

TrueTom Versus the Apostates

By

Tom Harley

" _The game is the same – it's just on another level"_ – Bob Dylan

Other books by Tom Harley:

Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia

Tom Irregardless and Me

No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash

### TrueTom Vs the Apostates

By

Tom Harley

Copyright© 2019

Dedication: To Jerold, who repeatedly said: "You ought to write a book"

And to Jae, who said: "I think there's a book in that blog." In fact, there has been thus far four.

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage others to download their own copy from their favorite retailer. Thank you for your support.

Table of Contents

Introduction – Confrontation Atop Gotham Tower

Chapter 1 – Who Are the Apostates?

Chapter 2 – Four Incendiary Articles

Chapter 3 – Banned at the Apostate Website

Chapter 4 – The Serena Williams Child Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 1

Chapter 5 – Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 2

Chapter 6 – Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 3

Chapter 7 – Did the Watchtower Give Women Bad Advice?

Chapter 8 – About Women, Part 1

Chapter 9 – About Women, Part 2

Chapter 10 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 1

Chapter 11 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 2

Chapter 12 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 3

Chapter 13 – Hey Guys, Sorry About That Mother of all Lies

Chapter 14 – Are We Looking at Encouragement to Commit Insurance Fraud? Part 1

Chapter 15 – Are We Looking At Encouragement to Commit Insurance Fraud? Part 2

Chapter 16 – In Defense of Shunning

Chapter 17 – The Movie 'Apostasy'

Chapter 18 – New Scientist and Blood Transfusion

Chapter 19 – Dennis

Chapter 20 – The Author Goes Under the Knife

Chapter 21 – Who is Intolerant Like the Anti-Cultists?

Chapter 22- Moses Strikes Solid Rock

Chapter 23 – The Anti-Cultists are Directly Responsible

Chapter 24 – One Last Chance for Religious Freedom in Russia

Chapter 25 – Let us Appreciate Brother Lett

Chapter 26 - The Value of Organization

Chapter 27 – Is it Time for Jehovah's Witnesses to Apologize? Part 1

Chapter 28 – Time to Apologize? Part 2

Chapter 29 – Time to Apologize? Part 3

Chapter 30 – Time to Apologize? Part 4

Archival

Chapter 31 – What Witnesses are Allowed to Read

Chapter 32 – Who Are Those "Mentally Diseased?"

Chapter 33 – What the #@%! is Next?

Chapter 34 - Nautical Bookends of Our Time

Chapter 35 – You Got a Timetable on That?

Chapter 36 – The Cake-Fruit Experiment that Blew Reason Sky-High

Chapter 37 – A Developing World at the Mercy of Rationalism

Chapter 38 – An Inside Job: The Movie

Chapter 39 – Carl Jung Gives an Answer to Job

Chapter 40 – An Organization to Withstand Hitler

Chapter 41 – Two Charles Darwin Things That Might Have Been

Chapter 42 – Dr. Who Doesn't Like Living Forever

Chapter 43 – Plato and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Chapter 44 – Enemies

Chapter 45 – Why Do Bad Things Happen, Updated, for Atheists

Chapter 46 - LANDRU

Chapter 47 – Letter to the Fuhrer

Updates of Post-Publication Events

Chapter 48 – Russia: Prison and Putin Ponders

Chapter 49 – Russia: Mistreatment and Tactics Revealed

Chapter 50 – The Reproach of Child Abuse Falls on the Abuser

Chapter 51 – Storm off the Atlantic

Other Works by the Author

Contact the Author

# Introduction – Confrontation Atop Gotham Tower

On top of Gotham, way way up there on that crazy high tower, Batman confronts his nemesis. "Now I'm going to kill you!" he snarls. "You're going to kill me? You made me!" the Joker screams. But Batman is not to be outdone. That young punk who became the Joker murdered his parents long ago—gunned them down in cold blood before the impressionable lad's eyes, plunging him forevermore into a twisted life of crusading revenge. "I made you? You made me!" he growls. Jack Nicholson does an aside: "I say he made me. He says I made him. How childish!" he mimics, before taking a punch that flattens his face.

I'm with Batman. My own nemesis, the sinister Admin, turned my life and me into a freak show. I was a happy Bible Student, crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i,' the way that they do. I stumbled upon three apostates beating up on my friend Job. I lurked in the background like Elihu, where I got madder and madder. Finally, I destroyed them all through sheer verbiage. God beamed approval from the heavens when Elihu did it. He had something darker in mind for me. Or at least he kept his cards to himself.

I mulled what my sorry life had become as I spit those same words to Admin: "You made me!" I hurled him over the parapet to his certain death, just like the Joker had hurled Kim Bassinger. I expected to hear a terrified and fading "Ahhhhhhhhhh!" followed by a faint but satisfying "Splat!" Instead, there was only silence. Kim had saved herself by grabbing onto a ledge. Admin had saved himself by grabbing onto the fact that it was all digital. I've never met him in person. It didn't happen.

When Admin saw how I had beaten up those apostates he assigned me to headline a thread entitled 'TrueTom Versus the Apostates.' I protested. I didn't want the job. I don't go out of my way to pick fights with these characters. My protest fell upon deaf ears. So I warmed to the idea and went after them with such ferocity that the same Admin who put me on the thread pulled me off it, threw both me and the thread into the abyss, and slapped me with an 'A' for abuse. I think the final straw came when I posted that my foes, although united in apostasy, probably would not be able to stand one another in person, drawing upon some unpleasant idiosyncrasies they had revealed. I wore my 'A' with shame, like Hester Prynne of long ago. In time, it ceased to be a drawback and became an honor, also like with Hester Prynne of long ago. 'Presto' was formed my new identity, both a blessing and a curse.

I had gradually acquiesced to my new role. But then, as though it were not enough to ruin my old life, Mr. Admin tried to ruin my new one—the one he had assigned me. "Hey, knock it off there!" he shouted, as I was trading barbs with villains and semi-villains, saints and semi-saints. I don't think it was just me he was mad at. It wasn't even mainly me, and maybe not me at all—but the story is just so much better if you make the facts work for you rather than suffer them to be your master.

From his pontifical post he thundered: "I would just like to state for the record that as the owner of this website, I do not like pejorative labels. 'Label' and 'Kill' seems to be the way most groups continue to operate nowadays. I realize that all you different religions are free to exercise what you believe in, however I would like to push my own point of thought that we all should try to stop using labels on people. I keep seeing different religions on here use the pejorative label "apostate." Why does anyone in 2018 still subscribe to this antiquated way of thinking?

"And IF by chance you still do subscribe to this religious mentality, please realize that the rest of the world doesn't care about how you label others.

"They have MOVED ON.

"Try to keep up, people.

"This technology alone is proving far superior to any fear-based religion. Both pro and anti-religious groups should try to avoid labels and stick to facts.

"- End of rant."

It's over when I say it's over. I fired back:

"Why does anyone in 2018 still subscribe to this antiquated way of thinking?" Because it is a significant sub-theme of the New Testament. There is no New Testament writer that does not deal with it. Two entire chapters are devoted to it. Jude was about to write a bland letter that would have entered the dustbin of canon history, but:

"I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to..." and so forth.

"They have MOVED ON. Try to keep up people."

"Possibly they have moved on, but the overall state of the world does not make clear that having "moved on" is for the best. Gadgets have improved, granted, and people do have to clean up after their dogs today, but an overall sense of well-being? Whether "keeping up" in the sense you mean is a good thing is highly debatable. Furthermore, if you think this is so horrible, show me the civility in the greater political world. Be sure not to miss the 'gentleman's disagreement' involving the Supreme Court Kavanaugh nomination today. Show me the love-in between GOP and DEMS, or medical vs alternative, or atheist vs religious person, or scientist vs metaphysics. And make sure to tell me how the Russians and Chinese are allegedly hacking into Western computers so as to say a friendly 'hello.'

"It could be argued that you are missing the most significant development of all time, as you lambaste those debating issues of eternity in favor of those squabbling over matters that will only be personally relevant for a few decades until they die.

"End of rant.

"Having said that, I can easily see how this could drive a guy nuts. Just for the record, I think some participants here are barely sane. I won't say that I have never used the word "apostate'' but I have tried to be sparing with it, in favor of such words as 'opposer' or 'detractor' And I deliberately try to defuse super-intense threads with what I hope passes for humor. I stay primarily because I benefit by testing out lines that I know will be thrown back in my face. I get to refine my own writing thereby, like a scientist studying data. I've been able to write an absolutely unique book in this manner. A writer not only needs a muse. He also needs a villain, and here there are villains galore.

"It is pretty rough on those who don't speak the lingo, though. I do appreciate that. I hope that you take it in the right spirit when I jokingly put you entering the annual Conference of Internet Magnificents, casually mentioning your traffic so as to impress the big boys, only to be told 'Big Deal. They're all religious nuts. Come back when you have people who know that the earth is round.'"

***~~~***

Apostates and loyal ones unite! At last we have found common cause! Let us band together and beat up on Admin, who presumes to break up our riotous party! If we want to ruin his website, what's that to him? I will even be gracious and concede that you fellows won a round. You correctly predicted that he would 'lose it' on a weekend. I could have sworn it would have been on a weekday.

Like the spoken word of God in the New Testament, the spoken word of Admin is rare on this religious portion of his website, which is presided over by another. I can recall only one other time that he spoke from on high, even coming down on the side of the good guys. "Geez, you guys are a piece of work!" he thundered from above. "If Watchtower legal wanted me to take down their copyrighted artwork, I would do it in two seconds." The occasion was that Watchtower had written just that concern, and certain malcontents used to putting their work in different context and beating them over the head with it were screaming to high heaven about "free speech."

Probably Admin knows that not one Witness he sees here on his website is a typical Witness. They are all rogue to one degree of another, self included. They all have their own individual reasons for being here. None of them are heeding the Witness organization's preference not to engage in disputes with determined opposers.

Witnesses are encouraged by their organization not to dispute. Whatever one may think about Jehovah's Witnesses, one must concede that they endeavor to present their message with dignity, be it door-to-door, their website, or the recent innovation of cart witnessing. The dignity disintegrates when they come online to brawl, which is why the organization prefers that they not do it. Debate doesn't work well, anyway. Jesus routinely resorted to tactics that would infuriate any devotee of debate—answering questions with counter-questions, raising straw man arguments, spinning complex parables that he rarely explained—let the heart figure it out. Put your version of truth out there, and if they reject it, they reject it.

What! Is it cheap entertainment we are speaking of? Jesus said religious truth would be "the pearl of great price" that you must "exert yourself vigorously" to lay hold of. He didn't say it was a fine thing to tilt back the easy chair and wait for the winner of a debate to toss it to you. Debate focuses attention, not on the merits of any given idea, but on the skill of the debater. In debate school, one is taught to argue both sides of a given argument. That fact ought to suffice to assess "debate" as a way to arrive at truth.

You would never know it from online forums, but the best way to uncover how most Witnesses feel about their governing arrangement is to attend a Regional Convention. The line that invariably brings down the house with applause is: "Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel?" But as I was chewing out Admin for trying to salvage his own website, a villain by the name of John was listening! He chimed in: "Yes, it's all puppet fashion and tradition. It is so corny. It is the expected thing, so they have to do it."

I reflected upon this: "You know, you may have a point. I have looked closely at these times and I can tell that they don't want to applaud. They really really don't want to applaud. But then they notice an elder glowering at them and sweat breaks out on their brow. In some cases, they wet their pants. In the end, even though they hate the thought, they clap and clap and clap. Sometimes their hands turn to mush and the paramedics have to haul them away for first aid." Sheesh. I mean, it is possible to overplay the paranoia card. They applaud because they liked the program and appreciate the work of those that put it together.

Lest Admin chew us out again for not displaying mutual love, I addressed his prior: "LABEL and KILL seems to be the way most groups continue to operate nowadays:"

"When you cite Jehovah's Witnesses, you are citing almost the only example you could cite that disproves your point. Categorically, they will not kill or be maneuvered by the national king into killing. How bad can they be?"

I even took him up on his "This technology alone is proving far superior to any fear-based religion:"

"Is it? I'll even call you on this. The general reality is that social media is more apt to spread hate than resolution. Religion, however, at its best, will spread love in a way that your technology could not even dream of.

"And what is this about 'fear-based religion?' How often in Scripture is the expression 'Fear God' or 'Fear Jehovah?' Almost 40. I counted. It is 'fear' in the same sense children used to routinely fear their parents, out of love and respect—fear of displeasing them—with punishment only a background concern.

"Increasingly the ones to be feared are the "anti-cultists" who expand the definition of a pejorative word so as to cover people they don't like. Under the guise of protecting them from ideas they don't want heard, their Russian soul-brothers have gone so far as to arrest them and steal all their property. A fine way to protect the civil rights of the enemy soldiers is to kill off their generals. That way you can absorb them."

The reckless appellation of the C-word is essentially hate speech. It is above and beyond any specific arguments for or against Witnesses—such arguments are always fair game to be countered or acceded to. It has inspired violence, not only in Russia, but also in the United States. During 2018, several arson attacks were launched against Kingdom Halls in Washington state. Two burned to the ground. Arguments are one thing, but screaming 'cult' whips the crazies into a lather. Anti-cultists will howl in a heartbeat if the political party they favor is the target of perceived hate speech from the other side. But when it comes to their own hate speech, they become obtuse. Everyone knows what a cult is, and everyone knows that Jehovah's Witnesses are not it, regardless of how strenuously the champions of conformity try to rewrite the dictionary to make it appear so.

I returned to Admin: "If you must carry on about 'this technology,' consider this paragraph from _Tom Irregardless and Me_ as to how the Witness organization uses it:

"In recent years, the Watchtower organization even offers its own programming through a JW Broadcasting streaming channel, a refreshing and most unusual alternative to mainstream TV. Members of the Governing Body thus repeat the pattern they are known for with any new technology: They eye it with suspicion. They advise caution. They know that when the thief switches getaway cars, it is the thief you have to watch, not the dazzling features of the new car. They follow the thief for a time. Convinced at last that they still have a bead on him, they examine the car. They circle it warily, kicking the tires. At last satisfied, they jump in with both feet and put it to good uses its inventors could only have dreamed of."

Whoa! John took advantage of my distraction to post: "I have been there and done all of that. It's hype. They are conditioned to 'like the program.' We were all expected to applaud."

Once again, I acquiesced. I am that sort of a guy:

"I will go further to confess what I have never confessed before. Our body of elders used to rent a prison bus to round up the publishers and make them go to the convention. They made me drive. I didn't want to, but they made me, using mind-control. The friends didn't want to go. None of them did. They used to hide in the bushes when they saw me pulling up in the prison bus. But the elders had ordered me to stuff them in nice clothes by force if necessary. Oh, how my conscience torments me now!"

John: "The kids are ordered to answer up in Watchtower studies and made to pre-study for hours and write down long answers, which in truth they don't even understand. They just answer parrot fashion."

"That's nothing!" I shot back. "I have seen children actually confined in oversized parrot cages until they finished studying their lessons, at which time, if they were lucky, they might be given a cracker."

I thought that I heard Admin weeping at this point, and I felt sorry for him. Even I thought it was getting to be a bit much. I had chosen not to respond to his "Geez, you guys are a piece of work!" What could I have told him—that we're not?

It is high time that we proceed to examine the adversary.

back

# Chapter 1 – Who Are the Apostates?

Nobody has apostates like Jehovah's Witnesses. Theirs are the best. Nobody has apostates more determined. Nobody has apostates more prolific. It is almost as though I am proud of them. I very nearly am. If they flourished in the first century, they should flourish now. If they didn't flourish now, one would have to wonder why.

They certainly did flourish back then. There is no writer of the New Testament that does not feel obliged to come to grips with them. "I know that...from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves," warns the faithful apostle at Acts 20: 29-30. "For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled, and they will turn their ears away from the truth," he repeats at 2 Timothy 4:3.

If Christianity is among the greatest themes of all time, then combatting apostates is one of the greatest subthemes of all time. Every religion has them, but especially those with Judeo-Christian underpinnings, in which context the word is specifically defined. The Greek verb form of the word means "to stand away from." The noun form has the sense of "desertion, abandonment, or rebellion." It is those who have 'been there and done that.' If one has not been there and done that, one cannot be an apostate, no matter how much one may dislike a religion.

If there was to be "a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled, and they will turn their ears away from the truth," it stands to reason that such a period would have commenced long ago, with the end product the cacophony of religious offerings that exist today. Let another book written by another author deal with who's who. I will focus my attention on Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian denomination with the fiercest apostates. One can even make the case that the more namby-pamby the apostates, the more they are that way because they have already chalked up major wins. Where they are the most virulent, it is because they have yet to make significant dent in the core and are tearing out their hair in their unrelenting effort to do so.

Apostasy is said to be a "mystery" in scripture. It might well seem so to the outsider looking in, for it involves persons attacking those who were once their closest friends with a ferocity that is breathtaking. "Why don't they just move on in life?" the typical observer will say. The reasons behind the apostasy themselves are less a mystery. Most are covered with but a few simple Bible passages. The apostates are like Demas, who forsook Paul because "he loved the present system of things." Though they tested the waters, they "went out from us" because "they were not of our sort." Their former friends became misled fools to them when "the Master kept delaying." They were stumbled, and woe to the one stumbling them. Nonetheless, the psalm that would have helped them is: "Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is no stumbling block." (2 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:19, Matthew 24:48, Mark 9:42, Psalm 119:165)

The law they were to love, and once did, is "God's law." It is not the law of human government. Suffice it to say that Jehovah's Witnesses put no stock in human government. All human governments will drop the ball. Usually it is a bowling ball, and the only pertinent question that remains is upon which toe will it land. As people ponder the vulnerability of their right and left toes, thus is decided their politics. Jehovah's Witnesses discard it all as secondary, and they do not let such differences disrupt the peace of the congregation.

They obey the governments under which they live. If one considers how little cost they put upon agencies of law enforcement or tax collection, they are the most loyal citizens of any nation. They do what they are told, not because they are weaklings, but because they consider it but a secondary point. In every country they say to the 'king:' "Tell us your rules for maintaining public order and we will follow them." It is a different matter when the law of the king conflicts with the law of God, but that situation is relatively rare. Usually one can "render Caesar's things to Caesar and God's things to God" without undue fuss.

Jehovah's Witnesses put their stock in what they would term "divine government," rather than that of humans. As a practical matter, that is expressed though a human agency they refer to at present as their Governing Body. They consider these ones charged with applying the Bible to modern times, just as in the United States and most other lands, a Supreme Court is charged with applying a Constitution to modern times. Governing Body members are not infallible. They strive to lead by example, and there is a scene I will not quickly forget of a representative, for illustrative purposes, pulling a string on a table by a finger placed firmly atop one end. "See how the rest of it nicely follows?" he points out. "What happens if I try to push the string?" and upon doing so, it wads up. "It really isn't very smart of me to do it this way, is it?" he says.

The most likely area for apostasy to surface is at the divine/human interface. It was even true with Judas. He and God were tight. There were absolutely no problems there! But that character masquerading as the Messiah—why, he wasn't at all what Judas had expected. And those yokels he was attracting? Don't even go there.

It becomes quickly apparent that a religion with which the year text is "Anything goes" will produce few apostates. What would they apostatize from? Repeatedly we read in scripture that apostates "despise authority." How does that become a problem unless there is authority? They love "lawlessness." How does that become a problem unless there is law? They favor acts of "brazen conduct." They have "eyes full of adultery," and they are "unable to desist from sin." How does that become a problem unless there is someone to tell that they cannot carry on that way? Not only is the nature of apostates revealed in the above verses of Jude and 2 Peter 2, but also the nature of the Christian organization. A faith too bland to produce quality apostates is too bland to be given the time of day.

When offering testimony about whatever faith they have apostatized from, their testimony cannot be relied upon exclusively, but must be corroborated by independent sources. The bias they reveal may be considerable, as Lonnie D. Kliever, Ph.D., Professor of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University, writes:

"There is no denying that these dedicated and diehard opponents of the new religions present a distorted view of the new religions to the public, the academy, and the courts by virtue of their ready availability and eagerness to testify against their former religious associations and activities. Such apostates always act out of a scenario that vindicates themselves by shifting responsibility for their actions to the religious group. Indeed, the various brainwashing scenarios so often invoked against the new religious movements have been overwhelmingly repudiated by social scientists and religion scholars as nothing more than calculated efforts to discredit the beliefs and practices of unconventional religions in the eyes of governmental agencies and public opinion. Such apostates can hardly be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. Even the accounts of voluntary defectors with no grudges to bear must be used with caution since they interpret their past religious experience in the light of present efforts to re-establish their own self-identity and self-esteem."

It doesn't mean they must be ignored. It just means they must always be taken with a substantial grain of salt. John Gordon Melton, an American religious scholar cautions "that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents."

When they leave a "new religion," the current non-prejudicial term for those founded within the last century or two, less incendiary than the newly-expanded term "cult," they have a lot of explaining to do. It is not as though they have switched from Chevrolet to Ford. They have abandoned goals and practices perhaps followed for decades to embrace ones that in many respects represent the very opposite. How best to account for such a flip-flop without suggesting that they were dupes? What could be better than lodging a "brainwashing" claim, asserting that they were "misled," that, really, they are no more stupid than you—if it happened to them, it could have just as easily happened to anyone? It is an irresistible ploy.

Professor David Bromley, author of The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement, "explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure...Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group."

Of course! If one leaves a group that truly is "no part of the world," as Jesus said his followers would be, to pursue a course fully part of that world, there is a lot of catching up to do. There has been a lot of falling behind the curve, and there is a lot of time to be made up. Particularly if one has given up the faith for atheism, then there is only a short time left, and previous years comprising the majority of one's life may appear to have been wasted. The temptation to resort to a thought-control defense is irresistible.

Apostates of the world have managed to unite under an anti-cult common umbrella. They come from many different faiths, and find that they have much in common. All of their former faiths were cults—they are smarting from their wounds—that did them great damage by deflecting from the truly fine goals of life. A prominent one, let us call him Steve, spent his early days as a 'Moonie,' the common name for those of the Unification Church. He now spends his time helping people to escape cults, and he has expanded the definition well beyond Moonies.

I know little about the Moonies, per se, and have nothing specifically against them. I share the common perception that they drop out of society, dress strangely, and used to interact with the public primarily to sell them things, such as flowers. Even this must be put into context, for there were plenty of Steve's generation who became _actual_ "flower children" of the sixties. They turned on, tuned in, and dropped out of contemporary society, and to this day they are not criticized for it, even when they enhanced their experience with mind-altering drugs.

A generation or two before them there were the hoboes, often educated men, who dropped out of society, roaming the country via railroad boxcars, which were not hard to surreptitiously board. "Stay away from the hoboes," Gram told my Dad when he has a boy. Of course, he went right down to the woods to hang out with the hoboes, and he says they generally were the most gentle and peaceable folk you might ever hope to meet. When one came into town, he might ask for a meal. When there was extra in the pantry, a resident might feed them. They would sit on the porch nice as you please eating their meal, and upon leaving, would make a mark on the house so that other hoboes would know a free meal could be had there. If you left things lying about, they would steal you blind, but only take what they needed for their immediate future.

Drop outs are not uncommon. There have always been drop-outs. They are even a romanticized segment of society. But let there be a God component to it and all hell breaks loose. Isn't that all the Moonies are guilty of, throwing an interpretation of God into the mix? Steve came to be upset with them, for they 'stole' his early life. But there really aren't that many of them. Like a growth industry, he began to target other groups who, unlike the Moonies, did not drop out of society, in fact, they often improved their role significantly in it, such as by overcoming addictions. These new targets mixed in with regular society just fine, often better than before, as some of them dropped the criminal activity they had once engaged in. But they looked to a different source for direction. Let us be blunt. The modern anti-cult movement is an effort to stop them from doing that. It is an attempt to put persons on the same page and prevent them departing from script.

Think twice before you do it. Dr. Asseem Malhotra states: "We all have to realize that society has been manufactured in a way where we simply give up our own mind to someone else, who has been given theirs by someone else...from birth, we are programmed to think a certain way by somebody else." Dr. Malhotra is a cardiologist and he is referring to standard regimens of health, but the principles apply widely. If the prevailing mindset was so productive and healthful, surely you could expect the world thus built to reflect that. Think twice before you shut down pathways to explore and perhaps even reject the status quo.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't cotton to the status quo of human rulership. They like what they would characterize as "God's rulership." Their assessment of history is that of Ecclesiastes 8:9—that "man has dominated man to his injury." They agree with Jeremiah, the Old Testament prophet, that "to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Human government is a disaster, they say, and they align their lives with "divine rulership" and the human organization they think best represents it, that unitedly spearheads the telling of the "good news of God's kingdom" the world over.

Because the religion is consequential, it is resisted by the anti-cultists. Because under its influence people make decisions they would not make otherwise—and in some cases later come to reassess—the anti-cultists would like to stamp it out. If it confined its role to supporting the customary goals of society, they would have no problem with it. It is as Jesus says: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own."

The more that a religion stands for things in contrast to the prevailing thinking, the more it will produce apostates. The more that it maintains a separateness from the greater world, the more it will produce apostates. Ones who cross the chasm from faith to anti-faith may hope that former relationships will not suffer, but they invariably will. It is a chasm they have crossed, not a dotted line. Anything with a significant upside will have a downside, and if one negates the upside, there remains nothing to focus upon but the downside—a point particularly applicable to those former members who have opted for atheism.

The outrage that some of these apostates express initially sets one back on one's heels. However, outrage is the new normal today, and one must expect that going in. Following the commentary on world news for a week or so will dispel any doubt that outrage is the name of the game today. A Pew survey released during August 2018 revealed that, pertaining to the politics of the two major American parties, not only can countrymen not agree on how to act in light of the facts, but they cannot even agree on what the facts are. With no agreement on the facts there can be no starting point for discussion. If it is true of two parties which both occupy the here and now, how much more so of two parties, one whose view of the future is eternity, the other that of the next few decades. How much more so of two parties, one of which dismisses the "pearl of high price" as a 'been there done that?' Just what will there be to talk about?

"If a man dies, can he live again?" is the question at Job 14:14. "Of course," says the Witness. "No way," says the atheistic ex-Witness. The former looks at any sacrifices of the present life as but delayed gratification, the sort that does a person's character nothing but good, the sort that is integral to any raising of a child. The latter looks upon it as the height of foolishness, for "this life is all there is." Just what will there be to talk about?

They lie as submerged rocks poised to rip out whatever floats your boat. The lie they tell is more subtle than many of them know—in fact, it is a lie only in the eye of the beholder. It is the same as the first lie told in Genesis: "You certainly will not die. God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad." Take the verse symbolically. Take it literally. Either way the lesson is the same. Not only is the first woman told a lie, but more significantly, it is a lie told with a bad motive. "He is trying to deprive you of freedom and independence," the charge goes, but "don't let Him fool you. You don't need Him. You can decide for yourselves what is good and what is bad."

What of the 'facts' apostates may want to bring to the faithful one's attention, ones they say that caused them to jump ship? Proverbs 21:2 is useful to consider: "Every way of a man is upright in his own eyes, but Jehovah is making an estimate of hearts." Of course! Everyone is right in his own eyes. Everyone tells facts that are true. Nobody tells facts that are not true. It is how those facts are organized and prioritized that counts, and that is a matter of heart, which Jehovah assesses. The bare facts they present are often accurate, but they may be entirely misrepresented and put into a context either untrue or highly subjective.

They revel in their new found "freedom." No longer will they suffer traveling on the "cramped and narrow" road that Jesus spoke about. (Matthew 7:14) He must have been crazy. He was just trying to suppress human freedom with his "mind-control." No more! Now the road is broad and spacious and deliriously exciting.

I don't like them, and they don't like me. If persons positively loathe my best friend—what if it were my wife?—are they going to be my chums? I don't think so. Yes, yes, my wife is an actual person that can be seen (indeed, it is hard to takes one's eyes off her), whereas God is a spirit, but it is close enough. I may come to respect them but I am not their pal. They seek to draw others into their course. "While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for if anyone is overcome by someone, he is his slave," says 2 Peter 2. In the case of those that have followed the path of atheism, if the only freedom you can offer expires in a few decades, just how much freedom do you truly have to offer?

"Certainly, if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received," says the apostle Peter. (vs 19-21) "Leave them be" is the counsel. Send them packing should they come around. "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to the Christ," says Paul at Colossians 2:8. "Keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them," he says again at Romans 16:17. "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [of the Christ], never receive him into your homes or say a greeting," says John.

The situation is no more complicated for the believer than for the one who, having determined that he has taken in altogether too much junk food over the years, and that it has done him much harm, resolves to diet. The last thing in the world that person wants is someone stuffing his pantry with cupcakes, cookies, and chips, his fridge with ice cream, and urging him to relax his ridiculous diet so as to "enjoy life" and "live a little."—nothing is so delicious as ice cream! Our healthy dieter just doesn't need to have that person around. He will almost wish he could dig a moat around the house so as not to let him in.

He has determined, upon examination, that the cruise ship is going down. He has boarded the lifeboat, where it is not so luxurious as on the main ship. He doesn't need those who have swum back to re-board crowing about the fine wining, dining and dancing that they have resumed. It is fine, as well, to avoid the companionship of those who gripe and complain about the cramped quarters on the lifeboat. And when determined to quit smoking, one does well to avoid the company of ones who do so like chimneys. The principle is well understood and can be illustrated through numerous examples. Only when spirituality is thrown into the mix do some suddenly go obtuse, but the underlying logic is no different.

As a nation looks to its constitution, so does the Witness organization to the Bible. The counsel will be to avoid its apostates. "Taste and see that Jehovah is good," says the psalm. They have tasted and "seen" that he is bad. What is there to talk about? There will be no persuading them, for they have deliberately crossed the chasm. The only possible outcome is they may attain their goal and persuade the one yet holding the course—the reverse will not happen, because it already has happened and they tired of it. "Did you know that your people are not perfect? Did you know that they have made mistakes? Did you know that they have been inconsistent?" they ask—all of which the Christian does know, if not specifically, then certainly in principle. The final Bible Book of Revelation describes, in chapters 2 and 3, several congregations meant to symbolically stand for the whole. Some of them are veritable basket cases, with problems quite serious. But that does not mean that they are not congregations.

The counsel to avoid apostates is good. It is biblical. One could hardly argue otherwise, scripturally. Yet there is a downside. Any military general realizes that he must know what the scoundrels across the divide are up to. Become too insular, and the apostate almost becomes the "bogeyman" of mysterious powers—the mere exposure to his words is enough to thwart years of alignment to God. It is a mystery status that they do not deserve. There is nothing mysterious about them. Their reasons for departure are un-mysteriously human, though they may be not readily reversible. They have cast aside what they once embraced for the thoroughly understandable and human reasons outlined previously.

It really doesn't take that much to get one's head around the opposition. They write and speak prolifically, but it's quite repetitive. They make noise far disproportionate to their size—but that does not mean that there are not many of them. Are they truly a myriad, or have they managed to inflate their numbers, like Gideon's 300 troops that convinced the enemy they numbered in the tens of thousands? It is not easy to tell. In a world of several billion people one can find countless examples of anything. Assemble them in one place and, why—it would seem that no other cause must exist.

There are people who will not do something until you tell them that they should not. "Stay away from the hoboes," Gram told Dad, so he went right down there to hang with them. It is a universal law of human nature, even if it is not usually wise to give in to it. It is why the curious cat needs every one of its nine lives. At times our own young people, wondering what all the fuss is about, goaded on that only a wus is afraid even to look here or there, succumbs to that universal law and launches his or her own investigation. Sometimes they are floored to find what they never expected to find. Arguably, they might have benefited from prior "vaccination"—exposure to just a little bit of the malady so that they might have worked up an immunity to it.

As an adult, even as a young adult, one is in position to leave childhood roots. Many choose to do so. But is the course wise while one is yet in one's teenage years? It smacks too much of Mark Twain's supposed saying: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Perhaps this writer can help some of these "bad" boys and girls, for alas—he too is being bad. Let us not spin it any other way. He is being a bad boy, pure and simple, sailing past godly counsel as though Odysseus thumbing his nose at Poseidon. "Battle not with the monsters, lest ye become a monster," writes one of the sages, for "if you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes back." Does this writer observe that good sense? He heedlessly hollers down the abyss: "Yo! Anybody down there?!" for the sake of a hopefully good read.

But if he is a bad boy in this one area, he is a good boy in all others, universally liked in his circuit because he is a peacemaker who is not wound up too tight. He steers clear of the six Proverbs things that God hates, a list that magically expand to seven, including "feet that in are in a hurry to run to badness, a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers." His feet stay planted on terra firma, he launches nothing but rectitude, and he soothes contentions away.

In battling the "apostates" on the pages to come, one name will pop up more than all others combined—unfortunately suggesting that I have it in for this one personally. This is not the case. Many do what he does. I just happened to latch onto him first. I will even change his name to Nemo because I like the alliteration, as in Nemo the nemesis, but it is really Lloyd, It could have been one of many people. A writer needs not only a muse. He also needs a villain, and I frequented where I knew there were villains galore. It's nothing personal. He and his have succeeded advancing the game to another level—it must be acknowledged—but it is the same game. It simply requires an adaptation in response. To some extent, it is a shame to name anyone, hero or villain, because it is not about individuals. It is about the ideas they represent. Still, if an idea can be personalized, it makes for more an interesting read. It just does. We are all "people" persons, after all.

For purposes of this book, this oft referred-to chieftain replaces a fellow we shall call Danny, a former Witness turned sour, a man who came to have an extraordinary reach. If anyone posted anything anywhere about Jehovah's Witnesses and there was room to comment, his was one of the first. Always his contribution was malicious and almost always it was irrelevant to the post. Visiting his own site, I noted that he billed himself as an expert witness in the case of custody lawsuits where one parent or the other was a Jehovah's Witness _and_ an expert witness in lawsuits against manufacturers of anti-depressants, apparently not realizing that each claim undercut his credibility for the other. I remember him for posting an almost maniacal laugh that he was getting the ultimate revenge on his former religion, because his retorts were everywhere, and they would last forever! He forgot to mention that they would also quickly be buried in the digital avalanche that is the Internet. Today he is unheard of. Witnesses ought not gloat about this, however, for he has been replaced by a legion of others.

"The first man to state his case is right, but then his opponent searches him through," says the Proverb. Let us do exactly that. "However, here are some ground rules, TrueTom," I tell myself: Don't be goaded. Never make it personal. Remember that everyone has the right to interpret his or her own experience. Accept going in that you will be excoriated. Don't expect to get in the last word. The key to staying dispassionate lies in knowing that you are going to lose the battle. The enemies will have their day in the sun before it all turns around.

back

# Chapter 2 – Four Incendiary Articles

The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote four incendiary articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all.

Some significant facts are omitted in the articles. Some background facts that are included are misrepresented, leading to condemnation of a religion that otherwise has a reputation for fine works and conduct. "Overall, they're nice, sincere people" says vehement critic Barbara Anderson in the first article, referring to the "rank and file." Her statement accompanies the video of Jared Kushner, from before campaign days, speaking about the Witnesses from whom he would buy their Brooklyn buildings. It is almost unheard of in its praise—Witnesses are persons of "high integrity" with whom "a handshake deal means something," he says. How can this be if the leadership is as vile as the reporter represents them? Plainly, something is missing.

No topic is more incendiary than child sexual abuse. In no other area is a person's viewpoint so determined by experience. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an 'insular' organization, and this 'crime' of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website in between articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims.

The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. Few evils appear to be more widespread. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil. Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who stops at nothing in his impersonations, appeared to be stopped dead in his tracks when one of those impersonations apparently uncovered an elite pedophile ring, reported Newsweek on December 20, 2018. He and his production team were so disturbed at what they thought they had found—"a pedophile ring in Las Vegas that's operating for these very wealthy men. And this [interviewed] concierge had said that he'd worked for politicians and various billionaires"—that they turned over all footage to the FBI, who declined to pursue the tip.

There is some reason to think that child sexual abuse is relatively uncommon within the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses,* but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. Jehovah's Witnesses in 2017, at their summer conventions, which all attend, considered detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur, so that parents, the first line of defense, could be vigilant. If anyone displays unusual interest in your child, if there are sleepovers, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if—there were several others, all potential hot spots, not necessarily bad, but reason to be attentive. Nobody, but nobody, gathers their entire membership for such education other than Jehovah's Witnesses.

There is also Caleb and Sophia, cartoon characters whose family doings are utilized as a teaching tool for Witness parents. They teach short lessons on subjects often mundane, yet crucial to smooth functioning of society, such as the desirability of honesty. The tykes delight the hearts of JW children everywhere (except in Russia, where they are behind bars as extremists). 'Protect Your Children' is an especially vital lesson that addresses pedophilia, in which Mommy and Daddy coax their children on how to respond if threatened. If someone "touches you where they should not" or "asks you to do something that makes you feel uncomfortable." "Even if it is someone you know and trust," Mommy commends a correct answer, and her husband adds, "and then tell Mommy and Daddy right away," who, in the video, take the news most seriously.

In four articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer makes no mention of these clearly relevant factors, though the balance between malice and incompetence is difficult to ascertain. Nor does it cite the Witness organization's easily available printed and digital child abuse policy, which gives the obvious lie to most of the insinuations made. Included only is a Watchtower Society quote that the latter "abhor child sexual abuse," which the Inquirer presents in a context as though evidence that they do not.

No, Philly Inquirer, the religion you slimed is not the scourge of humanity. It comprises a group of decent, caring human beings who encountered problems in the 80s and 90s doing what others did not attempt. The Watchtower organization was investigating reports of this and other forms of wrongdoing within its ranks, and it is through this policy of vigilance that they come to be identified with this moral crime. In fact, any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact the case. The Book of Romans says "You, the one preaching, 'Do not steal,' do you steal? You, the one saying, 'Do not commit adultery,' do you commit adultery?" If they "mishandled" anything, it must be observed that you cannot mishandle what you never attempted to handle in the first place.

The Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be fully siding with enemies of the religion whose stated goal is to litigate it out of existence. Were they to succeed, they would be showing themselves friends of child sexual abuse, for few others have the proactive education and prevention record of Jehovah's Witnesses, despite some missteps with regard to general society now determined to leave no stone unturned in squashing the evil. Data that can be gleaned from various sources,** coupled with the Witnesses' relentless campaign to avoid pornography in any form, plus the educational factors already cited, make this conclusion nearly inescapable, though positive proof will ever be lacking because others of the time failed to address the problem and thereby produce records. In many venues, such 'negligence' is a punishable offense; here it is effectively rewarded. It is Sergeant Shultz crying, "I know nothiinnnggg," a policy that ultimately got him out of many a jam on the old TV show.

It is fine to handle a case of child sexual abuse properly. But it is far finer if the abuse does not happen in the first place. It is similar to calling in the grief counselors in the wake of a school shooting. Of course, it is a good thing to call them in, but how much better to not need them in the first place. A case of child sexual abuse "properly handled" does not mean that it did not occur, and the child is only somewhat less damaged than if the case _was_ properly handled. Thus, a story on this topic should never omit the overall relative success of the Witness organization in prevention of this evil.

Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, states that "clear guidelines for best [child protective] practice were not established until the 1990s," during or even after most of the JW abuse cases under review. Thus, the Witness organization walked in largely uncharted territory, for the purpose of identifying this most pernicious group so as to apply discipline, often expulsion, to safeguard other congregation members, and to ensure that pedophiles could not slip unnoticed from one congregation into another (as they could anywhere else). Seen in this light, condemnation of the Watchtower for this proactive policy is a prime example of the cynicism: "No good deed goes unpunished."

The misstep that the Inquirer exclusively zeroes in on, and it is not nothing, is the inclination of many Witnesses, upon submitting a matter to congregation elders, to not also go to outside authorities, and elders to not go over their heads and do so themselves. Ones were never prevented from doing so, but the prevailing atmosphere in the 80s and 90s was such that they were less likely to do it, and stories abound of persons being pressured in that direction. An ill-conceived desire to protect reputation is hardly unique to Witnesses of that day; the very reason there is an expression "skeletons in the closet" is the universal human instinct to keep them there. This writer would not argue that Jehovah's Witnesses were slower than many to give up that mindset. These days elders positively plead with families of victims to report to outside authorities, only to find that some are still reluctant to go that route.

In this context, some victims of child sexual abuse come to feel that they went unheard. Some of these later become bitter towards religion in general and Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. Today, in an era of litigation, many of these ones seek their due. The fourteen persons that the Philly reporter interviewed appear to be from a Reddit forum "devoted exclusively to ex-Witnesses," who "discuss the absurdity of their experiences." This writer has no reason to challenge the experiences the fourteen relate, and whether their perspective on what they report is the final word, he is in no position to say. However, it is inexcusable for the Inquirer article to link to an ex-Witness forum of 20,000 members, and not also to a Watchtower downloadable child-protection policy packet plainly showing that most its insinuations are untrue.

The second of the series of articles tells it from the point of view of a wronged girl. The details of any child molestation case are stomach turning. It is not claimed that she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them—embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. When the judge involved recalls certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. It is at least as likely that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades. When Witness Governing Body member Stephen Lett, speaking many years later, tells of "apostate lies," the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend—he once knew the victim's parents—a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that the bare facts of the abuse case is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.

The notion that persons should be monetarily compensated for real or perceived wrongs has long been accepted by society. Lawsuits for all manner of offenses are unremarkable routine, with enormous monetary awards increasingly common. It amounts to a massive societal transfer of wealth, with lawyers netting a third. It is the reason insurance skyrockets at a time that inflation is quite low. It is a reason that prices of goods escalate, as 'punished' corporations pass along their costs to the consumer. Few would assert that compensation is wrong, but few would deny its overall effects, either.

Witness policy has likely evolved to the extent they feel possible, given their Bible outlook, and they plead for a circumstance in law that is unlikely ever to be realized. Here law mandates that allegations be reported to police, there it does not mandate it, and the default law kicks into place that it is likely forbidden, as it can constitute a violation of 'clergy-penitent confidentiality,' an idea as much enshrined into law as doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client confidentiality. The Witness attorney pleaded for understanding before an investigating Australian Royal Commission (and got none) that Witnesses were having a hard time navigating this patchwork of laws, as they sought to fulfill a biblically-mandated duty that others do not take seriously. Three times before the ARC, a member of the Witnesses' Governing Body pleaded for universal mandatory reporting laws, across all territories, with no exceptions. Then it wouldn't matter if a given congregation member, for whatever reason, declined to go to the police. Elders would be enabled do it regardless. Most of the cases reported today are from 20 or more years previous, and the "crime" alleged is failing "to go beyond the law" with regard to reporting. Nothing is more telling of society's overall desperation at losing the war against child sexual abuse than the moral imperative to "go beyond the law." If it is so imperative to go beyond the law, then surely that should _become_ the law. Otherwise, that lapse becomes simply a means of Monday-morning quarterbacking to target unpopular groups.

Such universal change in law would make possible both the aims of the congregation and those of outside authorities. Roundly condemned is Jehovah's Witnesses insistence on a "two-witness rule" in connection with their religious investigations. The Philadelphia Inquirer misrepresents this rule as though Jehovah's Witnesses, intent on nurturing molesters, demand two spectators for every abuse incident, and let perpetrators off with a wink and a nod in their absence. Various accommodations Witnesses have made to work around this obvious difficulty are ignored by the Philly reporter.

The reason one ought not be too quick to give up a "two-witness rule" emerges every time someone is exonerated by DNA evidence, the latest advance of criminal science, after serving decades in prison, having been convicted over less strenuous proof. Outside authorities have their own standards for proof, and with universal mandatory reporting laws, both agencies can fulfill their duties simultaneously. Why was this not done long ago—passing universal mandatory reporting laws? Given the crusade to punish child sexual abuse, one would think that no task would have been easier.

Since the present legal climate makes the Witnesses' duty in policing its own, according to biblical standards, almost impossible, the situation could be framed as an encroachment of state upon church. "Preach to them on Sunday, and be done with it," is the only liability-free policy. "It's none of your business whether they apply it or not.'' And yet, to those determined to live by Bible principles as best they can, it clearly is their business. Is it possible that the Witnesses' underlying "crime" is the resolve to stay separate from the overall world, today portrayed as being "insular?" The Jews' historical determination to stay separate, which has moderated only in recent times, contributed towards many a pogrom over the centuries.

Jehovah's Witnesses are overall pretty good at allowing the repercussions of life to serve as discipline, even if they are not intended that way. "It is for discipline that you are enduring," says Paul, adding, "no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterwards it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Witness leaders are without doubt humbled and chastened by events. They may not state it to those they perceive as their enemies—because the goals of the latter go well beyond humbling—but it is undoubtedly so.

Meanwhile, when sued, they must defend themselves in court where determining what is right is complex and impartiality cannot be assumed. The reason there is an uproar with every new Supreme Court justice nominee is the universal understanding that even judges are not impartial; they interpret the law in the light of overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias; it is not enough simply to find an honest one who knows how to swing a gavel. And no topic can trigger overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias more than child sexual abuse.

Stories of Jehovah's Witnesses and child sexual abuse are certainly not nothing, and it is easy to see why a journalist might go there. However, by being so selective in what he reports, the Inquirer writer maligns a faith whose overall record of producing fine people of integrity has already been mentioned, by a harsh critic, no less. As the "if it bleeds it leads" theme fails to excite a hardened public in the way that it once did, the Philly source appears to have found a more potent substitute.

***~~~***

*The frequency of child sexual abuse within a religious laity is almost impossible to compare because it has never been tracked by denominations, save for Jehovah's Witnesses, who did so for purposes of protection and discipline. Still, from time to time there are clues. During his lifetime, Ray Franz was a hero to Witness detractors. He was once a high-ranking member, he separated over various disputes, and thereafter never ceased to criticize those he once rubbed shoulders with. He has proven decidedly unhelpful to detractors, however, with regard to the topic of child sexual abuse. When specifically asked by a Witness opponent, he replied that he really didn't think there was much of a problem at all, and that it had all been blown out of proportion in the media.

**Case Study 54 of the Australian Royal Commission mentions reports of abuse from the JW community within the period extending from the ARC's initial investigation to its final report. It is possible to work out ratios, compare them to the non-Witness community, and conclude that the Witness organization's vigilance has paid off, perhaps by as much as a factor of six, though there are many factors making this less than a fine science. During a time interval in which there were 27,058 reports of child sexual abuse in a greater Australian population of 23,968,973, there were 12 of such in a Australian Witness population of 67,418. For various reasons, it is not a comparison of oranges to oranges—the reports are at different stages of investigation, for example—but neither is it oranges to apples. Call it oranges to tangerines. If any other group had bothered to track the crime within its community, there would be more to go on.

back

# Chapter 3 – Banned at the Apostate Website

I got banned at the apostate website! Can you believe it? I was the very personification of respect and good manners. Of course, I was also the very personification of tenacity, but it was still me against a dozen others. Now that I have been muzzled, it may be me against 100. Nemo (Lloyd) worked so hard to get me to engage with him and as soon as I did, he tossed me out!

Actually, he wanted me to engage on his podcast, where you shoot from the hip. Again and again, he invited me there. I thought a forum in which you can think out your remarks beforehand was better. I put a human face on an outfit he is trying very hard to demonize. It finally pushed him to his limit. After making six or eight comments on his site, I found this:

Nemo: "I simply want to present the other point of view," well, that's partly true, Tom. You want to present "the other point of view" on your own terms – i.e. by trolling me in comments and tweets. You don't quite have the guts to come on my YouTube channel for a conversation where you can express "the other point of view" (Watchtower's point of view, which everyone is already aware of) in front of thousands of people. You'd much rather selectively violate the command to refrain from engaging with apostates as it suits you. Again, I wonder if there are any other commands from your masters "the Slave" regarding which you feel it's ok to pick and choose? Or is your hypocrisy confined solely to this particular area of Watchtower's rulebook?"

When I tried to reply, I found I was blocked. There was nothing to do but take it to the Twitter street, where I found the same response:

He: "My point is you are already violating the rules by engaging with me (some would say trolling)....You may as well go the whole hog and come on my YouTube channel for an interview if you have something to say, but I doubt you have the backbone."

Tom: "I don't. Better thought-out written remarks than shoot-from-the-hip debate. Did I really just get banned at your site? Despite 2 tries, my last reply to you did not stick. All were polite, respectful, and on-topic. None repeated. (1)

"If that is 'trolling,' it is not like the liar who pretended to be GB, even tweeting "Pray for our brothers in Russia" before finally revealing he didn't give a hoot in hell for "our brothers in Russia." It was all a ruse to draw in the guileless ones. (2)

"Let me post my blocked remark here and then call it quits for now: "Nemo, if I am misbehaving, you can toss me, and let persons reflect of the irony of that, since you repeatedly asked to me debate in the first place. 'Trolling' is in the eye of the beholder. (3)

"I have not insulted anyone, On the contrary, I have gone out of my way not to on several occasions. For example, when someone here said: 'Are you calling us liars who exaggerate?' I made clear that I was not. (4)

"On forums where there is a comment section, I have never blocked anyone that I can recall. I would if someone became an abusive and unrelenting pest, but I have not yet had to. (5)

"In debate classes you are given an argument and assigned to take this side and then that. The clear message is that it is technique over substance. Better to write, where one can compose words with thought. Let both points of view be presented honestly, (6)

"Jesus never debated. In fact, he routinely did things that would infuriate devotees of debate. He used hyperbole. He answered questions with counter-questions. He spun involved parables that he rarely explained as a means of reaching the heart. (7)"

My opponent was not impressed with this exchange: "I'm amazed at your continuing excuses for refusing to come on my channel for a conversation (not debate, necessarily) when the real reason is: you are afraid you will be pulled into the backroom by your elders."

Tom: "You are young and vigorous. I am older who perhaps must take care that my teeth do not fall out or my cane trip me up. Or like Paul (2 Cor 10:10) whose letters are weighty but whose personal presence is weak. Or slow of speech like Moses. I believe I did not misrepresent anything. (1)

"(2) I disagreed, which is not the same, always respectfully, and stood up for a group that you continually attack without check, and whose similar attacks have resulted in Russian machine guns literally pointed at the heads of some.

"(3) A substantial blow for free speech on a site that purports to celebrate freedom. [I tagged a couple of journalists at this point] Of course, I take no comments on my site either, but in doing so forsake the flood of accolades and attaboys from my chums, which you clearly do not with yours, now as tight as the Russian press."

He did not take this lying down. There was a flurry of back and forth tweets:

He: "It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with you knowingly misrepresenting my views and opinions. You can do that on here [Twitter] as much as you like, but on my website, nope.

"You get only one chance to not misrepresent/twist my words into something other than I meant or intended. You did this at least twice, hence you are blocked from commenting on [my site], so please don't expect sympathy."

Did I do that, misrepresent him? He gave two examples, offered here with my own words in quotes: (Let the reader use discernment.)

1) "Nemo's outrageous video assertion that elders visit patients in their hospital room to make sure they toe the line on blood policy." - An oversimplification. I am sure some elders visit patients on compassionate grounds, but that is not the sole thinking behind the HLC system, said he.

2) "Nemo's assertion that when persons apply for reinstatement they do so just to reestablish social ties" - I never asserted that people only get reinstated to be reunited. I am sure many do so because, like you, they are simply indoctrinated and know no other way of living, was the reply.

He didn't like me tying him in with the Russian persecution, either: "You cannot blame me for what's going on in Russia, which I have spoken out against unequivocally. Backward regimes have been persecuting religious minorities long before there was Google or YouTube."

I declared war on these guys after the three (now four) incendiary anti-Witness articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer and I learned that the reporter checked in at one such anti-Witness site between articles. It is the only reason I would engage: journalists hang out there. Maybe just one, but who can say? One is enough. So I weighed in to offer such ones context that they will not get otherwise. A journalist wants that. It is an abundance of anecdotal evidence at the anti-Witness site, and anecdotal evidence must always be given context so as to mean anything. There must be context so that you know what you are looking at, and this is what I tried to supply until I was shoved over the trap door. I mean, it's his site. He can do what he wants with it. But there is reason to hope no reporter will rely on it solely.

Here is the context I offered, all remarks made on his site before the window slammed shut on my fingers, with introduction in brackets. At every comment, a click on my name would link to a short justification for the disfellowshipping arrangement, which will be explored further in chapter 16.

[The subject of his original web post was disfellowshipping. Many of the participants presumably had undergone it. They didn't like it.]

Tom: "In any forum where participants simply reinforce the prevailing view, matters become skewed over time and therefore inaccurate. So, I add the counterpoint, which I present for consideration and leave it at that. You have been after me for debate since you became aware of my existence, and this is as close as you are going to get. You are correct that Witnesses generally decline debates. Should I debate on your podcast, with all your chums cheering when you land a punch & wincing into damage control when I land one, while my chums don't go in for that sort of thing in the first place? I don't think so.

"The GB does not 'tell' people to shun family members. Instead, it says that if one has triggered what would cause disfellowshipping, there is no reason to say that because he or she is family, matters are necessarily different. Members apply that counsel as they see fit, but whatever they do, they do not have the sense that someone is telling, much less ordering them, to do so—only that someone alerted them long ago to relevant Bible passages on the subject, after which the Bible passages themselves guide them in what to do, as they consider whatever mitigating circumstances there are in their own family, often finding none, but not inevitably so.

"The idea that Witnesses can turn off love for a family member is incorrect (given that there are variations in families). A separation causes deep pain in those remaining 'faithful.' It is not just the departing one who suffers. However, they tell themselves that the family member did bring it on him or herself, that Jesus said his words could cause division in the family, and should that happen, loyalty to God trumps that for even family members. The door that was closed as a last-ditch attempt at discipline was never locked and it is always possible to return.

"It is the notion of Christianity as a movement separate from the world, trying to serve as a beacon to it, pointing to something better, that is under attack, especially when people have gone atheist, all the rage today and a marked divergence from all previous history. The concept of 'separateness' from the greater world inevitably brings about situations such as the topic of this thread, yet it is a concept integral to Christianity. It is only by staying 'clean' that Christians feel able to lend a helping hand to others. I understand that may come across as self-righteous, but it is not meant that way. Members freely confess that they botch up all the time, but that to the extent they are able to adhere to God's standards, their lives improve, and their abilities to help others."

[I apologized subsequently for saying: "Many participants here are thinking people," which implies that many are not.]

[One participant got ahold of a private elders' book and waved it as though it was the smoking gun. In fact, it undermined his argument that at the drop of a pin members are dealt with harshly.]

"Though the discipline of the congregation is admittedly rough on those who will not be guided by it (like Saul 'kicking at the goads') ones here expand it to make it seem much harsher than it is. Yet when Maxwell actually quotes an elder's handbook, (presumably giving it his best shot) he reveals something much less harsh than what he represents it as. Elders "counsel and reason," not exactly the same as "ordering." In the event that a congregation member does not respond to counsel, he is not thrown on the spit, but he "would not qualify for congregation privileges." Is that not a big 'Duh'? If you want to enjoy privileges anywhere, you must toe the line more than if you do not reach out for such privileges. "He would not be dealt with judicially" unless there is "persistent" [not occasional] "spiritual association" [not nuts-and-bolts association] or he "openly" criticizes the disfellowshipping decision, thus undermining the method of governance that he signed on for in the first place.

"So it is not so harsh as portrayed. Moreover, it can be avoided, and once incurred, it can be repaired. The 'crime,' then, is the congregation's desire to fulfill the Christian mandate of staying 'separate from the world,' the only position from which it feels able to render assistance to those who feel crushed under the latter's weight. The book _Secular Faith_ – _How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics_ attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations of decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. The congregation thinks it important to stick to the values that they deliberately selected, and they knew from the start that God does not work through democracy. In order to preserve this unchanging model, it is necessary to have practices such as under discussion here, which can be tweaked some, as has happened per previous comment, but cannot be abandoned. No one has been able to 'hold the line' through decades of time without them.

"Nemo writes that he disapproves of Witnesses being arrested and jailed in Russia. I have no doubt that he means it. However, he disapproves in the same sense that the arsonist in California disapproves of the state burning to the ground, a consequence he had not intended. One of the driving forces of the ban in that country is one Alexander Dvorkin, who pushes the same 'anti-cult' narrative Nemo endorses. He pushes it on many groups, not just Jehovah's Witnesses, though they have been his prime target. He wants to 'protect' people by preventing them from hearing ideas that he thinks are 'socially destructive,' a goal not unlike some of the goals expressed here. The only difference is that he has seen it more fully accomplished.

"Acting on his prodding sends a clear 'open hunting season' on religious minorities. Various human-rights and law experts convened in France in January 2018, where one of them observed of Mr. Dvorkin: He 'enjoys disseminating inflammatory narratives and hate speech.' The reason that Russian Jehovah's Witnesses have not caved under his mischief (which is added to nationalistic and dominant Church pressures) is that they do not see themselves as followers of 'eight men,' the meme relentlessly pushed here, but of the Bible. Acquiescing to the authority of the eight men taking the lead is little more than acquiescing to the authority of the teacher, boss, military leader, coach, parent, or consulted advisor, something that was once routine and unremarkable but is now portrayed as selling out one's soul."

[A journalist had ambushed one of the Governing Body, who took cover, and I addressed that]

"When a person is unexpectedly accosted by a reporter wanting an answer to something that will take more than a sound bite for reply, everyone knows it is a cheap shot. That is not to say they do not cheer if it is an enemy, but they nonetheless know. People are not AI machines. His mind is a million miles away. Still, his discomfiture is inevitably and dishonestly painted as 'proof' that he is a flat-out liar. That is why respected sources content themselves with: 'So and so was contacted but declined to comment for this article.'"

I don't know if it was a good idea or not. Like Howard Beale, I just got "mad as hell and couldn't take it anymore." After every comment there came a torrent of abuse. I changed no one's mind and was routinely called a hypocrite, sometimes an a*****e. You have to expect this going in and you cannot take such things to heart. You certainly cannot get into tit for tat, nor should you be so dumb as to say someone does not correctly perceive his or her own experience. How would you know? It is the constant with all anecdotal evidence, which may (not likely) be understated, may be (more likely) overstated, or may occasionally even be made up. You have no way of knowing, so you ought not touch it. You have to realize going in that you will lose.

My engagement was all on account of the journalists, and maybe I just fool myself as to how many hang out there. Who can say? At each comment I was reminded that I am "ordered" not to engage and "not allowed" to be there. It turns out that I truly was "not allowed," but it was not by my own people. It was by the web host himself after I pasted his ears back a little. Thereafter, do you think he would correct the impression his own readers had that Witness HQ had "ordered" me to cease and desist? "Tell them it was you" I told Nemo. But he said that he didn't owe me a thing. He likes softballs that he can swat out of the park.

[Someone brought up homosexuality. It is the common view today that if you do not accept another person's tenets, you must "hate" that person, and I sought to counter that. Every comment was to counter something and to present a side not otherwise seen:]

Tom: "One can sympathize here [with the plight of gay people who were once members]. I don't know the answer. JWs do not 'go after' gays as do many churches. The 2018 Regional Convention devoted about 2 minutes to homosexuality in a video (which nonetheless created an uproar) in a program lasting three days. Okay? They don't crusade. And they certainly don't do what evangelicals do to maneuver politicians into passing laws forcing gays to live as they do. Nor do they go in for simple-minded and abusive practices as 'conversion therapy.'

"The meme 'born that way' becomes the dominant meme by endless repetition. However, the Wt has acknowledged that genetics might play a role. Alternatively, it might be environment, psych endorsement, discredited Freud-type ideas (discredited mostly because they are unpopular) universal gender-bending hormones/plastics in common use, even epigenetics. Who knows? One thing for sure: sexuality has proven far more fluid than anyone of my day would have thought possible.

"The GB likely feels that they have no choice, given what the Bible, their guide to life, tells them. They take it as wisdom from God, who knows us better than we do ourselves. Gays within our ranks do not swim against the current, nor into it, both recipes for disaster. They are prepared to swim parallel to the shore, likely for a long time, in hopes that their orientation will eventually realign. One could argue that their faith is stronger than that of most Christians in that they stick to what they believe is right despite the very real testimony of their own bodies. It hardly seems fair, does it? It is why I have the greatest respect for such ones, who will mostly remain anonymous, and ZERO respect for the frothing church types who rail against gays, as they are demanding the latter lift a load the comparison of which they themselves would not be willing to budge with their little finger."

[In response to someone who said he thought the organization's days were numbered:]

"Time will tell. The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses have succeeded in doing what Witnesses could never have succeeded in doing alone: putting the Cause before the world. Russia persecution triggers international sympathy. disfellowshipping and child abuse cover-up allegations trigger international frowning. Both are diluted by the fact that there are endless atrocities today to compete for people's limited attention.

"Cover-up allegations and shunning complaints are bad. Invariably they are exaggerated, such as people are wont to do, but they are seldom manufactured. Countering the bad press will be the good things that Jehovah's Witnesses have to offer, things that are never alluded to here.

"A recent development of the Witness organization is self-guided, online Bible study lessons at their website, addressing such age-old questions as 'Why does God permit suffering?' 'What happens when we die?' and 'Is there realistic hope for the future?' People want such answers. Nemo says (pityingly) in a video that Witnesses 'crave certainty.' Isn't that a big 'Duh'? Anyone here enjoy playing Russian Roulette with their finances or health? The more certainty we can lay hold of the better.

"Bible answers are Jehovah's Witnesses' strong suit. Christians are directed in the Bible to stay separate from the greater world as they offer it a helping hand. Anything with an upside will have a downside. The downside zeroed in on exclusively on this forum is real, but it does not negate the upside. Therefore, it depends upon where is your focus. 'Bible education' is the overall goal of the Witness organization, as is 'preaching the good news.' As the online study sessions demonstrate (with but slight exaggeration) if push comes to shove, the essential components of the Witnesses' work can be run out a server in someone's dorm room.

"Meanwhile, going atheist holds some attraction, mostly escaping anyone who would tell you what to do, as though one does not simply put themselves under the 'control' of other deep-pocketed parties telling you what to do, be it Trump, Soros, the Russians, Big Defense, Big Pharma, pro or anti climate change, with the enormous economic and lifestyle consequences both bring. Atheism will appeal to some, but never all. The year text presumably agreed upon here is: "Sh*t happens. Get used to it. Maybe we can elect the right politicians to fix it." How's that project going, anyway?

"No, that year text will just not cut it for everyone."

Maybe I should have gone on his podcast, but I figured it might be like the time, long ago, when I filled in for a school bus driver in a very rough district, and one of the deboarding students spit on me, and then he and all his chums assembled to invite me on their 'podcast' just outside the bus. I decided to do like Jesus who was not even driving a bus when he was spit upon. 'But they say that he is very nice in person,' his buddies told me. Doubtless he would pour me Kool-Aid with a smile to quench my thirst. I never entertained the idea, though I did stretch it out for a while:

He: "Welcome back Tom. Is your personal allowance for engaging with apostates online still only limited to Twitter, or will you be able to join me for a recorded chat on Skype?' [I had come back. I followed him on Twitter in the first place when I discovered he would reliably inform me of things I might want to address. The moment he became aware of me, he wanted me on his show.]

Tom: "As soon as one agrees to a debate, one agrees to the premise that debate is the best way to illuminate things."

He: "There are lots of ways of illuminating things. Discourse is one way. I had no idea it was a competition."

Tom: "I have written three books. You have written at least one. Let that be your 'discourse' for you."

He: "I think we both know your reason for declining an interview. It ain't your books."

[His chums joined in:]

Chum: "Tom why on earth are you in contact with 'apostates'? Do you think Jah can't read twitter...and therefore judge you for it?"

Another chum: "Seriously Tom, I'd be bricking it in your shoes! There's no allowance for chatting with bad sorts (well, Jesus did it, but let's forget that, and him, eh!)."

[Forgive me if this gets tiresome. Feel free to skip a little, or go right on to the next chapter. A bit later:]

He: "Me waiting for truetom to accept my offer of an on-camera interview to discuss his views as a believing JW who doesn't have a problem engaging with apostates on social media."

He: "BTW Tom, since you're apparently able to bend the rules by interacting with apostates on social media, are you feeling brave enough to go the full nine yards and join me for an on-camera Skype interview? Or does Jehovah's judgment kick in once you appear on camera?"

He: "I'm quite happy to have a civilized discussion in which we agree to disagree. We do have at least some common ground in both opposing Russia's ban of Jehovah's Witnesses."

He: "...you've already rejected the offer citing some bizarre argument about being an author and not the true reason - that your religion prevents you from conversing with apostates."

Tom: "Perhaps I am not a good debater."

He: "It doesn't need to be a debate, just a conversation."

Tom: "Unfortunately, I am not even good at conversation. "But I said: 'Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! I do not know how to speak, for I am just a boy.' (Jeremiah 1:6) That's me."

He: "You're not much good at following the rules of the cult for which you are a cheerleader, either."

Tom: "Many things I am not much good at. More things than not, actually."

He: "There's simple mistakes and then there's straight up hypocrisy. Either it's "Jehovah's organization" or it isn't. If it is, maybe you should do as you're told and get your acre in paradise." [Ouch]

Tom: "You say I violate 'rules' and yet you would have me violate them further by 'conversation'? Ha! You just think you can get me into trouble with my own people so that I will sulk and cross over into the Obi-wan Dark Side."

And now I must face the music from my own side, and there may be some. His continual taunts at being "not allowed" were surely overdone, and it must have made him feel a little silly when I kept coming nonetheless, until he felt compelled to "not allow" me himself. Still, nobody here thinks it is the bee's knees to engage with these characters, and I may hear about it. And they could be right. Maybe I am the yo-yo on the Jerusalem wall singing out just when Hezekiah is telling the troops to zip it. But I just couldn't take it anymore.

The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, 'Don't worry about it,' "wisdom is proved righteous by its works." It is like David, who kept mum as 'all day long they muttered against him.' 'It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.' The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about 'imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.' They don't go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at their website that inform but do not kick back at the critics.

It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about "abhorring child abuse" as "boiler-plate" and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don't. What's a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears.

It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren't many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It's not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I'd give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow's skin, the big baby.

back

# Chapter 4 – The Serena Williams Child Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 1

Few things cause more distress in the world of celebrities than a neglected birthday celebration. Yet Serena Williams presented them exactly that woe with regard to her baby daughter, soon to turn one. "Serena and husband Alexis Ohanian won't be throwing an over-the-top birthday bash for their baby girl...In fact, they won't be throwing a party at all," reported Caitlyn Hitt for the Daily Mail. Why?

Serena says: "We're Jehovah's Witnesses, so we don't do that." She repeats the tack that she took with President Obama, back when she was "excited to see Obama out there doing his thing....[but] I'm a Jehovah's Witness, so I don't get involved in politics. We stay neutral. We don't vote...so I'm not going to necessarily go out and vote for him. I would if it wasn't for my religion.'' Let me tell you that she took heat for it from people immersed in civic affairs, not to mention from those who dislike Witnesses.

Notwithstanding that the support organization of Jehovah's Witnesses encourages congregation members to give reasons for their stands and not just say "I do it because I'm a Jehovah's Witness," there are times when the latter response is exactly the right thing to say. The actual reason takes a while to explain and people don't necessarily want to hear it. You have to know your audience. I have come to like Serena Williams more and more. She doesn't buckle under pressure, mumbling something half apologetic. No. She says: "We don't do that." She reminds me very much of a young Witness named Jackie who was hounded at school for her modest way of dress. She threw it right back at them. "I set the style!" she told the would-be bullies. "If you want to be cool, you dress like me!"

Speaking of modest dress, Serena hasn't exactly done that over the years on the tennis court. Even given that you want freedom of movement in sports, you will hear her criticized for that from time to time, often from people who think they can embarrass Jehovah's Witnesses on that account. Outspokenly she has thanked Jehovah for her tennis victories, yet how does that work with the flag at the Olympics? Jehovah's Witnesses are circumspect about the flag of any nation, declining to salute, not for any reason of protest, but because of the second of the Ten Commandments. And didn't she cuss out that official at a certain match? Ah, well, athletes have been known to do that and people cut them slack. After all, if she was mild-mannered Clark Kent, she would find transition into Superwoman difficult.

So she has sent mixed signals over the years. Why would that be? Ah, here it is in the Caitlyn Hitt article: Last year she told Vogue, "Being a Jehovah's Witness is important to me, but I've never really practiced it and have been wanting to get into it." Okay. She was brought up in the faith and has made part of it her own but not entirely. Apparently, she is not baptized, a big event for Witnesses. Now, with a child, she means to change some things. The birth of a child will frequently trigger a shift in priorities. Likely, she is conscious of a spiritual need not completely attended to in her own case and she does not want the same for her daughter. Since Jehovah's Witnesses call each other brother and sister and I am old enough to be her dad, I tweeted: "Knock it out of the park! You go, my daughter." I'm sure she saw it out of the gazillion tweets she receives each day, many from JW detractors telling her that she is nuts.

Her outspokenness has served her well in another instance. When the man she was dating wished her a Happy Birthday and she responded as she does now for her daughter, the man admired the courage. He "saw this gesture as Serena stepping outside her comfort zone for him and decided immediately that he wanted to marry her."

It only gets more interesting. He is Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian. He is not a Jehovah's Witness and was not raised with any religion at all but is reportedly okay with Serena's faith. Now, it turns out that Reddit is a huge online discussion forum in which topics are hosted for everything under the sun. One of those groups, with thousands of participants, is dedicated to bringing down the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. When the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter wrote four incendiary articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, he used this group as his source of information and between articles he checked in with them, as though Trump playing to his base.

It therefore reminds—I mean, it is not a type/antitype kind of thing—but it sure does remind one of Jewish Queen Esther of long ago, married to the wealthy Persian King who had been maneuvered by enemies into decreeing that her people be destroyed. The sentence surely would have been carried out but for Esther's (putting her life at risk to do it) bold intervention. Yeah, why don't you go in there to Mr. Ohanian, you Reddit Witness haters, and tell him that his wife is crazy? That sounds like a brilliant plan to me. Tell him that the reporter from the Philly paper is on your side. Just make sure that you read up on Haman before you do it.

Look, it is not parallel in all respects. Nobody is literally threatening to kill anyone, but they are threatening to kill the Christian organization that supports and coordinates the worldwide work that Jehovah's Witnesses carry out, just as like-minded Witness haters are now doing in Russia. Moreover, Mr. Ohanian cannot be expected to pull the group's Reddit credentials; he runs a website dedicated to free speech. There is also a pro-JW group on the site, as well as a squirrelly in-between one, seemingly supportive of Witness teachings but unsupportive of the human leadership. Such will always be the sticking point in the divine/human interface.

back

# Chapter 5 – Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 2

No sooner did I liken Serena Williams to Queen Esther for her possible future role of exposing the evildoers, then someone said: "Um, she's not exactly Queen Esther, you know. Didn't she appear bare-naked, unmarried, and pregnant on that Vanity Fair cover? And you know that birth is not like the one of Mary."

Well, I actually hadn't thought of that, if I ever even knew it in the first place. Still, it changes nothing. She openly acknowledges that she likes the faith but has not practiced it. Now she means to. Is it a bad thing that she has, in the past, called herself a Jehovah's Witness?

I think not. People love celebrities and will usually concede that they live in a world of their own, facing unique pressures. For better or for worse, nobody makes a big deal of sex before marriage anymore. I don't even think the news writer of the article that her child won't do birthdays thought to mention it, or maybe she did and it didn't register with me. That people do not make a big deal of it is 'for worse,' usually, because the Word says that they should, but in this case, it is 'for better.'

Totally without evidence, based only upon a feel for the way people are, I think that many of her most vocal critics on this front are ones who dislike Jehovah's Witnesses, who spot the disparity of past conduct and want to slam us with it. Few others care.

Has she lived up to the faith in the past? She says very openly that she has not. Now she reaches a point where she says she will. I think it is a very good thing. Okay, okay, so she is no Queen Esther. Queen Esther did not play tennis. Call Serena the Samaritan woman by the well if you like, a woman who also fell short of the mark, yet became a powerful witness for the Lord.

Do we have a woman who is a mixed bag, having done things both fine and unfine, and who now wants to make them all fine? I'll take it every time. It is in the spirit of Jesus, I think, who came to save persons ill who had become aware of their spiritual need. She will straighten out all those things before baptism, of course, should she continue on the path she now says she wants to pursue more single-mindedly. Love hopes all things and believes all things. Sometimes it is shown up as wrong in a given case. But it keeps on hoping and believing.

Moreover, to go back to the point of a prior chapter, this Reddit group has done Witnesses huge mischief. The Philly reporter used it as his source to write four incendiary anti-JW articles in a row to damn them in a seeming scandal, omitting the context that illuminates it.

This group is trying with all its might to equate Jehovah's Witnesses with the sins of the Catholic church. It is a stretch, because abusers in the Church are clergy. Even after making adjustments for size, if you want to get the same 'catch' among Jehovah's Witnesses, you must broaden your net to include, not just 'clergy,' but everybody. That doesn't mean that some are not diligently trying to do it, as they strive to equate some non-reporting to authorities in previous years to being actual perpetrators of child abuse. They are up to no good, and the alleged sin in such cases is generally "failing to go beyond the law" in reporting such cases to police. I continually make the point that if it is so crucial to 'go beyond the law' then that should become the law—the same point that Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Witnesses' Governing Body, made to a recent inquiry.

If Serena was to prompt her husband, the Reddit founder, to weigh in on that group in our favor and expose them for what they are—renegades from religion who longed for greater immediate freedom with lesser immediate consequences and who nurse no end of complaints, most quite petty, but some with substance—she would be forgiven 'a multitude of sins,' even if she never did manage to get it all together in her own life as she seems to want to do. In fact, in the event of that outcome, and to bring matters full circle, that would be an example of something else Mordecai said to his niece. If salvation does not come through spotless Esther, it will come through some other source. Either way, I'll take it, say 'Thank you' to the Lord, and look around for more ammunition.

back

# Chapter 6 – Doesn't Do Birthdays, Part 3

No sooner did Serena Williams make herself a minor figure of controversy through a birthday brouhaha than she made herself a major one through cussing out another judge at the 2018 U.S. Open, which cost her the match—and for her converting a physical loss into a moral win. It depends upon who you talk to. If you disliked her before, you will dislike her more. If you liked her before you will like her more. I'll take the latter.

The U.S. Open chair referee penalized her three times, only the second of which was without controversy. When you're hot, you're hot, and she blew up at him. Not at first she didn't, when she said: "We don't have any code and I know you don't know that and I understand why you may have thought that was coaching [on the part of her coach allegedly sending an illegal signal] but I'm telling you it's not. I don't cheat to win, I'd rather lose. I'm just letting you know." Her coach said later that he had indeed done the deed, but that it happens all the time, and he does it less than most. It was a point on which sportswriters agreed.

If she didn't blast the referee then, she sure did blast him after missing a shot and mashing her racket (which also is common): "You owe me an apology!" she shouted. "I have never cheated in my life, I have a daughter and I stand for what's right for her!" See what motivates her these days? See what she had been stewing about, that perhaps caused her to botch the serve? It is her daughter and the example she sets for her—the same daughter that does not do birthdays.

She went on to call the referee a "thief" for taking away the point that presaged her meltdown, and that accusation also counted against her. Some observed that men retort "F**k you!" to the umpire all the time without consequence, so many agreed with her heated contention that she had indeed caught extra flak on account of being a woman.

With Serena forfeiting multiple points, her opponent, Naomi Osaka, won the match, but everyone booed at how it had transpired. As soon as Serena noticed her upset and tears, she ran and embraced her and told the crowd not to boo, even through her own tears: "I don't want to be rude. I don't want to interrupt and I don't want to do questions. I just want to tell you guys she played well and this is her first grand slam," at which point everyone cheered.

It is so like the Bible admonition to "keep an eye, not on your own interests, but on those of the other person's" that one wonders if she did not absorb it from her Witness upbringing. Or maybe it is just her and has nothing to do with the Bible. Either way, it means she will make a fine Witness someday should she get everything together. She enjoys a high reputation. Sportswriter Jeff Eisenband tweeted "...people who hate on Serena Williams' 'character' obviously don't follower her off the court. She's a competitor between the lines, but a role model off the court as a person and a celebrity."

Immediately after Serena shot into ex-JW attention through the birthday announcement regarding her daughter, they were on the story, smelling opportunity. What if they could get her to say: "I've looked at this more closely and now I denounce Jehovah's Witnesses! They won't let women be elders! In this day and age!" Let me tell you some of these characters sent themselves into orbit, as they pressed her on whether Witness "misogyny" really squared with the good works she did off the court. They pressed her on the sacrifices Witnesses make with regard to their religion, and about how they are less almost anywhere else.

Honestly, how people can be so obtuse? She believes in God. Most of those on the Reddit forum do not. She is not going to be knocked off her feet as they blow out of proportion negatives, losing sight completely of the positives. And they think that she is going to cry about sacrifice? She is the least likely to cry about that. She is among the star athletes of our time and she well knows that nothing worthwhile comes without hard work. "Exert yourself vigorously to get in through the narrow gate," Jesus advises. She will be the last one to wail that it should be as broad as a barn door so as to make it easy.

One can never say with any given individual, but even if they should get her going with their complaints, she will likely say that congregation justice may not be perfect, but it sure is head and shoulders over the justice of the outside world. It is a lawyer's playground out there, with massive transfers of funds in all directions for every conceivable wrong, with barristers the only consistent beneficiaries. Some congregation members, even ones who have been wronged, will prefer to put their trust in 1 Timothy: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." It's not perfect. But it beats the greater world's justice which so frequently falls down of the job.

One can even picture Serena retiring at this point. Not that I would will it, necessarily, but it could happen. She is now a mom with suddenly another life to care for, a common turning point in a woman's life. There are things about Jehovah's Witnesses and pro sports that are not entirely compatible, such as providing temptation to blow one's top at the misogynistic referee. The two courses are not absolutely incompatible, but they do pose a challenge.

back

# Chapter 7 – Did the Watchtower Give Women Bad Advice?

It is ever the pitfall of zealots that they are so eager to prove a point that, in their haste, they will grab something that proves just the opposite, yet continue to gloat as though have found the smoking gun. Such was the case when advocates at an atheist website tore their hair out over "some truly horrific advice to women in abusive relationships" from the December 2018 Watchtower magazine: they were to remain in them no matter what!

Well, that does sound truly horrific, and there were many who immediately condemned the scoundrels who would give such a vile command. Others went to the article first, where they discovered that it said nothing of the sort.

Isn't this just Witness opponents depriving women of the right to choose? It is ironic because they generally claim to be champions of that right. The article makes clear that a woman always has a choice, that she need not be railroaded into an action just because it is societally popular.

Some leave amidst very trying circumstances. Some stay. Either action works from the congregation's point of view. They have the right to choose. How is that the Watchtower urging them to stay with an abusive mate no matter what, the accusation of the opponents? If a woman wants to try to salvage a marriage, what business is that of theirs? It may be an unwise decision or it may be the best decision she ever made, but either way, it is her decision.

Given the staggering cost of family breakup—emotional, mental, financial, and long-lasting damage to the children, if a woman decides to stick it out more than opponents approve, with a view towards salvage, who is to say that she is crazy? Possibly reading this chapter are veterans of two, three, four, or more failed relationships who wish they had put more effort into a given one. If she pulls it off, she has gained something very good.

These are not short-term hook-ups that we are speaking of, latching on to some loser that you cut loose as soon as you see what he is. These are marriages of years or decades' duration. In some cases, they never used to be abusive, but they have become so due to who knows what factors? Dignify the woman as having the judgment to decide, based upon history, pressures affecting her man, and factors only she might know, as to whether he should be jettisoned or not. If the lout has to go, he goes. Just don't let some third party push you into it. The choice is always hers.

It is as though the grumblers cheer at the breakup of a marriage, oblivious to the damage left in its wake. It is as though they would prevent a woman from trying to repair hers. Let her try if she wants to, or even put up with one far from ideal, if that be her choice. Sometimes when you are between a rock and a hard place, you don't assume or let the opponents tell you that the hard place is really a bed of roses. It isn't always that way. I mean, it is not exactly as though they will be around to repair the damage, is it?

Granted, they like marriage over there in the Jehovah's Witness world. Until fairly recently, everybody did, and considered family the foundation of society. Witnesses consider it a divine institution. That doesn't mean others have to, but surely it means Witness women should be allowed to. They let their view be bound by biblical injunctions. Adultery is the one acceptable ground for ending a marriage, but even then, it does not necessitate it; it is always possible for the innocent mate to exercise his or her right of choice and forgiveness.

Several decades ago the Witness organization took note, as did most of society, of the increasingly visible ne'er-do-wells who, while they might not be unfaithful, were nonetheless impossible to live with. It took another look at 1 Corinthians 7, a chapter that deals with marital matters—sometimes people are surprised at how it says a husband and wife both owe each other sex (no, not "on demand" – don't even go there) and should not be depriving each other of it. Specifically, it looked at verses 12 and 13: "If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband." "Maybe a marriage mate's conduct says he is 'not agreeable,' regardless of what his words say," they reasoned.

For some time, therefore, the guidance for women (or men) in not-so-hot marriages is that there are three conditions that any one of which might justify separation: if there is extreme physical abuse, if there is willful non-support, or if there is absolute endangerment of spirituality. It is at once apparent that much in is the eye of the beholder, so from time to time Watchtower publications revisit the subject, so that congregation members are guided by what they signed on for in the first place and not unduly influenced by what is all the rage elsewhere. If the bad egg must be fried, let him fry. A woman always has that right. But she needn't feel railroaded into that choice by a flood of outside pressure.

Any Witness woman knows this, because she has read and considered the entire article, not just a cherry-picked paragraph, and she has taken into account how it fits into her overall framework of knowledge. You almost begin to think that what causes the steam to emit from the ears of opponents is another possible benefit of the woman's forsaking her right to leave: maybe the 'unbelieving' husband will become a believing one. How is that a bad thing? If the guy makes it as a Jehovah's Witness, he will have made significant inroads against what makes him such a loser in the first place.

back

# Chapter 8 – About Women, Part 1

Daily my adversary hammers at the door of women's rights groups, hoping that they will cooperate with him in his efforts to make trouble for his former religion. He calls it a vigil, tweeting every 24 hours that yet one more day has passed since The Watchtower (December 2018) published advice harmful to women's interests. This strikes me as an extraordinarily disrespectful thing to do: to bludgeon them each day, as though he understands their cause better than they. If they don't take the bait, they don't take it.

Lately he modifies his approach and says that he "respectfully asks" that they give attention to his beef. He changes tactics because so many of his own people began to accuse him of "man-bashing" that he took to blocking them. When I read he was doing that, I thought it was because of me. However, I had been behaving myself lately, so I returned to investigate, and I saw that it was some of his own people kicking back.

I think it will turn out as when the ever-capable female British intelligence officer commented to Foyle, of the television show Foyle's War, about the full-of-himself male officer that she, for the time-being, had to play second fiddle to: that he was overconfident and not really too smart. He would overreach and fall of his own weight. She had seen it before. Am I not at least as much in tune with women's interests as is my adversary? Have I not several times written: "The question to ask in any discipline is not: 'Can women do it better than men?' It is 'How can they do it worse?'"

It is a single paragraph that he takes issue with, a paragraph that deals with women finding themselves in abusive relationships. As he puts it: "In a section discussing marriages between Witness women and 'unbelieving' husbands, the magazine urges the women not to get a divorce under any circumstances partly because they could influence their husbands to convert. Apparently, that possibility is supposed to carry them through any and all problems in the relationship, including physical abuse." The reason he uses the word "apparently" is that the article does not say what he wants it to. With an 'apparently,' all things are possible. He is "obviously appalled" at his own interpretation of the Watchtower article and hopes the women's rights groups will be, too.

If the background facts were as he represents, one might concede that he has a point. But the background facts have been misrepresented in almost every case. I wrote up a reply and also sent it to these groups, though not every day. Even Jehovah's Witnesses do not call _every single day_. The jury is still out as to which version they will prefer. Possibly they will say, "If we never hear again from either one of these two clowns, it will be not soon enough." We may never know. After 52 days of pummeling, he discontinued.

The Bible that he now derides shows unusual respect for women, relative to its time of writing. Two examples follow. Both involve Jesus's relationships with women. In themselves they are not decisive; one could easily say that they do not go far enough. However, in the context of the times, they are monumental. The Lord did not stamp out every injustice he encountered during his brief time on earth. Little would remain if he had. He mostly worked within the existing world as the laid down principles that would facilitate a better reality to come.

The Samaritan "woman at the well" that Jesus spoke with was the first person to which he entrusted directly the news that he was God's chosen Messiah. Even his disciples had to jump through hoops to gather that bit of intelligence. From a Christian's point of view, it the most significant announcement of all time. He told it to a woman (John 4:26). Moreover, she was not a woman with society's stamp of approval. She was a woman who was "living in sin." Woman's groups today may disagree with definitions and values of that time, but they will nonetheless accede that Jesus first gave the most important news of all to a woman of "ill repute" but underlying fine heart that only he could detect.

The second example is found with the angel that announces Jesus's resurrection. Who does he entrust this second most important announcement of all time to? Again, it is a woman. (Luke 24:4-11) At the time, the testimony of a woman was considered worthless in that male-dominated Greek, Roman, and yes, even Jewish world. Didn't the angel show contempt for that male-dominated society by completely skirting it? Even Jesus's disciples, immersed in that culture, did not believe the women. That was of no consequence to the angel; they'd figure it out in time, the big dopes.

Update to the present. The intent of detractors today is to paint Jehovah's Witnesses as obsessed with the "submission" women are supposed to show to men. To the extent the religion, or the Bible, speaks of submission, it is essentially to acknowledge that in any ship, there is a captain. In the Christian model, God has assigned roles as best suited for the stability of the family, which for the most part, means the stability of the human race. There is no tolerance made for abuse. That is not to say that abuse has not occurred, but it occurs no less in places wanting nothing to do with Bible principles. Unless I am very mistaken, Harvey Weinstein did not go door-to-door telling people about "God's magnificent purposes."

It is a spiritual or family-based arrangement only. More women than not in the women's groups mentioned will say that it is antiquated and that they have moved on from it for the best. Point taken. Let it be said, however, that in Watchtower facilities it is an absolutely unremarkable fact of life that women will exercise authority over men in any area where one may have better aptitude, for example, in design, computers, medicine, and law. If the men working under them 'cop an attitude' (which has happened) they will hear about it. Men are ever inclined anywhere to parlay their usually superior physical strength into attempted domination. Watchtower headquarters will not let them get away with it. Detractors will catch wind of a woman working in the furtherance of JW purposes, maybe law, and carry on about how she can endure in the midst of domineering men. She doesn't have to. They submit to her in these pragmatic areas where competence is all that counts, and "submission" is completely irrelevant, being merely a spiritual or family matter of organization.

Women are not seething with discontent over there in Witness-land, as their enemies seek to portray them. Neither are there weak women whom tyrant men play like a fiddle. Of course, there are some weak women, but there are also weak men. On balance, they are about equal in numbers.

back

# Chapter 9 – About Women, Part 2

When I used the capable female British Intelligence officer's prediction to Chief Inspector Foyle that her swaggering male superior would overreach and fall of his own volition as a prediction that my enemy would do likewise, I missed the most important question from the standpoint of women's groups, and everybody knows that I missed it. It is: Why did she have to play second fiddle to him if she was so capable and he was so inept? Why didn't he have to play second fiddle to her? Why indeed? We both know the answer. She was consigned to play second fiddle because she was a woman.

Back in the days when all were more given to modesty, often was heard the expression: "Behind every great man, there is a great woman." Women's groups will second this motion in a heartbeat, but they will also add to it. If she was so great, then why wasn't she out in the forefront and the overrated bozo back home scrubbing the bathtub?

The one individual who probably did our family the kindest turn of all was a woman who co-owned a dental lab. My teenage daughter suffered a snowboarding accident that broke off half her front teeth—there they were embedded in the snowboard. This followed on the heels of my son's accident and led me to vow to my wife that we should produce another child for spare parts. It also caught us at a time of financial embarrassment, and this businesswoman, a family friend who had taken a liking to my daughter, said she would make her dental replacements at no cost. She did so, and she worked as closely with our family dentist as he would allow. "It is important to install them in such and such a way," she urged him, "so that there will not be a barely perceptible line of discoloration at the baseline." Alas, it turned out as she feared. "I'm not going to let any technician tell me how to operate!" he exploded, and now my daughter has a barely perceptible line of discoloration at the baseline. "I worked so hard not to offend the little man," she told me later.

Women, no matter how capable, had long had it rough in society. They have long had to put up with a lot. They are at last erupting, as the MeToo movement makes clear. The first female executive in the music recording business, Dorothy Carvello, recently wrote of her early days at Atlantic Records. As a new employee, ages ago, "one executive walked past my office every day and said, 'Blow me.' I hadn't even met him.... [Another] grabbed my ass constantly. I hated it." She put up with it though. She needed the job and she loved hobnobbing with celebrity clients. She credits the Catholic nuns from high school days with teaching her to hold her own and conduct herself with dignity under the circumstances, as she writes of 25 years in a "circus mixed with an orgy." "I once went to a lawyer, who advised me that if I sued for harassment, I'd lose my job. Worse than that, I knew I'd be blackballed from the entire business," so she never did sue for harassment and only wrote her account in 2018.

When the greater world at last wakes up to a problem, as it has with sexual harassment, it overswings. Sexual liaisons, involving various degrees of coercion and sobriety, are reinterpreted as rape. Harassment, and what was once called "getting fresh," are equated with rape. Complementing a woman's appearance is even interpreted as harassment by some. How will it resolve? It is too soon to tell. Suffice it to say that the Witness environment is one of the few environments on earth where men can be expected to behave. They will hear about it if they don't. It is a result of their education at the Kingdom Hall. The occasional miscreant can expect serious chastisement.

That said, do Jehovah's Witnesses help women to advance in their careers? It is a question not especially relevant. The women of Jehovah's Witnesses are seldom career-oriented, but that is also true of the men. Both are far more likely to have a job, and not a career. Both feel that their overall career is their service to God. It is an odd view, by today's standards, but hardly a destructive one.

An activist group becomes aware of an injustice and throws all its weight into correcting it. It grabs the wheel and jerks it around sharply. Those braced beforehand do fine. Nearly everyone else is swept off their feet. "How many women head departments over there in JW headquarters?" one detractor taunted me. Look, they are not activists over there, but they do try to keep up. I cited a few female attorneys, with the observation that those under them had better behave. Woe to any brother who tries to pull rank based upon gender; he will promptly be set straight from on high.

I know one of these female attorneys. On a forum devoted to complaining, some were carrying on about how women lawyers at Watchtower must suffer almost impossibly, ever having to kowtow to their male superiors. However, one of them recalled a woman named Jane from his Bethel days, and threw in his two cents that it could not have been that way with her—"she would not put up with that nonsense for one second." "So he _does_ know Jane," I smiled to myself.

Jane showed up for her shepherding call long ago and she intimidated me. I recovered, of course, but I recall the feeling. She didn't do it knowingly, I am sure. But—it has only happened three or four times in my life—sometimes you run across someone who is so stunningly capable that, well—it takes one's breath away. The idea at the time was that everyone should receive a shepherding call, not just the ones who "needed" one. That way nobody would think they were in for corrective counsel should elders approach them. Share a few scriptures of mutual encouragement, and so forth—that was the intent.

As congregation secretary, I later drafted Jane's letter of introduction to Bethel after she had applied. It was unusual for a single sister to apply for Bethel service at the time, where the work focused on heavy machine operation and farming. But they were getting away from that in the then-new age of computers. I felt the need to address undercurrents that I knew existed among some brothers to the effect that Jane (not her real name of course) had made progress in "working under the oversight of brothers less capable than she," or something to that effect. I was annoyed to think it advisable to insert that, but I did so, nonetheless. Was it necessary? I'll never know. The circuit overseer, before he ever had met me or read my letter, pointed out that capable single sisters are always a gain at Bethel, so perhaps it was not.

She is a gifted woman, not merely a capable one. And she will not like the attention, probably. Of course, there are weak women within the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses, too, but no more so than there are weak men, and no more so than there are plenty of both in general society. If she was ever discontent over any male bias within the Christian society, she never gave any sign of it, but then, I might not be the one to know. When she visited our home for a gathering of friends, she said: "If I'm invited to the Harley home, I know it's going to be a spiritually good time," probably using words not quite so pious. Though no one in her family was a slouch, it was probably her influence that propelled the family business to a million-dollar concern at a time that such status was rare among work-a-day Jehovah's Witnesses.

They are not activists at Bethel headquarters, but they do, hopefully, skim the residual benefits from any reform movement. With regards to woman's rights, they have let themselves be corrected whenever discovering that a prior practice was, not primarily biblical, as they may have thought at one time, but more cultural in origin. They don't put themselves on the cutting edge of culture, but neither do they wish to be on the trailing edge, unless there is good scriptural reason to be.

back

# Chapter 10 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 1

Zealots find it irresistible to expand negative terminology so that it will embrace those that they would like to see shamed, discredited, or punished. Often this makes the terminology all but meaningless. For example, the Economist of August 2009 observes that the current child sex abuser registries are so long as to be absolutely useless to law enforcement. They include teenagers who had sex with underage girlfriends. They include persons who urinated in public. They include those who exposed themselves in public. None of those things are great, of course, but if you include them all on a master list with violent predators, you make it all but impossible to track the violent predators, which is the purpose of the list to begin with. Adding various levels of severity does not remedy things: people are preoccupied, sometimes obtuse, and can only work with uncluttered tools.

It is much the same with the word "cult." Time was when if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and did peculiar things, you just might be a member of a cult. These days the word is expanded so as to embrace peoples not popular. Just thinking outside of the box is enough to trigger it.

One whom we have called Steve, who goes by the Twitter handle "cultexpert," has developed what he calls the BITE model to describe the ingredients of a cult. Long ago, he used to kidnap those he thought were in cults so as to "deprogram" them. He was himself at one time a member of the Unification Church, commonly known as Moonies. BITE is a model outlining the means by which one party can "control" another though various techniques, some direct and some subtle. Each letter stands for something. There is Behavioral control, Information control, Thought control, and Emotional control. It is not a silly idea in its concept. It is silly in its overreaching application.

Most families are cults by this new definition, especially those conscious of a family reputation, and God forbid that any should still insist that members live up to a higher standard. "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump off, too?" It was once the statement of everyone's mother. Now it has become the words of a cult leader. "What's wrong with 'everyone else?' Why are you making out as though you are better than they?" And if a family head maintains standards of discipline—that would appear to be a sure red flag. Who is he or she to seek to control persons that way?

Nations are certainly cults by this new definition. Any military organization is. National sacrifice, long thought laudable, is out of the question today by those intent on avoiding the modern cult label. "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," are the noble words of former U. S. President John F Kennedy. They are the words of a cult leader today.

One tweet from the BITE-man invited all to hear his upcoming podcast, in which he tells how President Trump is like a cult leader. When you think half the country has fallen victim to cult manipulation, is it not evidence that you have drunk too much of the Kool-Aid yourself?

One wonders if the cult expert did not become what he is as penance for having been so impulsive as to join the Moonies. Later, realizing that there really aren't enough Moonies to build a career upon, he broadened his sites to target larger groups. However, even with Moonies—are they violent? If not, why would they especially compare unfavorably to—say, the "turn on, tune in, drop out" model of the 60s? That model has never been condemned, to my knowledge. Usually the young who chose it were romanticized as dropouts from a too cruel world. It is only by adding a God component to the mix that condemnation is unleashed.

Can one live a fulfilled life as a Moonie? Let others make that argument if they care to—it's not my gig. Still, before condemning them it does seem that it should be demonstrated how sticking with the mainstream leads to fulfillment. If it cannot be demonstrated, then is it not just thought control of a different type to forbid persons from going where they will? If the greater world was not so bereft of answers to the significant questions of life, the Moonies, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Scientologists, and a host of others would not succeed in drawing a single person. Let it produce a few answers before it forbids straying from the beaten path.

These days, under common assault, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" meme even kicks in to an extent. Legal members of these groups have been known to buttress one another. One Witness apostate made much of a well-known Watchtower attorney sitting in at a seminar with Scientologist participants. "I thought they were no part of other religions," he taunted. "Don't worry, he keyed their cars in the parking lot," I told him.

We can maintain a healthy skepticism toward the latest mantra as well—"that clean, articulate, capable people fall for these cults all the time. They aren't stupid. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time." One way to boast is to condemn others; the same relative distance is established as with unrestrained chest-thumping. This smells akin to boasting. It is a way of saving face. It is to say: "Look, if it happened to me, smart as I am, it could easily have happened to you—probably much more quickly."

As to Scientologists, the only thing I know about them for sure is that Tom Cruise, in his fifties, still does his own stunt work. BITE Productions Inc. would no doubt hire a nice, safe, and fake stunt double. By all accounts, Scientologists enjoy success in beating back the scourge of drug abuse that decimates general society, the same as do Jehovah's Witnesses. That's not trivial. They, too, will have to make their own arguments. But with Jehovah's Witnesses being slaughtered in an irreligious media, there is no reason to assume that Scientologists are treated fairly—nor Moonies, for that matter.

Make no mistake, the overextension of the BITE model is no more than an effort to silence voices not liked so that other voices may prevail. One is reminded of the H. G. Wells observation about the quick popular acceptance of the theory of evolution—that it suddenly "seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue." Who are the big dogs of the human pack? Are they not those of the mainstream and those who would enforce the mainstream under the guise of "protecting people?" They are the deep-pocketed businesses and governments. They are those of the prevailing philosophies and norms that comprise the very air of Ephesians 2:2—air that "has authority." It is not thought control that they object to. It is thought control that is not theirs.

Do they decry "brainwashing?" It is largely because they want to do it themselves. College is more brainwashing than anything having a Jehovah's Witness connection. Study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses and you remain 95% of the time in familiar surroundings. Enroll in college and you are, from Day One, cut off nearly 100% from those surroundings. Find yourself immersed in a totally new culture, where guardians of this world's latest thinking have full opportunity to play with your head. Jehovah's Witnesses are not keen on higher education—the fact is well-known. It could be argued that their discouragement is too across-the-board. Still, how can one not be sobered by the following report from the October 19, 2018 edition of The Week magazine?

As related by Charles Sykes, a trio of hoaxers produced twenty "shoddy, absurd, unethical" papers loaded with incoherent post-modern "gibberish"—seven of which were published in "respectable" academic journals. Among the most outrageous papers included a thesis claiming astronomy is a patriarchal construct that should be replaced by feminist astrology, another arguing "dog parks are rape-condoning spaces," and still another that demanded that males who masturbate while thinking about a woman should first obtain her consent. The authors "had no formal background in the subjects," but taught themselves how to produce ridiculous, jargon-filled papers that were greeted with praise by "blindly receptive" academic reviewers. Allow this author to put it even more succinctly: "Yeah, we taught ourselves to write incomprehensible gobbledygook and they lapped it all up as cutting-edge social science."

Suddenly, Jehovah's Witness Governing Body member Anthony Morris doesn't look so stupid, does he? It is he who, in discouraging higher education, observed that the more prestigious the university, the greater the "contamination of this world's thinking." The Witness organization has long recommended that Bible values be the source of moral instruction and that supplemental education be used to acquire a marketable skill. Learn to be an electrician, for example, and you have a well-paying skill that is both portable and scalable, so that, if you can line up the other circumstances of life, you can attend to more enriching matters. The counsel dovetails nicely with that of Mike Rowe, the former TV host of Dirty Jobs, who testifies before Congress that "we [in the United States] are lending money we don't have to kids who can't pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist." He even appends his opinion: "that's nuts."

The hoaxers above fully expect to be blackballed by the higher education establishment, but they say it was worth it. One is reminded of whoever perpetuated the Piltdown Man hoax—a hoax that fooled evolutionists for 40 years. "It really was a horrible, nasty, vicious piece of work!" grumbled Andy Currant on the PBS show NOVA, and the discerning mind knows just why it is "horrible, nasty, and vicious"—because it made the most esteemed men of science look like donkeys. Others said that the great men weren't fooled at all—from the beginning they had smelled a rat. If so, the gullibility onus is replaced with one of deceit, for it would mean that they knew of the fraud but did nothing to correct it, since it advanced a narrative that they wanted advanced.

Let us hear no more of modern "brainwashing." Let us once again relegate the word to its proper and age-old context. The "brainwashing" of the prevailing mindset is far more pernicious than that of Jehovah's Witnesses. The latter make no bones about directing persons to sources considered trustworthy. The former encourages "free minds" to roam wherever they will, but in the end manages to stack the deck so as to keep them all on the same page.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses slaves to their [at present] eight-man Governing Body? This favorite anti-cultist charge reveals a thinking so infantile that it is hard to know how to respond. It is like saying that the motorist driving within the guardrails is slave to the Department of Transportation, the football player who hustles his feet though the hoops is slave to the coach, the student who does his homework is slave to the teacher. To the extent that Witnesses are "slaves" to the Governing Body, it is because they are grown-ups who realize that any project needs direction. They realize that there is no desire to "control" anyone, and certainly not for the sake of any "power trip." The reason that Obi-wan Kenobi does not want Luke to stray into the dark side is that he really thinks it is the dark side. He is on no power trip. Let the anti-cultists provide convincing evidence that it is not the dark side before they denounce those choosing a different path. They will not find that task easy. When a Witness friend of mine invites people to name the one evil they would remedy if they but had the power, the most frequent reply is that the evils are too numerous to zero in on just one.

It is not an easy task to direct the work of several million people. One will say: "Thanks for the new rule!" and his neighbor will say: "Huh, did you say something?" Striking the right balance is ever a challenge. If the Jehovah's Witness organization comes across as heavy-handed at times, it is because it does not want to find itself in the shoes of Lot, who warns his sons-in-law only to find that they think he is joking. The Witness organization trains members in Bible principles, the same as do Witness parents. It is not true that if you refrain from training your children, they grow up free and unencumbered and, when of age, select their own values from the rich cornucopia of life. No. All it means is that someone else will train them. These days that someone else is likely to be the anti-cultist himself; he is maneuvering for the position. He should be resisted. He wants you to aim so low. He wants you to revel in what Psalm 90 laments is a great tragedy—four score of trouble-prone years and then curtains for us all. That is bad. He wants you to think it is good. Does faith founded upon accurate understanding of the most widespread book on earth implant the hope of everlasting life on a paradise earth? He wants you to discard it and place your hope with the world's politicians—maybe the next batch will solve a few problems. He settles for so little. The instant gratification that he would deny a child for its own good he wants you to pursue as an adult.

Journalist Vermont Royster, after remarking upon the undeniable scientific progress of his day, observed: "Yet here is a curious thing. In the contemplation of man himself, of his dilemmas, of his place in the universe, we are little further along than when time began. We are still left with questions of who we are and why we are and where we are going." 'It's not curious at all,' says the anti-cultist. 'What you see is what you get. If anyone apart from religion figures it out, we'll let you know.'

"When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?" says Jesus? "Not if we can help it," declare the anti-cultists. "With any luck, he will not arrive all. If he does, maybe he will get discouraged and go away. We have shed that backwards concept. We're doing our best to muzzle anyone trying to spread it. We put our trust in human accomplishments and science. It may or may not tell us that our gooses are cooked, but at least it tells us that we don't have to put up with anyone directing us in what to do."

back

# Chapter 11 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 2

When you release suddenly the compressed spring, it bounds wildly, delirious at its new freedom, caring not where it lands, for any landing is better than where it was. It is that way with those who become apostate. To hear them carry on, you would think the world the most paradisiac place, with nothing but boundless opportunities ahead. Yes, there are niggling problems here and there, but not at all things to fret over—just think of the new freedom gained! It is a description of the world that few others will recognize.

The things that once caught their attention and led to their embracing the Witness faith in the first place are completely forgotten. The mourning and disgust over how "man has dominated man to his injury"—gone. The dismay that God catches the blame when humans use their free will to choose the course that he advised them not to choose—no longer a concern. The futility that twenty years growing up, forty gaining experience, and then, just when you think you have begun to figure things out, your body starts to betray you—"Cool beans!" they say. Let them say it. When you negate the plusses, all that remains to speak of are the minuses.

The consideration of the deeper questions of life that first led them to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses have seemingly vanished, replaced by chasing the baubles of the present life, convinced that they are not baubles at all, but the true gems. Stack them both side by side—the upside of the Witness way of life and the downside. Those who act upon the downside and jump ship rarely ever mention the upside again. Let the general audience weigh both. Some will choose one stack. Some another. Put the choice out there. It is what tolerance is all about.

At first glance, Jehovah's Witnesses might seem the most intrusive people on earth, trucking straight up your driveway to give you their version of truth, whether you have asked them to or not—and in most cases, you have not. Upon reflection, however, they are the least. Tell them 'no' and they go away. They do not afterwards lean on the politicians or lawyers to _force_ their way of life upon you, as do many others. Few bully more than the anti-cultists. Few disagree more with the Chief Justice who said, in a decision favoring Jehovah's Witnesses: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." It is as though the anti-cultists say: "One has occurred to us. They pursue goals we don't want them to pursue. They dream dreams that are not our dreams. We don't like them."

Sly in their techniques, they present themselves as the people's protector. One way to "protect" troops on the opposing side is to kill off their generals. That way, being disorganized, maybe you can in time persuade them to fight on your side. That slyness is seen now in the suspicion cast upon "religious corporations" that "abuse people." Jehovah's Witnesses would be better off without one, the argument goes. Then they would not be "abused" and would fall into place with conventional goals.

It sounds noble at first listen, but it is readily punctured at second. The only reason that religious people form corporations is so that they may exist and do things such as owning property. To seek to strangle a religious corporation is no different than seeking to strangle a nation's chosen government, such as is attempted in times of war. It is to say that Canadians, for example, are fine people, in fact, excellent people, but they must not be permitted to choose a government. Anti-cultists ought not be so coy. They are warring against the Witness religion and those members who have chosen it. They ought not paint themselves as taking the high road, as Alexander Dvorkin in Russia does. In advocating the Witness organization be outlawed in Russia, he said that he was protecting the civil rights of the individual Witnesses, as though he was their friend. Eliminate their infrastructure and—why, you may better absorb them into the course you wish them to take.

The intent of the apostates is to thrust the downside of Witness life into the spotlight, and thereby, both embarrass them and undermine their message. It changes nothing. The game is the same. It's just up on another level. Want to examine the price tag first? It is how many people shop. Jesus says count the costs before you commit, and he plainly has in mind that you count the benefits first, but if some want to reverse the order, we can all live with that.

It is but the same age-old drama seen through a new lens. Everything with significant upside will have a downside. Let people focus whereever they will. Some will choose the product. Some will choose the price. "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow gate," says Jesus. If the anti-cultists would focus on the narrow gate rather than the reason to pass through it, so be it. "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied," says Paul, signaling agreement that paying the price is foolish if there truly is no Christ. "When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?" says Jesus. (Luke 18:8) Let it all play out, as people weigh the product with the price.

The treasure is the "pearl of high price" for which its buyer sells everything else. (Matthew 13:46) Do the anti-cultists wish to focus on the "everything else?" That's okay. That's fair. Nobody in the Christian world would say that there is not a cost. Paul took the loss of all things and counted it as "a lot of refuse." (Philippians 3:8) Should present-day opposers call him a fool, that is a value judgment that they are entitled to make. It is the same reality but seen through a different lens.

When apostates hope that persons will see the downside of Witness life and weigh it as more substantial than the upside, they are, in a sense, helping Jehovah's Witnesses get their message out. They are hoping that people will learn of a downside and say: "Look, spiritual things are only so important. Who needs this kind of drama?" and steer clear. How is that any different from Jesus' own words that one must exert oneself vigorously to squeeze in through the narrow gate and be prepared to jettison the extra-wide trailer that smashes against the gate posts? Let them do it. The Christian life will not appeal to all people. It separates one from the overall world—the one going down like the Titanic in the Witnesses' eyes. But if you think that world is floating high and pretty, with armed crewmen on the bow poised to smash to smithereens icebergs as they approach, you will hate it. Kicking over the traces of anything produces an incomparable rush. Only much later is it revealed whether it was a good idea or not.

The restrictions of a Witness life are overblown, but nobody would say that they are nothing. Are they roadblocks to individual fulfillment or are they guardrails that one would be crazy to crash through? Beyond question, there are two very different views of the world. However, should someone sing: "Step out of line, the men come to take you away," it is evidence of not having the most balanced personality—it's not _that_ restrictive. Nobody would say that Witnesses step any old place they like, but that is hardly the same as not stepping at all. Many of Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with this or that aspect of "theocracy." But they also keep it in perspective. They know that in any organized arrangement, there will be some things that do not go your way. And they are modest enough to consider that maybe it is they themselves who are in need of correction. After all, they have confidence that they are being "taught by Jehovah," and they accepted from Day 1 that his chosen means of governing is not democracy. They know that slavish acquiescence is not required; it is enough to refrain from shouting when the going gets rough that madmen are at the helm.

They came to terms long ago with the fact that separating from the greater world would trigger the latter's disapproval. "For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations, when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries. Because you do not continue running with them in this same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you," says Peter. As the divide grows between the former and the latter, the latter object: "What's wrong with the 'low sink?' What are you trying to say about us?" In a super-sensitive world, one's very existence is taken as judgmental of whatever one avoids. We must all "come together" is the mantra of our time.

To the extent that the anti-cultists lean atheistic, and most of the vociferous ones do, they seemingly are eager to trash things that are, not just JW, but of Judeo/Christian origin. The two-witness rule that Jehovah's Witnesses retain in congregation matters was, until recently, fundamental to Western law. You can't just hurl out an accusation and allow your personal conviction to carry the day; you have to prove it. These days that Judeo/Christian model is increasingly being replaced with a new one that says accusation is enough, and it is up to the accused to prove that it is not so. It represents a 180-degree reversal in justice, and one wonders whether the 'old' standard is rejected by a new atheistic world simply because its origin is religion. The reason one does not quickly shed "two-witness" policies emerges each time someone is exonerated after having served decades in prison, convicted over less strenuous "proof."

The "crime" of Jehovah's Witnesses is that of taking the Bible too seriously. Anti-cultists don't want them to do it. The situation reverts right back to certain clergy of decades ago who attempted to dissuade church members from Bible reading on the grounds that it would "make them crazy." Those adhering to the ancient Book find themselves in a crazy world determined to stamp out injustice but not what causes it. No one can agree on the latter, and if they could, they would be unable to launch coordinated action. It is the fundamental weakness of a world typified by those within being "not open to agreement." Therefore, injustices are pandemic, and those subjected to enough of them become like Humpty Dumpty, who topples so severely as to not be made whole again—yet no complaint will ever be dropped until that unreachable goal is attained. People are damaged goods today. Those who become Jehovah's Witnesses are also that way, but they put themselves in a setting they feel most conducive to healing. It is as a former prisoner of war told me ages ago—a man then studying the Bible—that at the Kingdom Hall he felt peace.

The prevailing winds of the day blow against religious people. Religion is simply not a force worth getting all worked up over, its enemies charge. Its strengths are supposed irrelevant, if not but fiction. The age-old perception that it is a healing power has changed, replaced with a new one that it is a destructive power.

back

# Chapter 12 – Who Really is a Cult? Part 3

The fifteenth chapter of Acts provides a template for how congregations are governed in the Christian congregation. An issue arose—one that will hardly seem relevant today, and will strike some as downright strange. Suffice it to say that the subject of male circumcision took center stage for a significant time back then. From the days of Moses, it had been the sign of a special relationship with God, and there were those of Jewish background who wanted to extend the one-time requirement to persons of all backgrounds who were swelling the ranks of new-found Christianity:

"And certain men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: 'Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute." (vs 1-2) It is a passage sure to displease the anti-cultists, for it sends the signal that the latter were going to do something about it. Would they stoop to "brainwashing" and "thought control?"

Governing as though Plato's philosopher-kings—it is remarkable the similarities (See Chapter 42)—the "apostles and older men" in Jerusalem set policy for the first century congregation. They determined how scripture applied for the rapidly growing Christian faith, much as modern governments apply principles contained within national constitutions. If they did not do so, constitutions would quickly become inapplicable, lost among new developments not explicitly spelled out.

Traveling ministers carried decisions of that early governing body to the ever-increasing congregations, which within decades had spread throughout the Mediterranean world. Acts 16:4-5 relates:

"Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day."

Alas, for those who suppose Christianity ought to be based upon Western democracy! It wasn't guidelines being delivered. It wasn't suggestions. It wasn't proposals to be put to popular vote. It was _decrees_ which were to be observed.

It's not just the New World Translation. Nearly all English translations use the terms "decrees" or "decisions." The New International Version calls them "decisions for the people to obey." Of the few variations, only the paraphrased Message translation waters the phrase down to "simple guidelines which turned out to be most helpful." The Amplified Bible uses "regulations," Moffatt's Bible says "resolutions," and the Good News Bible offers up "rules."

Isn't this what one would expect? If God's ways are really higher than our ways, as Isaiah 55:9 states, and people become Christian converts precisely for that reason, does anyone truly think that God's ways would be determined by majority vote? If that's the case, who needs God? The aforementioned apostles and older men governed from Jerusalem as a God-ordained arrangement. They were not ambitious men seizing power. They were Christians with the most experience, men who had introduced the faith to others. They saw to their own succession.

That 15th chapter of Acts reads like the minutes of that body's consideration of circumcism. The resulting "decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood," and it was relayed throughout the congregations.

The decision was not at once accepted by all, which in itself offers a template for modern-day similar situations. Long after the governing arrangement supposedly settled the matter (49CE, per biblical chronology), its representatives were yet reasoning with those who opposed it, becoming more forceful with the passage of time:

(circa 51CE - 2 years later): "For such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery. See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law." (Galatians 5:1-3)

(55CE - 6 years later): "Was any man called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has any man been called in uncircumcision? Let him not get circumcised. Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God's commandments [does]." (1 Corinthians 7:18-20)

(circa 61CE - 12 years later): "Look out for the dogs, look out for the workers of injury, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are those with the real circumcision, who are rendering sacred service by God's spirit and have our boasting in Christ Jesus and do not have our confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3:2-3)

(circa 63CE - 14 years later): "For there are many unruly men, profitless talkers, and deceivers of the mind, especially those men who adhere to the circumcision. It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain." (Titus 1:10-11)

Did such resisters eventually find themselves ousted from the congregation? It seems likely, in view of such directives as: "As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11)

Anti-cultists will go into convulsions at the behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional control mechanisms indicated by the above. There can be little question that the Bible itself must be a cult-manual in the eyes of these ones. They should not bother with middlemen such as Jehovah's Witnesses—those who endeavor to live by the Book—but they should go after the source itself, thereby revealing their intolerance to all.

Who are these big babies, terrified of what some visiting factory worker or even janitor trudging up their driveway might say? Are they really the same ones who carry on about their newfound freedom, their keen intellect, and their powerful self-determination? They are the shallowest of people masquerading as the deepest, the narrowest masquerading as the broadest. The existence of God cannot be proven by the standards modern anti-cultists accept as proof. However, neither can it be disproven. It can be shown to be reasonable, that's all, but to those whose reason is forged in another hearth, it cannot be. As regards being narrow, they will say the same of Witnesses. It is fair game. Let the great issue be put squarely before all. Is it government by men that will save us or government by God?

What a pathetic view of human nature these anti-cultists have. Just how much mileage can one get out of playing the victim card? Are we all truly but putty, ever at the mercy of some passerby with new ideas? You should hear how some of these ones carry on about how Jehovah's Witnesses show up at doors to "convert" people underhandedly. Witnesses ought to state that goal up front, they demand. It is all they can do not to insist upon a notarized statement.

It is nonsense. Nobody converts another. People convert themselves, based upon processing and trying on new ideas for size. If you were to tell a visiting Jehovah's Witness point blank that you wanted to convert, you would not be able to. You would commence on a period of study and preparation, seldom lasting under a year in these parts, (United States) 95% of the time in familiar surroundings, with full option to say "no thanks" at every juncture. It is a situation far less controlling than higher education, where one may be cut off from previous surroundings almost completely, and the barriers to discontinuance may be high, involving finance or expectations.

It is so juvenile to maintain, as the anti-cultists do, that Witnesses are out to "recruit" new members. It is icing on the cake for them should that happen, but hardly the cake itself. With the supposed goal of conversion at least a year away, one can be sure that the visiting Witness does not even think of it for many months to come. The object is simply to share information, or even to shed new light on what is already known, irrespective of what one may do with it at a later date. Most people do nothing with it. "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth," says Matthew 24:14. It says nothing about conversion, leaving that possibility open for another occasion.

Enough of this cult nonsense. Everything is misrepresented. The legal Trinity is missing two legs. "Truth" is not enough—there must also be "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." It's high time to respond to these overgrown adolescents as the police did years ago to the overgrown adolescents of the 60s. When student radicals began calling them 'pigs,'—doubling down when they saw that it got under their skin—one resourceful cop responded: 'PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service.' Yeah! Same here. Do enemies think that they can get under Witnesses' skin, swinging around the 'Cult' truncheon, when everyone knows the word means something else? Very well. Let Witnesses wear the moniker proudly: 'CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth.' At some point, one must kick back at this nonsense.

Jehovah's Witness stand for an alternative way of life, no question about it. As one of many "new religions,"—the scholarly term—there was no reason to extend the "cult" word to them. Coin a new word. "Cult" has been around forever, and it reliably evokes prejudice, if not hate. For that reason, enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses embrace it. They eschew what is dignified so as to go for the jugular, as they smell blood in the water.

back

# Chapter 13 – Hey Guys, Sorry About That Mother of all Lies

One fine day monitoring the malcontents online I came across this gem:

"Hey guys, please read the correction below. Really sorry this slipped through, and we'll tighten our process to make sure we don't repeat it. Again, apologies everyone."

It was from a fellow whom we will call Covie, ones of Nemo's friends. Well—probably no big deal, and after all, he did apologize. Let's see what this is all about. His friend says of his previous report:

"Thanks so much for the kind comments. We really enjoyed putting this episode together and I'm glad many of you seem to be finding it helpful and informative. Unfortunately, I need to offer an apology and a retraction. A trusted source passed on information to us that got included in the show notes but later proved to be incorrect. Specifically, the schedule of talks from which I was reading (including themes having to do with reduction and 'centralization' of branches) was apparently written by an ex-JW and was purely speculative and/or intended for satire [author's edit—it was a lie] Though we can see the funny side, we also take the accuracy and truthfulness of our work extremely seriously so I have edited out the relevant parts (edits may take a while to process) and we are taking a close look at how we can more thoroughly vet our sources in the future. I can only apologize to the thousands of you who have already heard the incorrect information. The last thing we want to do is remotely contribute to affirming the "lying apostate" stereotype by passing on spurious information and we will certainly learn our lesson here. Thank you for your understanding on this."

Of course! I understood perfectly, and I instantly dismissed it all as just one of those things. I did this even though it was the apostate lie heard around the world, and if you had tapped their phones and been listening in to some of them, you would have thought they were having sex in there, so loud were the orgasms. What was causing the "reduction and centralization of branches," according to the retracted report, was the fantastic news that the Watchtower was on the ropes financially and just a few more successful lawsuits would topple them for good. This is the stated goal of many of them: to litigate their former religious organization out of existence, and this glorious bit of "news" was more welcome to them than if their team had, not only won the Super Bowl, but had been conceded the championship for the next hundred years.

Ever responsible, however, the webmaster says he does not "remotely want to contribute to the 'lying apostate' stereotype," as though he is genuinely amazed that anybody could ever think such a thing, but just to be sure, he will take action to eliminate this mother of all lies that he swallowed hook, line, and sinker because he liked the sound of it, and he will not repeat it again. I hope you understand. After all, it was from a "trusted source."

Look, if they ever succeeded in their stated goal of litigating the Watchtower out of existence, they would be proving themselves friends of child sexual abuse. There is good reason to think that Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy considerable success in preventing it within their ranks, though with InvisibleChildren.org reporting that one out of five American children will suffer molestation before 18, they clearly are not going to ever snuff it out. If they have enjoyed some success, then spread around whatever they have, and others will enjoy some success. It is not rocket science. It is not even "God's spirit." If you hammer away at anything long enough, some of it sinks in. Relentlessly they teach family values over there in Witness-land, and they are the only organization on earth to have gathered each and every member via their 2017 summer convention and there consider detailed scenarios in which child abuse might occur, so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, may be vigilant. Moreover, since so much child sexual abuse occurs in settings of youth groups, surely it helps that Jehovah's Witnesses have no such segregation. They don't even do Sunday School.

Just about the time of this monster lie, congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses considered at meeting the August 2018 Watchtower article, 'Do You Have the Facts?' Much damage is done when accuracy is lacking, it was discussed. Ten timid spies dissuaded the entire nation of Israel from its course—crying that the enemy was strong and would surely prevail in battle. As another example, David treated Mephibosheth unjustly based upon listening to falsehood, necessitating an about-face when a true report corrected the lie. "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, it is foolish and humiliating," was the Proverbs 18:13 theme scripture. Beyond all question, the Witness organization tries to shield members from the attacks of the enemy, who sometimes relate truth, sometimes relate untruth, and always frame matters in a way hostile to the faith.

The webmaster's sincerity in ferreting out an obvious lie is genuine, most likely, but the enthusiasm of those hearing that their former religion was on the ropes was unmistakable. He is dumbfounded at the moniker 'lying apostate.' How could anyone think that? He is offended should anyone connect him with the atrocities against religious people in Russia, primarily Jehovah's Witnesses, since they alone are under ban and declared extremists, a label they share only with ISIS. No! He will not be accused. Why, he has spoken out against it. But of his anti-cultist-in-spirit, one Alexander Dvorkin, who aggressively pushes there what others of his kind push here, a human-rights expert has stated: "He enjoys disseminating inflammatory narratives and hate speech." It is no different with this local bunch. When you spew hate speech, hurling the C-word willy-nilly, eventually there arise people who act upon it. And what will he say then?

"Hey guys, just want to let you know that we released the hounds of hell and they did more damage than we ever intended. Sorry."

back

# Chapter 14 – Are We Looking at Encouragement to Commit Insurance Fraud? Part 1

There was a series of tweets from former Jehovah's Witnesses hoping to stir up discontent with present ones. The politics involved are likely not of interest to the general reader, so I pass over it here. Suffice it to say that it is that way.

It turns out that when the Watchtower organization oversees disaster relief, they afterwards suggest to ones that happen to have insurance that they might donate whatever insurance pays out to the Worldwide Work relief fund itself. Why this should infuriate the ex-Witnesses I'll never know but infuriate them it does. Does it not seem only right that those who shell out assets for disaster rebuild should receive whatever insurance monies may be forthcoming? I could be wrong, but I suspect insurance companies love it that way; the work gets down promptly and without haggling over amount. However, the more important question to be raised is: If the Watchtower doesn't get the insurance money, who does? The more I looked at these tweets the more I came to feel that I was looking at encouragement to commit insurance fraud.

With that backdrop, here are some of the tweets. I have excluded irrelevant ones as well as those from opposers calling me an a*****e. Apparently, a recent shipment of relief supplies was destroyed, and that shall serve as introduction to the topic. I will reproduce a few tweets which may or may not interest the reader, all in italics, and then return to the main point. I am TTH. Others I will refer to by their initials. Everything is captured in screenshots.

EDL: The donations from local Jehovah's Witnesses caught fire - but the article fails to mention that JW donations and disaster relief is ONLY ever for other JWs. JWs only support their local community by preaching to them, never with practical help.

TTH: Yes. They cannot do everyone because they are near exclusively volunteers using vacation time. The best they can do is set an example for others to imitate so that they will not be beholden to astronomically wasteful agencies.

CF: Interestingly enough, WT usually pressure any JW's they help to "donate" the insurance payout they get back to WT to "thank" them.

TTH: 'Pressure' is a subjective term. However, if they do the work voluntarily at no cost, that certainly would not be an inappropriate way to acknowledge it. Many people have no insurance at all, especially in the case of flooding. Reimbursement is something immaterial to JWs. They do not check beforehand.

SL: Agreed, the WT does not do the work on the understanding the insurance cash will come their way...

For a brief moment, I thought I had found an ally, but it was not so:

SL: I've given up my time in my JW past to do this work and it's lovely to feel you are helping someone in need. In my experience few, if any, feel the need to solicit thanks from a victim of disaster let alone "suggest" the insurance money comes one's way.

CF: To clarify - it's not the individual JW's helping who do this. It's something that happens afterward, organized via the branch and handled by the elders. Most JW volunteers never even know this has happened. JR is putting together an article that exposes multiple instances of WT leaning on JW's after a relief effort to hand over the insurance money.

I was getting a little fed up at this point. In three tweets combined, I said:

TTH: Tell him to not ignore the end result: distressed persons quickly having life & property restored, vs waiting weeks or months for relief that will only come if they are adequately insured, insurers sometimes being known to weasel out of satisfactory coverage.

TTH: Tell him also to spotlight the atheist and opposer agencies that do the same for their people so that those ones do not find themselves sh*t out of luck when insurance or build execution proves inadequate.

TTH: And make sure he tells of the premier agency in the Haiti earthquake, squandering practically to the penny the half billion dollars donated. [I linked to a Propublica article detailing breathtaking incompetence in America's chief relief agency, and (alas) even exaggerated some, for they didn't waste all of it, just most of it.] I am looking forward to this article, confident JR will not forget these things.

Someone made a snotty comment about Watchtower making a lot of money off their volunteers and the insurance companies. I replied that it was in return for doing exactly what the insurance company wanted done

The former Witnesses turned bitter opponents work tirelessly to stir up discontent in those loyal. They do a great deal of inter-opponent chat, but present Witnesses are their target audience. While the Watchtower organization may well afterwards make the suggestion, I doubt very much that they "pressure" anyone because the idea of simply pocketing both donated work AND insurance payment would never occur to most Witnesses. And even if they were to "pressure" anyone, it would clearly be for their own good; otherwise they would be committing insurance fraud, and the insurance companies are very good at sniffing such things out.

Say they succeed in finding some Witnesses who are outraged that the Watchtower Society should mention money after they have restored a person's life. What are they recommending these ones do? Are they recommending that they say to their Christian brothers, who are generally on the scene long before relief comes through any other avenue: "Brothers, no. Don't bother. I am afraid that the organization may afterwards mention money. I will wait instead for the insurance company to pay and hope that the amount is enough to restore what I have lost and that when the harried contractors at last get around to rebuilding they will not in their haste do a half-assed job." I don't think so.

I have never heard that advice from these characters or anything even approaching that. What the opposers appear to be doing is encouraging disgruntled ones, if they can find any, to accept the organized help of Jehovah's Witnesses and then refuse any suggestion that they sign over an insurance check. What, then, will they do with the insurance money? Give it back to the insurance company? Again, I don't think so. Why have they been paying premiums for all these years? No, they are encouraging them to keep the money, perhaps thereafter to spend on a new car, overseas vacation, or college tuition.

Look, this may be an overgeneralization, but this illustrates exactly why people who are Jehovah's Witnesses should think twice before they leave the faith. I see these former Witnesses on Twitter. Some excoriate Trump and some excoriate Obama. They once had unity. Moreover, they cavalierly float an idea that would shock most Witnesses: Take the money and run. What is wrong with these characters? I mean, who would propose repaying the work of volunteer rebuilders with closed fists, and who would propose chiseling the insurance company out of their money at the same time? There is such a thing as hating so much as to lose all decency. My bet is that when insurance companies do sign over checks to the Watchtower, they find it a pure joy, knowing well how difficult customers can be under the pressure that disaster brings upon them.

Possibly what they are advocating is not illegal. The more I think about it, the more I think that is so. Perhaps it is just astonishing mean and ungrateful. Either way they look extremely small as they focus their unreasoning hatred to cripple the most effective disaster relief program the world has seen.

back

# Chapter 15 – Are We Looking At Encouragement to Commit Insurance Fraud? Part 2

This seemingly is a separate subject, but rest assured, it will converge. The Watchtower recently published an article that pointed out that some women in troubled marital relationships have exercised their right to separate for safety's sake, yet others have determined to stick it out. My nemesis blew a gasket over this, wrote a short article of how "controlling" Watchtower men were to "order" Witness women to stay in abusive relationships, and he has been forwarding it daily to several agencies, hoping to get his former faith in trouble. Honestly. He did it as a countdown (or countup):

@ChtyCommission - Are you aware that Watchtower...is encouraging #jehovahswitness victims of #domesticviolence to endure life-threatening abuse?

and

It's Day 5 since Watchtower, a registered charity, publicly urged #JehovahsWitness women to stay with physically abusive husbands. @ChtyCommission has confirmed it is reviewing article. No response yet from @RefugeCharity or @womensaid.

and

Day 8 of a magazine with circulation numbering into the millions instructing women to "endure" abusive relationships. Still not a word from @ChtyCommission or #domesticviolence orgs @RefugeCharity @womensaid or @PurplePurse

At some point I chimed in, linking to my own post on the _entire_ Watchtower article, not just a single paragraph, and appending my tweets to his:

Day 9 of Nemo hoping he can get his former religion in hot water with @ChtyCommission. Every day he hammers on their door. Sheesh! Even Jehovah's Witnesses do not call _every single day_! @RefugeCharity @womensaid @PurplePurse .

and

11 STRAIGHT DAYS hammering their door! No cult leader could be more pesky.

and even

Day 23 of two women's groups being battered daily by a man who shames them for not pursuing his grudge against his former religion. One never knows, but it is possible they are considering the overall context. @ChtyCommission @RefugeCharity @womensaid

Some of his own people told him to cool it:

"If these organizations don't react, you have to respect their choice. Criteria of their evaluations is complex in nature (legal aspects) and other crucial elements imposed by the statutes of a Charity. Please read again Steve Hassan's last book, there are more efficient methods."

Steve Hassan is a huge player in the 'anti-cult' movement. Here he is being appealed to as though he were a cult leader himself.

I couldn't resist. I just had to tweet:

In other words, you're making yourself a pain, Nemo. The whole world does not revolve around your beefs. @ChtyCommission @RefugeCharity @womensaid

One more from me:

It is possible that @womensaid resents being lectured to daily by a male who presumes to know their concerns better than they do themselves. Aren't abusive males known to behave this way, refusing to take delay or silence for an answer? Possibly they read the entire WT article.

He is still at it [he stopped at Day 52] and no, I don't respond every day:

Day 31 of circulation. A month ago, Watchtower published its clearest ever advice encouraging JW women to "endure" abusive husbands. Incredibly, it seems they can do this without any official rebuke from DV orgs like @RefugeCharity & @womensaid.

Some of his own have broken ranks and accused him of "man-bashing." He is confident, I think overconfident. But I do not underestimate him. He has had some success in stirring up major mischief. And you never quite know what these agencies will do. I would think that, if need be, Watchtower HQ could respond if queried merely by citing their present policy on marital separation, but you never know how things will turn out until they turn out.

Around day 40, I became very bold and tweeted: "It's as though he says: 'G******t, ANSWER me when I'm talking to you!'" @womansaid @refugecharity.

Now, it occurs to me, that if he can hammer on an agency each day, there is no reason that I cannot do the same:

"Day 1 of Nemo's chum encouraging insurance fraud to his Twitter followers."

Only I won't hammer at the same agency each day as he does. There are enough of them that I can mix them up, just like rotating public speakers at the Kingdom Hall. Oh, yeah! Let's see where this goes! [It didn't go far. I got distracted.]

I don't know. Is it illegal or is it just incredibly crass and ungrateful? Imagine. Your home is destroyed in a flood. Instantly your fellow congregation members swoop in to restore or rebuild, donating both time and materials. Yet when it turns out that you have made provisions to cover exactly that circumstance you say 'Fugeddaboudit! I like "free" better. See you on the Adriatic coast, that is, if you can afford it. I know I can.' Either way, opposers can be made to look awfully small.

They look small, too, as they dream up the tactic to recharacterize volunteer efforts on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses as unpaid labor that should be paid—wouldn't _that_ send their enemy into a tailspin, they rhapsodize! Arguing that "faith" is dead unless it is unaccompanied by "works," the apostle James writes: "...a certain one will say: 'You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I shall show you my faith by my works.'" (James 2:18) There are accordingly many "works" that Jehovah's Witnesses perform, regarding them as a manifestation of faith. In fact, nobody at any level in the Witness organization receives a salary, least of all those in positions of leadership. 'Monetize it all,' the anti-cultists say, in an attempt to cripple faith that translates into more than just sitting at religious meetings. The "religious corporation" benefits by unpaid labor—make them pay for it, they say. Pay those elders—make them mercenary ministers. Pay those Bethelites—the ones who have applied for special service and were accepted—pay them, not just room and board and living expenses, but wages! One wonders whether opposers will one day attack the door-to-door ministry itself as representing unpaid labor that should be remunerated.

Let them advance that argument if they will. But at the same time, advance the argument that volunteer efforts _anywhere_ must be paid for. Volunteer for Red Cross disaster relief? Do it only for pay. Volunteer for the candidate of your choice? Only if you are paid. Volunteer for the hospital or the nursing home? Nope. Get involved in community activity, even pick up the roadside trash? Don't even go there without a contract. Let the opposers reduce all that is noble to dollars and cents to ensure that nobody is "abused."

***~~~***

The following excerpt is from Tom Irregardless and Me, an ebook I wrote two years ago:

At the home of Victor Vomodog, an alarm panel light pulsed red. Victor read the incoming feed. It was serious. Someone was saying nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses. Instantly, he swung into action. There was not a moment to lose. He opened his door and whistled. The media came running. "Witnesses are selfish!" he cried. "They only think of themselves! Why don't they help everyone? Why do they just do their own people?" That evening, media ran the headline: "WHY DON'T THEY HELP EVERYONE?"

But they had asked the wrong question. The headline they should have run, but didn't, because they didn't want to deal with the answer, was: "WHY AREN'T OTHERS DOING THE SAME?" The answer to the first question is obvious: Witness efforts consist of volunteers using their vacation time. Just how much time is the boss going to grant?

So do it yourself, Victor! Organize your own new chums! Or send your money to some mega-agency where they think Bible education is for fools. Be content to see monies frittered away on salaries, hotels, travel, retirement, health care benefits, and God knows what else! Be content to see much of what remains squandered! It's the best you can do—embrace it! Or at least shut up about the one organization that has its act together.

