I've heard this argument sooooo many times. I've even used it myself in my "trying not to be overly critical or bitter" days. But is it really true?
In the CESNUR link posted today by? http://www.cesnur.org/2005/pa_brown.htm this argument comes up once again:
This Jehovah’s Witnesses has been hailed as champions of religious freedom and human rights
and:
USA Today hails Jehovah’s Witnesses for the “rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy.”[iv] In the United States Jehovah’s Witnesses have contributed more to religious freedom in than any other faith community.
So what about it? Most of his argument seems to lead to the "conclusion" that because the JW movement has won 1st amendment rights, it demonstrates that they are not a cult, but rather only sectarian. Fine. So be it. It's a ridiculous leap of logic, but okay. So they've won the right in the Supreme Court to avoid accountability to local governments. Works for them.
My question though: JW's have won 1st amendment rights in court. But does that really mean they are advocates of its principles once out of the public eye?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Witnesses are discouraged from forming independent study groups, even using their own literature, for the purpose of deeper study than is provided at the meetings. Personal study is allowed, even "encouraged," but if you decide to form your own weekly group with four or five of your more "searching," intelligent or philosophical friends, you will be censured.
2. "or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Witnesses who find questions that are not answered in the Society's literature are strongly urged not to speak of these questions openly. Instead they are told to keep their mouths shut and "wait on Jehovah." Those who persist in trying to get their questions answered may be threatened with sanctions and punitive action for "running ahead of the Organization."
3. "or of the press;"
One word: internet. Also, look at the guidelines to letter writing for field service and letter writing campaigns. It is not adviseable to go about assembling your own written discourses of doctrine and practice. Anyone doing so would also be viewed as "running ahead of the organization" and clearly counseled, and likely punitive action would be taken. Remember when the WT library on CD first came out and a bunch of Elders got their panties in a bunch because some were compiling lists of scriptures for use with the Watchtower study articles?
4. "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Yes, there have been some gains there... in the legal system. But remember the flap just a few years back about "large gatherings?" Remember how the big picnics and "get-togethers" became fewer and far between, after "advice" against gatherings of this sort was printed in the KM, and announced in Local Needs talks? (Although they do seem to be reversing this attitude.) What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Large conventions with 10,000 are okay, but you can't have a picnic with 50 attendees just for fun without someone trying to crack down on you?
5. "and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Hmmm, you can be disfellowshipped for challenging the decisions of a Judicial Committee. You can be disfellowshipped for exposing a child molester and its congregational mis-handling. You can be disfellowshipped for not backing down from a doctrinal question. The decision is uni-lateral. The "appeals" process is a joke. The "discipline" itself causes greater grievances for which there is no possibility of redress unless you give up all of your constitutionally granted rights.
Bottom line, the JW Organization uses the courts, and some of their battles have resulted in a legal increase of 1st amendment rights. However, within the Organization itself, there are such gross violations of these rights that it's clear to me the Watchtower Society does not deserve plaudits for their wins. They are simply manipulating the system, much as an unscrupulous un-named oil company worked the loopholes to make certain individuals very rich. There is no trickledown. They have no moral or ethical adherence to the fundamental principles of the 1st amendment freedoms.
Even though the rights have been won, the end result for the average JW is one of oppression and complete loss of freedom. It's an accolade they do not deserve.
Odrade