not take a transfusion" how many witnesses would comply?

  Even If they DF an individual who ignored their stated opinion ( broke their rules)and went ahead with a transfusion anyway BUT they didn't demand family and friends then shun that individual, in that case it could be said such an individual genuinely had some choice in the matter.
  
  
• 

  Lee Elder

  Individuals should be free to make their own choices. If that choice happens to be to shun some one - so be it. The problem is when we come to organizationally mandated shunning. That crosses the line into coercive control, and that is - in my view - is evil. That governments choose to give charity status to groups that practice this is highly questionable.
  
• 

  Scully

  With the Blood Issue, in a hospital life-and-death situation, keep in mind that the HLC arranges to maintain a constant JW presence at the bedside of the person deemed in need of blood transfusion.

  Had Elöise agreed to a transfusion that could have saved her life, the JWs at her bedside would have initiated the judicial proceedings without delay. How terrifying it must have been for her, knowing she would certainly die without transfusions, with people actively discouraging her from doing the one thing that could have prevented her death, praying for her to maintain her integrity, watching her weep for the fact that she would be leaving her child motherless and holding her newborn son for the time that remained for her.

  The fact that the WT needs “enforcers” to hold vigil at a person’s bedside to make sure they don’t take a transfusion, tells me that without these “enforcers” JWs would, more often than not, accept transfusions to save their life. That’s the reason why it is a coercive tactic.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Just a comment, not trying to join the conversation per se...

  Let's just reframe the arguement: JW parents want the religious "freedom" to choose and deny life saving medicine to their ill children. Ironically, that choice was never their's. But that is how insidious the GB is. It's their choice, clunking around in your head, while you dream of a paradise in khaki's waiting in line at the Assembly Hall for your child whom you denied blood treatment, to be resurrected. Because without that "hope" no parent EVER does this...

  Let that sink in. Because that's the trick.

  Any other argument about anything else is crap because A CHILD UNDER THE CONTROL OF A CULT AND CULT LED PARENTS WILL DIE OR PERMANENTLY HARMED.

  Whether it's ostracism or straight up bullying, It's still straight up ignorance. At the very least, the Governing Body should disband all HLC's and allow their flock to lie to them about blood. At least they'll be alive...

  Legally, the Governing Body has no choice but to triple down. The first admission that someone can take blood, and thousands of dead people who could have lived will be legally on their heads. And there isn't enough property to sell in Brooklyn Heights to pay for that.