The obvious solution, when it comes to disaster relief, is for others to do as Jehovah's Witnesses do. Why have they not? There are hundreds of religions. There are atheists...aren't you tight with them now, Victor? Organize them, why don't you? They all claim to be veritable gifts to freedom and humankind. Surely they can see human suffering. Why don't they step up to the plate themselves?

They can't. They are vested in a selfish model that runs a selfish world. Let them become Jehovah's Witnesses and benefit from the Bible education overseen by the Governing Body, Plato's and Sider's dream brought to life (see chapter 16). But if they stay where they are, they must look to their own organization or lack thereof. There's no excuse that they should not be able to copy Witnesses. They have far more resources to draw upon. We're not big enough to do everyone for free, and we don't know how to run a for-pay model; we've no experience in that. Instead, other groups must learn how to put love into action, as Witnesses did long ago.

C'mon, Victor! If all the world needs is to 'come together,' then see to it! We don't know how to do that. People without Bible education tend not to get along. You make them do it! You don't want to, or can't, do large-scale relief, yet you want to shoot down those who do! What a liar!

back

# Chapter 16 – In Defense of Shunning

As the ultimate trump card of congregation discipline, to be applied when lesser measures have failed, is disfellowshipping cruel? It certainly could be, and increasingly is, argued that way. Undeniably it triggers pain to those who refuse to yield to it, "kicking against the goads," as was said to Paul. That said, suffice it to say that no group has been able maintain consistent moral principles through significant intervals of time without it. I vividly recall circuit ministers of my faith saying: "Fifty years ago, the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and people in general was doctrinal." Conduct on moral matters, sexual or otherwise, was largely the same. Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor?

The book _Secular Faith_ – _How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics_ attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations from decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. Can internal discipline not be a factor?

In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, members voluntarily sign on to a program that reinforces goals they have chosen. Sometimes it is not enough to say that you want to diet. You must also padlock the fridge. It is not an infringement of freedom to those who have willingly signed aboard. They are always free to attempt their diet some place where they do not padlock the fridge. Experience shows, however, that not padlocking the fridge results in hefty people, for not everyone has extraordinary willpower.

If people want to padlock the fridge but they cannot do so because anti-cultists forbid that course, and they get hefty, how is that not a violation of their individual rights? It is all a difference of view over the basic nature of people and what makes them tick. It is the individualists of today who would hold that you can't even padlock your own fridge. No. Full freedom of choice must always be in front of each one of us, they say, notwithstanding that history demonstrates we so easily toss with the waves in the absence of a firm anchor.

Christians are mandated to "imitate the Christ," both individually and collectively. Given human imperfection, this can be done only with group-accepted tools of discipline to buttress good intensions. If anti-cultists would deny them these tools under the guise of protecting their individual rights, then what we are looking at is an attempt to throttle Christianity true to its roots and substitute rule by the popular crowd.

Disfellowshipping is unpleasant, and some are so shocked to find themselves put out from their community of choice that they determine once and for all to mend whatever caused them to be ousted so as to regain entrance. But they do not all do that, and with the passing of time, the ones that do not accumulate. Some continue on in life with a "been there, done that" mentality. But others expend considerable energy in settling the score with the organization that ousted them. One businessman in Canada even sued at being disfellowshipped—his customer base consisted mostly of Jehovah's Witnesses, and most of them took their business elsewhere. A lower court agreed with him that those running his religion had "told" parishioners not to associate with the ex-member. But the Supreme Court ultimately decided that to rule on who had to associate with who based on biblical interpretation was beyond their legal purview.

In some cases, disfellowshipped ones later frame their ousting as though it were over mere matters of disagreement. It was not their conduct that caused the trouble, they maintain, but it was simply disagreement over something, for example, the contention that leaving a spouse for another should trigger congregation sanctions. This was true of a prosecution witness at the Russian Supreme Court trial which resulted in the banning of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Responding to a request from the judge to cite instances of "control," [she] "reported that an example was her expulsion from the congregations after she 'began her close, but not officially registered, relations with a man.'"

Other times it truly is over matters of disagreement with regard to interpretation or policy, and opposers try to frame things as in the song—that with Jehovah's Witnesses, it is "step out of line, the men come and take you away." Some of them become so convinced of their new-found enlightenment that they envision themselves liberators—hurl down the Watchtower walls and the captives within will come running to embrace them! Alas for them—were whatever they think of as walls to disappear, with barely a jiggle as to those "inside," they would have to rethink their silly premise. To revisit an earlier illustration, they are determined to sneak goodies into the fridge and cannot believe that they would not be permitted to—it can only be because tyrants from on high are telling the fridge owner what can and cannot be stocked, they mutter.

Some of those who later became apostate to the Witness faith came across some new insight, perhaps, that they thought would entitle them to drive the bus. They left when they discovered that they would not be allowed grab the wheel. In some cases, they were caught red-handed trying to hotwire the bus. The "bus," of course, is the Witness organization itself. In the end it is a too high opinion of oneself and one's importance that sinks a person. The worship and deeds of Jehovah's Witnesses are magnified by their organized quality, and they either appeal to the heart or they don't. If they don't, then one magnifies disproportionately matters of individual rights.

It worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights didn't buy the charge of Witnesses 'breaking up families." It wrote in 2010: "It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative's freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict."

As to a charge of "mind control," it wrote: "The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques." The Russian Supreme Court in 2017 was not chastened by this rebuke and saw no need to cite a name for the April 20th trial, either. They did, however, find every need to not hear representatives of foreign embassies who might, for all they knew, have sided with the European Court.

The spirit of the times today far elevates rights over responsibilities. There is a Bill of Rights appended to the United States Constitution. Would that there was a Bill of Responsibilities to go along with it. With Jehovah's Witnesses, as with many religious people, it is the responsibilities that loom largest. Among the responsibilities Christians feel are those toward their spiritual kin. "Slave" for one another, the verse says, and many translations soften "slave" to "serve," but the root word at Galatians 5:13 undeniably indicates "slave" as the correct choice. Even before that, however, there is a responsibility toward God. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses dares not meddle with the disfellowshipping policy overmuch because they know it serves to keep the congregation "clean" so as to present to God what he insists upon: "a [clean] people for his name." (Acts 15:14)

A book by evangelical author Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, highlights on its cover the question: 'Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?' The author cites verse after verse of how Christian standards are "higher" than those of the greater world, and then example after example of how they are not with those claiming Christianity today. He concludes that it is largely a matter of church discipline. "Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, whether Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, or Anabaptist," he writes. "In the second half of the twentieth century, however, it has largely disappeared." He goes on to quote Haddon Robinson on the current church climate, a climate he calls "consumerism:"

"Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer. In our churches, we have a consumer mentality."

Christians have a mandate to follow the Christ as best they can in speech and conduct. Consumerism makes that mandate effectively impossible. Yet it is the only model that today's anti-cultists will permit. Anything veering toward discipline they paint as an intolerable affront to human rights. We must not be naïve. Theirs is no more than an attempt to stamp out biblical Christianity, veiled as though they are the very protectors of humanity.

The notion of protecting one's values, through disciplinary action if need be, extends beyond Christianity. Was Tevye a cult member, he of the film Fiddler on a Roof? If so, no one has breathed a word of it until very recently. The third daughter of his Russian Jewish family was shunned for marrying outside of the faith. It is an action that would not trigger shunning in the Jehovah's Witness community, though it would gain no praises. After all, if God is truly one's best friend, ought one really make one's second-best friend a person who is indifferent, perhaps even opposed, to the first? Only the atheistic anti-cultists will be blind to the logic of this, and that only because they would consider any god-concept an unsuitable friend.

Citing Tevye to a certain ex-Witness nearly blew up in my face. At the movie's end, the grizzled man mutters to himself, as his daughter and new husband depart for another continent: "And let God be with you," as though he should have been expected to shout: "May you rot in hell." I was told that the movie teaches forgiveness, acceptance, and unconditional love rather than a stubborn cleaving to tradition and the past." Could this person really have once been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? The entire premise of the faith, and that of many Christian denominations, is that, assuming the "traditions" are biblical and not man-made, the old ideas are solid whereas the new ideas are tenuous, with sometimes deleterious after-effects. In fact, forgiveness, acceptance, and love all come with nuances. One can forgive without accepting disapproved conduct. One can also love without accepting it. "Tough love" was the phrase of yesterday. Today it is "unconditional love." Tomorrow who knows what it will be? The scene of this world is changing.

It is not uncommon for children of Jehovah's Witnesses to be baptized at ages as young as ten. Witness detractors argue that this is far too early to make such a consequential decision. Many offer themselves as a case in point. Some of them were Witnesses and were baptized at an early age. They later changed their mind. Some of these eventually found themselves disfellowshipped and will push to their dying day that they escaped from a cult whose members were ordered to reject their own children. Some have gone on television with that charge where they persuade viewer without too much effort that only the most "brainwashed" of people would disown their own children and that whoever did the "brainwashing" must be punished.

It is an example of "truth" that is not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." They are not children. In Witness literature the distinction is consistently made between those who are actual children and those who are young adults capable of following through on choices they have made through word or conduct. When disfellowshipping happens in the case of minors, it may result in a somewhat strained family life in which all components except the spiritual continue as before, usually with the added condition that the disfellowshipped one should still sit in on the family Bible study. When disfellowshipping happens in the case of the latter, such ones may be told that it is time to leave the nest. They are not outright abandoned, though there is variability in people and one should never say that it has not occurred. One father I know secured a job with his large employer for his departing son and let him know that he would always be there for him if truly needed. Another, in a family business arrangement, divided resources so that his young adult son could have a decent start outside the congregation. This was misrepresented as though he had thrown him out with nothing but the clothes on his back, and the father for a time became a community pariah, but eventually matters came out that he had actually been quite generous, whereby much of the reputational damage was restored.

Some disfellowshipped teens have run away from home, in a biblical twist of a drama as old as time. Such a dramatized case was presented in a short video at Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses during 2017. A young woman had been disfellowshipped over sexual immorality, having sailed past all lesser forms of discipline unmoved. When she later called the home she had left—for she did run away in this case, against her folks' wishes—her mom did not answer the phone, an action that the young woman later describes as crucial to her turnaround and reinstatement; if mom had extended just a little bit of fellowship, she recalls that it would have been enough for her to continue in her "headstrong" course.

This will not likely resonate with non-Witnesses today. "You would make such a fuss over chaste conduct?" many will say, aghast. "Haven't we moved on from that?" Yet, it is a matter of adhering to the standards of the oldest book of time. Family feuds in the overall world are the stuff of legend, often started over matters far more petty, such as taking sides in the disputes of another family member. It is common today that old ones are dropped off in nursing homes, never to be visited again, for reasons no more substantial than that they became inconvenient. One would never say that it is routine for divisions in family to occur, but they are by no means unheard of.

The Witness organization has said that it does not instruct parents to not associate with their disfellowshipped children. But they have produced the video cited above of specific circumstances in which a parent ignores a phone call from one of them. What to make of this? Detractors will say that they are lying through their teeth with the first statement. I think not. I think they should be taken at their word—parents will reach their own decisions on the degree of contact they choose to maintain, since they can best assess extenuating circumstances. It becomes their decision—whether they find some or none at all. Specifically, what the Witness publications do is point out that there is no reason per se that normal counsel to avoid contact with those disfellowshipped is negated simply because there are family connections. That is not the same as "telling" families to break contact. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is significant.

That statement finds further support in the many Witnesses who have departed and subsequently report that, though they were never disfellowshipped, they still find themselves estranged from the family mix. Effectively, they are "shunned" without any announcement at all, evidence that a "cult" is not telling parents what to do, but it is the latter's appreciation for Bible counsel that triggers that course. The specific mechanics of avoiding associations with those who have spun 180-degrees on prior spiritual convictions may be arguable, but the general principle is not. When no verbal direction is given, Witnesses defer to the general principle, so it becomes plain that it was the general principle all along, rather than the commands of eight tyrannical men at headquarters. "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?" says Paul, referring to two polar-opposite worlds and those who would choose between them.

It is the "choice" that defines. Some family members fail to follow through on their decided course as Jehovah's Witnesses, but they do not turn against it. Family relations may be less warm, but do not typically discontinue. It is only by making a choice that relations almost inevitably sour. Is it so hard to understand, given that spiritual things are important to Jehovah's Witnesses? It is well-understood in matters of nations, where visiting an unfriendly country brings no sanction, but turning traitorous against one's own does. In politics it is understood, too. When comedian Kathy Griffin holds aloft the mock severed head of the American president, does anyone think that her Republican dad (if he is) says: "That's my lass! She speaks her mind! It won't affect Thanksgiving dinner, though?" Of course it will.

The word "disfellowship" has not been heard in congregation announcements for perhaps a dozen years now—not that it has been purged from Witness vocabulary, but it is not explicitly stated. From time to time, an announcement is made that so and so "is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." It is never made of one who has merely fallen inactive, but only of those who have departed from the faith through deed or word. Though, to my knowledge, no announcement has ever been made that such is the equivalent of disfellowshipping, people mostly treat it that way. Some of whom that announcement is made are shocked into regret and turning around. Others say "You got that right" as they turn the page and go on to another chapter of life. If it is said of someone who rejects the tenets of a religion that they are therefore no longer a part of it, what are they going to say—that they are? Few would challenge the statement.

Few would argue that youngsters have not the same maturity at age ten that they will have at twice that age. Ought they be forbidden to commit to the course they have come to believe is right, on the basis that they may later change their minds? It is not a good solution for Witnesses, though it be a great one for the anti-cultists, as it permits the latter more time to sway them. However, children will always do better when permitted to identify with their choices. John Holt, an education pioneer, maintained that a prime cause of juvenile delinquency is that children are shut out of the adult world—an unanticipated effect of child labor laws enacted to protect them. For children, the solution will not be to forbid them to act upon what they have come to believe. The solution will be to cut them slack when they, through inexperience, stumble along the way. Most likely, that is being done today, for Jehovah's Witnesses, like everyone else, dearly love their children and want them to succeed.

As it turns out, I know a youngster who was disfellowshipped for a period of several months and was subsequently reinstated. He was a minor and he lived at the family home throughout the time. Months before he was disfellowshipped he had been reproved. Since I had a rapport with him, I afterwards approached to say that, while it was none of my business and I was not curious, still, if he ever wanted to discuss things, I would be available. Maybe, I allowed, he had come across some anti-Witness literature and had been intrigued. Maybe he had wanted to go to college and his parents had poured cold water on the idea. "Look, if you've gone gay on us—it doesn't matter," I said. "The point is that I have been around forever, I have seen everything, and I am not wound up too tight." He was silent for a moment and then started telling me about this girl in another congregation. "Oh, girls are nothing but trouble!" I told him in an anticlimactic spirit. His woes were boiler-plate. Maybe he will marry the girl someday.

I had known him most of his life. As a young boy, he surfaces in my first book, _Tom Irregardless and Me_ , as Willie, the lad who protested my introducing him at each door, so I responded that he could introduce me instead. That is how it had gone all morning, save for one or two awkward situations that I had handled. The householder would look at me in expectation and I would say: "Sorry, I'm too bashful. It's his turn." As long as he had been comfortable, it had remained his turn.

He also surfaces as Dietrich in the second book, _No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash_. I only know two Dietrichs, and the younger is named after the older, a trustworthy man whom I almost gave a heart attack when I showed up to give the first talk at the District Convention, relieving him as chairman, with only seconds to spare—there he was with songbook in hand looking anxiously through the audience. I had been in the Chairman's Office awaiting my escort, assuming that the current year's procedure would be the same as the prior one's. It wasn't. Today it would be. Everyone "did what was right in his own eyes" back them. Even in small matters, there is a value in organization.

I followed the course with Willie and Dietrich that all Witnesses know and respect—I didn't speak to him at all during his disfellowshipped time, save for only an instance or two that I could not resist. On a frigid day, he dropped family members off at the door, parked, and strode toward the Kingdom Hall without a coat. Breaking all decorum, I said: "Look, I know there's no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?" He liked that one. In time he was reinstated, and I later told him that there was a silver lining to be found in his experience—he would forever be an example of how discipline produces its intended effect in the Christian community. As state before, the word "shun" is never heard in the Witness community, just as the word "cult" is not, save for its age-old definition. The term "shun" is unnecessarily harsh. "Disfellowshipping" is reversible and that always is the hoped-for outcome. "Shunning" does not adequately convey that distinction.

Always there will those of the opposite persuasion—not like Dietrich at all: persons disfellowshipped who aren't too happy about it. Find a few of them, work up the narrative to make it as heart-wrenching as possible, and it is hard to see how it cannot be a media grand slam every time. Hide the purpose of it and present it as petty vengeance—it is a view that will sell today. Paint those doing it as deprived of humanity—it flies. Paint as dictatorial the organization holding the course—that interpretation carries the day. This is the age of the individual, not the group that they have individually chosen. The view that carries the day with regard to any organization is—it may as well be the year text—"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If there are people in charge, they must be corrupt—so goes the thinking. To an irreligious crowd, whatever the offenses for which ones were disfellowshipped are all but judgmental religious nonsense, anyway. We should have moved on from it long ago. The emotional component is strong and such narratives find eager reception..

Beyond all question, Jehovah's Witnesses march to a different drumbeat. They willingly yield to the influence of those who have chosen the same drumbeat, rather than those who pound the drums of the status-quo world. Under the new, updated, definition, Witnesses can easily be portrayed the very embodiment of a cult—and the Bible itself a cult manual. It is because Jehovah's Witnesses represent a religion that purports to be life-altering, rather than a religion that merely puts a smiley softening face on the quest for the status quo, that they run into anti-cultist opposition. Witness apostates who join forces with them lose sight completely of how religion can be the powerful force that it is with their former friends or relatives, and they agitate relentlessly for it not to be so.

To the congregation in Corinth, the apostle Paul writes: "For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ." Plainly, this concern is of no consequence to departing ones who have embraced atheism. Almost necessarily they must focus on individual rights, since what triggers a sense of responsibility among their former spiritual kin has become a non-factor to them. No, it will not be easy selling the idea of disfellowshipping to these ones.

back

# Chapter 17 – The Movie 'Apostasy'

The biblically literate Christian generally wishes that Hollywood would forget that the book exists. They butcher it each time they touch it. It is seldom through malice. Hollywood simply isn't an overly religious place, and few can put themselves into the shoes of persons of faith. They mix a bit of nonsense that they remember from Sunday School with formulas for what makes a riveting movie and produce a product in which Moses pops Pharaoh in the nose and gets the girl—a far cry from the actual Moses who carried on so much about being slow of tongue that God assigned a helper to handle public relations for him.

Cinema doesn't always work against us. I once worked with an agnostic woman who knew that God's name was Jehovah because she had seen an Indiana Jones movie. She knew that God's original purpose was for the earth to be a paradise because she had seen the film Dogma. She had never been in a church, yet she knew more about God from two movies than do many after a lifetime of pew-sitting. Usually, though, we get clobbered at the hands of moviemakers.

The first Hollywood production I know of that specifically mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses was Clint Eastwood's A Perfect World. The Witness mother in the film quelled the complaints of her two children, upset that they could not do Halloween trick or treating, with the pious platitude: "We have a higher calling." No Witness in a thousand years is going to say "We have a higher calling"—they just don't talk that way, and so I knew that Clint probably didn't have it in for Jehovah's Witnesses in particular; he just wanted a premise for a good movie, as most of his are.

A robber in the film had inadvertently kidnapped one of the Witness mother's two children. As though testimony that this movie was filmed long ago, he did the child no harm. Instead, he warmed to the lad. The boy, too, didn't seem too upset at being kidnapped. He warmed to his kidnapper, for now he could escape his frumpy Witness mom and go trick or treating, like every child longs to do. The detective assigned even arranged for this to happen, after exploding: "What kind of a nutty religion doesn't do Halloween?" He made his deputies bring the boy candy, which the lad in his ghost costume eagerly collected. It was a heartwarming scene, indeed—and then the sharpshooter shot the boy's new best friend dead just feet away from him.

Other than sporadic attempts to make hay out of a Witness refusing a blood transfusion—it is an irresistible film premise—and a doctor crusading, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to override this bit of perceived pig-headedness, there have been few movie attempts to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses. To my astonishment, one episode of The Practice, a legal drama of the late nineties, featured the topic and got most of it right. Trustworthy Rebecca, the resourceful secretary, got caught in a bomb blast brought on by a former client that the team should have stayed far away from. Suddenly a new character appeared out of nowhere for one or two episodes—Rebecca's mom, who had affidavits from the local congregation that her daughter was a practicing Jehovah's Witness and wouldn't take blood!

Don't Witnesses carry "blood cards?" head attorney Bobby objected in the courtroom. Don't Witnesses talk about their faith? Rebecca hadn't. But Mama said that she had been so beaten down by being the only black girl in the office that she had learned to keep her mouth shut. Well, maybe. It's a little thin, but this is television, after all.

Bobby determined that he would force a transfusion on the unconscious woman. He railed in court that this woman could be saved but for this - this "voodoo" religion. When it was Mama's turn on the stand, she said: "You tipped your hand, Bobby. This has nothing to do with saving life. This is about your own religious prejudice." The judge ruled in favor of Mama. I couldn't believe it. At Witness headquarters worldwide, they all rose to their feet and cheered—or at least they might have had they been watching, which they probably were not. Afterwards, as though admitted to the bar, Mama joined in group prayer with the legal team keeping vigil around her daughter's hospital bedside.

Okay, okay, so they messed some things up. It's still immeasurably better than how we usually fare in Hollywood. Throughout, Jehovah's Witnesses were presented with dignity. They were not presented as cult-addled nut-jobs. How do they fare in The Children Act, a 2018 offering? In this film, the judge does not rule for the Witness position, but personally intervenes with a young man dying of leukemia to sway him of his beliefs. He apparently becomes somewhat unhinged thereafter, which is to be expected, the premise goes, upon breaking free of a "controlling" religion. The judge herself is on shaky ground, with her marital life falling apart.

It's hard to say if the movie is any good or not. The star power of the cast is undeniable. To the extent that Witness detractors are in the audience—and that will be a very large extent—they will reliably praise it to the heavens because it denigrates their former faith. I may have to see the movie myself. But even counting television movies, I see only a handful a year, and that usually is at the behest of my wife. Can one write about a movie that one has not seen? It's dicey. However, if scientists can do forensic research on events eons-old and have that research accepted, there is no reason that I should not be able to give it a shot, doing forensic research based upon existing reviews and my own background knowledge of how the Jehovah's Witness faith works.

I was roundly thrashed by ex-Witnesses when I pulled this trick by writing a review of another film—one that presents Jehovah's Witnesses in a decidedly bad light—the movie Apostasy. You don't win them all—sometimes they blow up in your face. Even I had to admit that it is a bit much to review it unseen, forensics notwithstanding. I took on the challenge because I knew that whatever problems might lay with the film would lay with, not what was said, but what was not said. I readily conceded that the film was well-done, and it has gone on to win honors—though once again, it is hard to say how much of those honors stem from Witness-bashers lauding it to the heavens. Once again, the stars are top notch. My aim was to offer context, since the film, by all accounts, portrays Jehovah's Witnesses as the most deluded of people.

It does not portray them as bad people, however, but merely hamstrung in life by immersion in a cult. It doesn't even portray them as unhappy people, just people whose happiness somehow rings hollow, as it is based upon unreality. The movie's director was raised in the faith and says "it was liberating to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses." It is probably well for Witnesses to know, to the extent they don't already, that they don't all pine away for the good old days at the Kingdom Hall after departure.

This director certainly doesn't. As he himself developed doubts growing up, he has concocted two film characters who also develop doubts. Perhaps three of them do—I may have to see this one as well. The filmmaker is described as a "gentle, softly spoken man" who was initially uncomfortable with the topic of his debut film. The reviewer praises the film's "even-handedness, the way it stirs in the audience sympathy for characters whose beliefs most of us might ordinarily struggle to understand." Only the "cult" that has so hoodwinked them suffers.

Confounding his co-ex-members, he tells the Guardian film critic in a July 15, 2018 article that he is on good terms with his Mom, though he left his childhood faith years ago. Perhaps that will change with the movie. Or perhaps it will go the other way, and his apparent dream will come true—he may succeed in undermining her faith in the spiritual things that she once thought preeminent, and, having canceled out the positive, there will remain only the negative upon which to focus.

The most telling part of the interview is his statement: "The audience needs to understand the weight of their beliefs, the spiritual pressure they're under. Because that's what motivates them." Plainly, this is opinion, not fact. But it is an informed opinion of one who has "been there and done that," and there have been many that have held it. He has been mobbed at showings by ex-JWs who hail him for succeeding in his mission.

He describes the atmosphere of his former faith as one of "elitism." This, too, is plainly opinion. It is like how it has become standard fare for parties on either side of a dispute to pronounce the other "arrogant" upon failing to sway them. Any time you have an outlook not shared by the general populace you are a sitting duck for those who want to paint you as "elitist."

He even applies the phrase "cognitive dissonance" to those of his former faith. It is the modern method of giving insult, as in: "Your cognitive dissonance must be massive to stand in the face of my overwhelming persuasion." Is it really so that persons cannot simultaneously hold non-dovetailing ideas without short-circuiting their heads? One glance at Americans watching pharmaceutical ads will dispel the notion, with narrator insisting that you must have the product peddled and voiceover saying that it may kill you.

He is disappointed that the other Witness-bashing movie, The Children Act—there are not _that_ many of them, after all—is released at exactly the same time as his. What are the chances? He doesn't particularly like the other film, describing it as "an outsider's movie." "When I read it," he says, "I found myself nit-picking. Ex-Witnesses always say: 'Oh, that's not quite right.'" Present Witnesses will do it, too. Did I not just do the same with the Clint Eastwood movie?

Granted, the movie is fiction, and so by definition is untrue, but the outward facts do not appear to be wrong, merely incomplete and skewed by an emotional component that few Witnesses will identify with. "Meagre" and "joyless" are not words I would ever use describing the Jehovah's Witness world, as the director does—one certainly would not get that impression upon visiting a Kingdom Hall, much less a large convention. "Unnervingly quiet" also doesn't ring true, nor men who "rule the roost." Still, I know where he is coming from. If you become disillusioned with your own cause and start to long for the offerings of the other side, your life becomes meagre and joyless until you grasp them. What is a guardrail to some is an iron curtain to others.

Jehovah's Witnesses may be best thought of as a nation. Unlike physical nations, its citizens are united in terms of common purpose and goals. Barriers that divide elsewhere mean nothing to Witnesses—those of nationality, race, economic, and social status. Like any nation, Witnesses will have their own culture. Unlike other nations, that culture is ever the minority view where they live. The happy citizens of China will surely seem immersed in a cult from an American point of view, their outlook and concerns molded by forces of which Americans are mostly unaware and would not think important if they knew. The citizens of America will surely seem immersed in a cult from a Chinese point of view for the same reasons. The two situations cause no internal discord because, in each case, persons are surrounded almost entirely by their own. Witnesses are a scattered nation, though, nowhere the majority, and since the beginning of time, the majority has been intolerant of the minority.

Yes, I do know where this fellow is coming from. My people have a culture. They can be seen as a little too insistent on this point, a little too pushy on that point, a little too hung up on yet another, so that, all things being equal, if I could find another group that does all that they do, minus the gaffes, I would go there. But I can't. Not even close. It would involve finding someone else "speaking and teaching with correctness the things about Jesus," like Apollos did. It would involve finding someone else who has built a brotherhood undivided by nationality, race, or social position. It would involve finding someone who has built an infrastructure for the universal spread of a detailed body of life-changing knowledge that is unimpeded by language differences. I look and I look but I do not see that other group, so I begin to say perhaps what I perceive as downers aren't so down after all. Perhaps it would be the case that as soon as I was to get them more amenable to my preferences, they would lose what makes them effective. Maybe it is no more sporting of me to point fingers at them than to point fingers at Canadians for ending sentences with 'eh.' People with Bible principles are able to yield to one another and get along. Is it truly cult-like to get along and thereby get things done? Or is it pig-headed not to? I'll stay where I am, thank you very much.

There are any number of things that I do not like about the earthly organization. They are far offset by things that I do like. Mostly they are a matter of style. And no, I would not state them in a general forum. It is not 'cult' thinking to decline that invitation. It is recognition that the greater world thrives on division— _that's_ what it ever wants to talk about—and uses each disagreement as an occasion to drive a wedge to divide further. The points are all arguable. If I thought that they were not, I'd go elsewhere. Being that they are, I'll argue it their way. If they change on anything—they do it all the time and are very open about, euphemistically calling it "tacking" and navigating in "the light that gets brighter"—I'll argue it the new way. It's the role I have chosen. Is it cult-like to work for unity? Or is it ruinous to work for division?

There are two views of the world. Let the adherents of both have their say. Long ago, in a lengthy discussion with a householder on the topic of evolution, the man at last ventured to ask what difference did it make how we all got here? I replied that, if there was a God who created us and the earth upon which we live, he might just have some purpose for them both and not sit idly by to see it all ruined. But if evolution put us all here, then whatever hope there was for the future lay in human efforts. "And they're not doing so well," I added. The man's wife, who had been silent up till then, said, "That's a good point." Here in the Apostasy movie is a reality drawn by one who thinks that those humans _are_ doing well, or at least he has lost faith in God's purposes to remedy the earth that is now, for he describes himself as agnostic. Let all voices be heard as the contest for minds and hearts continues.

There are two worlds from which to choose. The Book describes the one to come, everlasting life on a paradisiac earth made possible when God's kingdom truly comes "on earth, as it is in heaven," as the prayer says. It is the "real" life of 1 Timothy 6:19. Some translations call it the "true" life. Jehovah's Witnesses, without too much fuss, know how to delay instant gratification in this life so as to lay hold of the "real" one. Their anti-cult detractors readily concede that delaying instant gratification is a good thing, but will protest that _this_ is going too far, because, for them, the game is well along in innings, with no concept at all of a succeeding "real" life.

Most Witnesses will have conniptions about seeing their faith slammed so publicly. They'll have to get used to it. It's okay. The play now features an additional act, but it is the same play. For decades, Jehovah's Witnesses, who came "out of the world," have spun an image of that world that rings true with some and untrue to others. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with someone who comes from their own ranks and does the reverse. Let people decide for themselves what rings true and what rings false.

To his followers, Jesus says "Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake." It is a saying that makes no sense at all until it is taken as an indication that they must be on the right track for it to be said of them, for "as they have persecuted me, so will they persecute you." Beyond all question, whatever is done by the Witness organization is done "for Jesus's sake." They are accustomed to showing the gem through its most appealing facet. Let them learn, if need be, to show it through its least appealing one. Disfellowshipping is unpleasant, and the prospect of that unpleasantness serves to discourage the conduct that might trigger it. Once incurred, it serves to spur the conduct that might reverse it, for the door that was closed was never locked. But if that one goes thereafter his or her own separate way, relations will cool. If he turns upon and savages the framework that his loved ones yet hold dear, it will almost certainly sever.

Jesus says that both hot or cold are desirable, but lukewarm doesn't work. The illustration that every Witness knows is that of the embers staying hot only if they huddle toward the center. They also know the expression that it is possible to engage in the ministry just enough to hate it—only whole-souled with do the trick. They encourage members to solidify their faith through study, ministry, and association. "Make the truth your own," is an expression all Witnesses know. If that sounds cult-like, it is because, given the present expanded definition, Christianity true to its roots is a cult.

It all boils down to what Jesus told Saul, related at Acts 26:14—"to keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you." A support system is only a support to those in line with the program—they will not think of them as goads at all. Should one choose to pursue Christianity, it does indeed come with a support system to better ensure success. But to those whose alignment to the Christian purpose has waned or even shut down, the goads will seem almost unbearably oppressive—it is no wonder that these would depart and thereafter speak ill of the faith they once breathed.

The situation resembles the apostle Paul's letter to the Philippians. He is probably making lemonade out of lemons, but it is lemonade all the same: "True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love...but the former do it out of contentiousness....What then? [Nothing,] except in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice."

Let the man make his movie. Should he be lambasted for it? He is a person of creative bent. What else should he be expected to do with his talents other than address what he once lived? I feel the same pressure, only from the opposite direction. I, too, tell stories, and everything comes with a Witness's perspective because that is the life I live. Should I write of something else—say, current matters of newsworthy interest, I find that they usually come down to the same ending: "It's all messed-up because we 'need the kingdom.'" As Solomon put it, "that which is crooked cannot be made straight."

Is it really Jehovah's Witnesses that live in a manipulated unreality? Or it is their apostates? Each will choose differently. Thrilled to be finally liberated from "waiting upon God" and his kingdom rule, some of them dive into the formerly off-limits governments of nations with verve. Let them at _least_ consider briefly _The Confession of Congressman X_ , a book released in 2016:

"My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything," the author quotes an anonymous member of Congress. "Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works....It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification." He describes most of his colleagues as "dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them." "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost," the unburdening Congressman says—he is cleansing his soul, for he has found the reality so different from what he had anticipated, and it has shaken him to his core—but, after all, he knows that he has landed a good gig and doesn't want to start pounding the pavements in search of another. "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation. It's about getting credit now, lookin' good for the upcoming election."

Like the three hoaxers of chapter 10, Congressman X will not be invited soon to any speaking engagements before the establishment. Every so often a factoid emerges from somewhere to reveal that the emperor has no clothes. Perhaps his is not the last word on matters. But then, perhaps the Apostasy movie's word is also not the last word. We live in a world in which people process exactly the same data, come to polar opposite conclusions, and thereafter scream at each other day and night on social media. Let the spiritual things that preoccupy Jehovah's Witnesses also take their turn in the spotlight—the things with the greatest consequence of all. Let them, too, divide people, according to what they wish to fixate upon.

Jehovah's Witnesses are drawn from ones who know within themselves that the reality today has changed little from that of Bible times. Then, the common people were "skinned and thrown about." It is modified today only in that there are more to do the skinning—powerful commercial, political, and religious interests. Those prospective Witnesses know intuitively that the game will not change, though it is ever moved to another level so as to give that appearance. They also sense a gross injustice at God's taking the blame for the misuse of the free will that he afforded humans. Yet when they later band together and impose some limits on their own free will, they find that their God takes the blame for that, too, for that is an affront to "freedom."

The urge to investigate the promises of the Bible and then stick with them in the face of opposition or adversity is largely a matter of the heart, not the head. "Sighing and groaning" over all these detestable things (Ezekiel 9) is not the same as bellyaching and complaining. Many do the latter. Relatively few do the former. The heart chooses what it wants, and then entrusts the head to devise a convincing rationale for the choice, lending the impression that it was the head all along. But it is mostly the heart.

Not everyone will feel as do future Witnesses, and some, like the movie director, will move in the other direction. Hope springs eternal. The game _will_ change one day, through human efforts, they will maintain. The young will yet fix things—why did no other generation ever think to do this? Others acquiesce that the game may not change but they remain determined to ride it out, for good or ill. They will look with derision at Witnesses riding cramped in their self-described lifeboat. It is only to be expected. Jesus didn't come to save the cool people. The cool people will tell you that they don't need saving—they are doing just fine, thank you very much. He came to save, not those who do not need a physician, but those who do.

Are they really that cool? How cool can one be when in, a heartbeat, one can be run over by a truck? From their ranks come the ones who deride religion as a "crutch" of which they have no need. The analogy is correct—religion is a crutch. What is wrong is the premise. The premise that more aptly fits is that of the crippled fellow dragging himself through the mud, too stupid or proud—or maybe just uninformed—to know that a crutch would be useful. In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the most influential person on earth. Ten years later, in the throes of Alzheimer's, he didn't know who he was. How cool is that?

back

# Chapter 18 – New Scientist and Blood Transfusion

When speaking medicine with someone who doesn't care for Jehovah's Witnesses, one finds that "blood transfusion" is always linked with "life-saving." There are no exceptions. The noun and adjective must never be separated. At least, not until recently. At long last, the link is beginning to crumble. "Life-threatening" is fast emerging as a reality to offset, in part, the "life-saving." Not among JW detractors, of course, who will still be chanting "life-saving blood transfusions" as they are lowered into their graves. But among those who actually keep up with things, matters are changing fast.

It is the only conclusion one can reach upon reading the April 26, 2008 New Scientist magazine. Entitled 'An Act of Faith in the Operating Room,' an article reviews study after study, and concludes that for all but the most catastrophic cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. Says Gavin Murphy, a cardiac surgeon at the Bristol Heart Institute in the U.K: "There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive or acute care, outside of when you are bleeding to death, that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you." Difficulties stem from blood deteriorating in even brief storage, from its assault on the immune system, and from its impaired ability to deliver oxygen. In short, the "act of faith" referred to is not withholding a blood transfusion. It is giving one.

One study cited is from the journal Circulation, vol 116, p 2544: "For almost 9000 patients who had heart surgery in the U.K. between 1996 and 2003, receiving a red cell transfusion was associated with three times the risk of dying in the following year and an almost six-fold risk of dying within 30 days of surgery compared with not receiving one. Transfusions were also associated with more infections and higher incidences of stroke, heart attack and kidney failure—complications usually linked to a lack of oxygen in body tissues."

Once before I ventured into the blogosphere with similar thoughts and I count myself lucky to have escaped with my life: "You are welcome to your belief that blood is a dangerous substance that God wants you to avoid," said Charlie. "But please, don't claim that you are doing so out of reason." "In the U.S.A. we have the inalienable right to be idiots, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else," lectured Chemish. From Stanley: "Refusing a life-saving blood transfusion (which hasn't even any side effects) is clearly insane if the refusal is just because of the blood transfusion itself." Greg: "Why is this crazy religion not a form of mental incompetence?" Justin: "My take on the matter is that ultimately anyone who subscribes to the no-blood doctrine has been brainwashed and is not fit to make decisions for themselves on this basis."

And you should have heard them when I mentioned Dr. Bruce Speiss. They went positively apoplectic when he dared to use the R-word: "So it's just largely been a belief system—almost a religion, if you will—that if you give a unit of blood, patients will get better." "What a crank!" they charged. He must be a Jehovah's Witness himself. (He is not, but he might as well become one, for he will now have to deny it to his dying day.) Isn't he the fellow selling cherry cola as a blood substitute? Didn't he buy his medical degree online?

But now it turns out that everything Dr. Speiss said was correct—yes, even the religion part. Says New Scientist: "At first glance it seems astonishing that a technique used so widely for so long could be doing such harm. Yet many surgeons have proved reluctant to submit their methods to systematic study....[Their] assumptions went untested for the better part of a century"

And you should have seen these guys carry on when I suggested that the medical community would one day owe a debt to Jehovah's Witnesses for setting them on the right track, urging the development of bloodless medicine. "Scientists invented bloodless medicine all by themselves!" they shrieked, guided only by their Scientific Method—climbing ever upward and onward—fearlessly pushing the bounds of human knowledge—all to the glorification of Science! They don't give two hoots about your pissy little religion!"

But in fact, some of them do. "[Bloodless surgery] was originally developed to enable Jehovah's Witnesses, who shun transfusions, to undergo major surgery," states the article, and then considers some of its advantages. Indeed, New Scientist opens with scripture: "'For the life of the flesh is in the blood. No soul of you shall eat blood.' So says the Bible's book of Leviticus, and it is for this reason that Jehovah's Witnesses shun blood transfusions." Perhaps, the magazine suggests, all persons should be treated as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, I don't want to gloat over this development. I really don't. Really and truly. Honestly.

On the other hand—Come on! You would too if you were in my shoes! For decades, we Witnesses were the ignorant slaves of superstition. Transfusion proponents, on the other hand, were the all-wise devotees of modern medical science. What right had we to not do as we were told? I've known three persons in my lifetime who were told, point blank and without the slightest empathy, that they would die if they did not consent to a blood transfusion. None of these three consented. None died. Jehovah's Witnesses don't smoke, they don't do drugs, they don't drink to excess—all factors whose health risks, by their sheer prevalence, far outweigh anything having to do with transfusions. They are entirely cooperative with all aspects of medical care, barring only one. Unless fixated on just that one item, a doctor could not ask for better patients.

These findings, so new to the medical establishment, are not new to us. Witnesses have been accumulating them for years, trying to share them with doctors, usually being rebuffed, all the while with the media whipping folks into near hysteria. All we ever wanted was that our own religious conscience be respected, that medical people would not huff, "It's my way or the highway!" and run roughshod over our consciences. Treat it as an allergy ruling out the favored treatment, if you must, and do the best you can under those circumstances. Decades ago Jehovah's Witnesses formed Hospital Information Service committees from local volunteers and sent them into medical establishments to keep them informed on the latest advances in bloodless medicine. Believe me, it was not easy. Constantly we had to contend with, "And what medical school did you get your degree from?" But it has paid off. Here and there, fearless doctors have acknowledged our point of view and have worked to accommodate it. We are most grateful to these medical pioneers, who usually had to withstand much pressure from their own peers.

Did the New Scientist article declare blood transfusions inadvisable in all circumstances? No. It is still thought to be the best option in cases of severe anemia and catastrophic blood loss. But perhaps these views, too, will change. After all, if blood threatens harm to a healthy person, can it really be the treatment of choice for a critically ill one? Surely something from the field of bloodless medicine will emerge as superior, if it hasn't already.

Incidentally, blood banks apparently plan no changes at present. "If all blood had to be used within two weeks, it would cause a major inventory problem," says James Isbister, an adviser to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, quoted in the article. Right. Just like that time I bought a basket of spoiled fruit and spent the week in the bathroom with diarrhea. I wasn't upset. I realized it was my duty to grin and bear it. I didn't want to screw up their inventory.

Anti-Witness "activists" should scream about blood transfusion and Jehovah's Witnesses? Witnesses are the safest religion out there. Have there been deaths due to their transfusion stand? They are made up for 1,000 times over by their no-tolerance policy of tobacco, illicit drugs, and overdrinking. An anti-Witness activist truly interested in preserving life would direct his or her attention almost anywhere else.

Of course, one must be cautious with the above statement lest it appear callous. The survivors of one who has died for any reason will not be comforted to know he could have died in numerous other ways—the JW death was unnecessary, their detractors will allege. Well, that can be equally said of all the other ones, with the added travesty that no principle lay behind them at all other than the mere pursuit of pleasure. If Witness opponents would "protect" people from making choices that they don't want them to make, surely these far more numerous causes of death should incur their ire long before transfusion situations.

And how can extreme sports not be railed against, or even regular sports? It is not uncommon to read of youths dying in this way, and if we count paralysis or foreshortened life due to head trauma, the numbers greatly escalate. Did anyone watch the youngster, an accomplished athlete, soaring thirty feet in the air on the Olympics half-pipe, come down crashing on the edge, and then slide limp into the center track? How many children have died or been maimed trying to emulate that trick, the purpose of which is no more noble than shining before others as daredevil and providing entertainment? For that matter, do we not read of far more driving deaths for youngsters than for those older? Ban them from the road. Find the age with the lowest death stats and ban driving at any other age. Let us veer into hyperbolic here, so as to illustrate that it is possible to paint oneself a great fool in one's quest to restrict the freedom of others.

The willingness to put one's life on the line for almost any cause is accepted as a matter of individual choice, often laudable individual choice. Only with those from the Jehovah's Witness community is an exception made in the popular media. When a youngster dies through daredevil sports, is the coach ever fingered as an accessory to murder, as Jehovah's Witnesses have been with regard to transfusions? No. We all know it—children so dying are lionized for living life to the full and giving their all in the quest of their dreams. It is only when their dreams include God that they are painted as "cult" victims.

back

# Chapter 19 – Dennis

There is a line from a review of the 'Apostasy' movie that says, "Alex thumbs a pamphlet of 'kids who died for Jehovah,' knowing that she might have to do the same." Now, I know my Watchtower publications pretty well and the only one I can think of that could be characterized this way is an Awake magazine from the 1990s. Possibly it was later included into some sort of brochure format. I wrote about it in an excerpt from another blog post:

"I also thought it well to take a look at that May 1994 Awake quote which Matt uses to advance the notion that JW youths are dropping like flies for their transfusion refusals: 'In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue.'

"Not that I accuse Matt of anything devious. I've no doubt he used the quotation in good faith. It's likely from a web source purporting to be informative, but in reality existing to denigrate a faith its author dislikes, trying to make Jehovah's Witnesses look as fanatical as possible, and doing so for philosophical reasons, rather than anything having to do with medicine or lives. So, is the statement taken out of context or not?

"It's a little difficult to tell, for there is no context. The quote is a one-line blurb in the magazine's table of contents designed to pique interest in the articles to follow. The articles to follow describe the cases of five Witness youngsters in North America. Each was admitted into a hospital for aggressive cancer or leukemia. Each fought battles with hospitals, courts, and child welfare agencies determined to administer blood against the patient's will. Each eventually prevailed in court, being recognized as "mature minors" with the right to decide upon their own treatment, though in two cases, a forced transfusion was given prior to that decision. Three of the children did die. Two lived. It is rather wrenching stuff, with court transcripts and statements of the children involved, and those of the participating doctors, lawyers, and judges. In no case do you get the sense that blood transfusions offered a permanent cure, only a possible prolonging of life, ideally long enough for some cure to be discovered. