Religious Discrimination; now LEGAL

by lastmanstanding 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • lastmanstanding

    Newsflash. There are businesses that are now discriminating in their hiring practices based on the fact that you are a JW.

    Sure, you think I'm mad. But it's true.

    The business circles have become acutely aware of the -not even 1 year old- decision in the Industrial Court where a JW ratted out a fellow JW and brought disrepute to the bank where they both worked.

    Such being established fact, a recent conversation with a JW was quite revealing.

    First, I don't want to mention the name of the institution, as you would all recognize it (BIG), and I am trying to maintain my anonymity. So no city either. But I will say that this happened in Canada...

    The brother went to this BIG institution that handles money, lot's and lot's of money, and he asked to submit an application. They gave him one and allowed him to fill it out.

    There was a section called "Other Activities" and the brother chose to leave this blank. After the officials examined his application, they inquired as to why he left this section blank. He said he didn't think it mattered.

    Before I go on, I was amused when the JW mentioned that he didn't want to fill this section in. He is a 'valiant JW', proud to be, and is commanded at every meeting that he should 'go forth and reveal your faith as a JW'. Obvious that he wanted to hide this. Hypocrite!

    Ok, the application was handed back to him. He was told that if he did not fill this section in, that his "application would not be considered".

    So, he filled it in. 'I'm a JW blah blah preaching'

    I was happily shocked to hear that the BIG institution sent him packing. Whoa! This will not be the last you hear about this topic. This is but the beginning....

    The possible conflict with regard to confidentiality was highlighted to him. And this goes back to the decision last fall (see link)

    The noose tightens around the skinny necks of the 'dynamic octo' in NY

  • lastmanstanding

    As far as what Watchtower policy is...

  • Diogenesister

    I've always wondered what would happen in the medical world should a JW...well, receptionist, let alone drs and nurse's....saw something they would normally report. A case of VD, a jw taking blood, a childless jw couple using a sperm donor...etc etc

    Guaranteed confidentiality has been broken by a nosey jw medic before. Of course they'd get the SACK if caught.

    But eventually I wondered when word would get out they cannot be trusted, and employment opportunities for them limited.

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    This is a particularly interesting sentence:

    If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness.

    Faders are considered resigned but not disassociated or disfellowshipped. Sort of an unofficial third option.

  • lastmanstanding

    I know of a recent case of a JW (PIMO) who went to hospital and there was a JW nurse that was going to be scheduled to care for the JW patient. Just by chance the JW patient found out this tidbit BTW.

    The JW (in critical care) got up, and went to the head nurse to highlight in detail what would happen if this JW nurse was put in charge of this JW patient's care. At first, the head nurse found it impossible. But the JW patient presented evidence to establish it on the spot.

    All eyes opened.

    The hospital scrambled to rectify the situation and avoid a very messy outcome.

    Smart head nurse. The hospital could would have been sued.

  • LongHairGal


    I hope that you are right about this.

    Witnesses can wreak havoc with violating confidentiality on a job and potential employers should be able to protect themselves IMO!

  • Della Street
    Della Street

    This is not about religious discrimination - it is about ethics. If people can't follow the ethics of their profession, they are unqualified and should not be employed.

  • lastmanstanding

    Della. You are correct, however, the JWs will tie up the courts trying to make it religious discrimination.

    Employers cannot be found guilty of both.

    If an employer is held responsible because a religious fruitcake in your employ betrayed their oath for confidentiality, then you cannot be held liable because you chose to not hire the same fruitcake, knowing their religion commands them to betray you and your clients.

  • AverageJoe1

    Here’s what happened when I tried to access the link (a new one for me):

  • AndersonsInfo

    I discussed this very subject in my latest – lengthy - article, Flawed Decree Conceals Criminals which can be found on my website.

    Below is not the beginning of Flawed Decree Conceals Criminals. I pasted the part where I discussed the obligation of JWs to expose a fellow member’s sin even it was illegal in certain circumstances to do so as per a 1987 Watchtower article. My discussion centers on the distorted use by JW leaders of Leviticus 5:1 to influence JWs to violate the law; when it first began to be used (1967) and who was responsible for the misinterpretation.

    That 1987 Watchtower article actually generated a commentary in the August 29, 1987, Los Angeles Times, the title which read, “Conscience outweighs confidence – Witnesses urge faithful to break ethics codes,” by John Dart.

    READ ON:

    Deliberately using Leviticus 5:1 to violate law
    It is certainly difficult to imagine that JWs Governing Body would in the name of God attempt to persuade readers of their religious journal, The Watchtower, to do something legally prohibited. Yet, by quoting Acts 5:29, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” in a Watchtower article relative to disclosing confidential information, that’s exactly what was attempted.

    That article found in the September 1, 1987 Watchtower, “A Time to Speak” – When? is noteworthy in this regard because it obligated JWs to expose a fellow member’s sin to their congregation elders even if it was illegal in certain circumstances to do so. Moreover, to buttress their argument, the key scripture used in that article to induce members to violate professional confidentiality requirements by tattling on an erring one was based on Leviticus 5:1.

    The hypothetical case of “Mary,” a medical assistant, was highlighted and what her reaction was upon learning through her work that a fellow JW had an abortion, an action viewed by the Witnesses as serious wrongdoing. Should she reveal this concealed transgression to her church elders as her religion instructed all JWs to do? A four-page discussion ensued to try to convince JWs of their personal responsibility to “breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law” in connection with employment, no matter if their job was in jeopardy, or they could be sued or their actions led to their employer having legal problems.

    The policy of instructing JWs to report a fellow Witness who commits serious wrongdoing to church elders wasn’t anything new, but the issue of ignoring Caesar’s law to obey JWs law was.

    This amplification of an old rule, disguised as an act of love, generated a commentary in the August 29, 1987, Los Angeles Times, the title which read, “Conscience outweighs confidence – Witnesses urge faithful to break ethics codes,” by John Dart.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses are being told for the first time that they should violate confidentiality requirements in medical, legal, and other professions when one of their own members is discovered to have committed a serious sin. …. Jehovah’s Witnesses are advised to confront the sinner first, but if he or she is unrepentant, the sinner’s elders should be told…

    New directive harms both the informant and the wrongdoer
    Reportedly, Sharon, a nurse in a large California hospital, obeyed the article’s directives when she learned one of her spiritual sisters was scheduled to have an abortion. Concerned, Sharon tried to persuade the woman to change her mind. She also notified the elders who tried to talk her out of terminating the pregnancy. To no avail – the procedure took place. Subsequently, the patient reported Sharon to the hospital for revealing confidential medical information; this led to Sharon losing her job with the hospital blackballing her out of the medical profession.

    Sharon’s life was irrevocably changed because she broke confidentiality laws. Consequently, she became a law-breaker. In addition, the JW woman whose abortion was divulged and privacy violated, was disciplined by her church, and all because of the instructions in that 1987 Watchtower article, ‘“A Time to Speak” – When?’

    Obedience protects a criminal
    In another situation, obedience to Leviticus 5:1 directly protected a criminal when a JW obeyed his religion’s directive to go to the elders to report wrongdoing instead of the authorities.

    A concerned JW knew he could prove that an elder working as a financial planner was dishonest. After reading the Watchtower article, “A Time to Speak” – When?” he informed the elders in his congregation of the financial planner’s crimes. To make a long story short, the local elders protected the dishonest elder because they were investors, even though there was evidence of his corruption. Eventually, the whistle-blower was disfellowshipped and shunned by his family and friends for being a “reviler” in that he would not give up his quest for justice by continuing to berate and disparage the elders for their cover-up of criminal activity. After moving to another area, the dishonest elder continued to commit fraud on other unsuspecting JW widows. Obedience to Leviticus 5:1 eventually concealed a criminal. How different the outcome would have been if the authorities had been involved instead of the elders.

    Repetition for emphasis
    Ten years later, this directive was repeated in the August 15, 1997 Watchtower, “Why Report What is Bad?” In part the article comments:

    “The Mosaic Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew.” [True, but to the authorities, not to the priests.]

    Leviticus 5:1 was then quoted and the article continued:

    “Though not under the Mosaic Law, Christians today can be guided by the principles behind it. So if you learn about the serious wrongdoing of a fellow Christian, what should you do?”

    Paraphrasing the article, the answer of “what should you do?” is as follows: the JW should talk to the wrongdoer to encourage him or her to approach the elders for help. If the accused did not report to the elders the JW should. In the event there were not two witnesses to serious wrongdoing, and wrongdoing was denied, the matter was to be left in Jehovah’s hands.

    By being obedient to an obscure Bible text did illegally divulging confidential information or reveal serious criminal wrongdoing to elders bring good results? Whether wrongdoers were helped to change their ways is unknown. However, what has come to light over the years is how the lives of many sincere informants were negatively impacted and criminals protected. What follows is an examination of whether the leaders of JWs interpretation of Leviticus 5:1 was a good fit to accomplish their aim of members reporting crime to elders instead of the police?

    Leviticus 5:1 explained


    READ Flawed Decree Conceals Criminals from beginning to end at

Share this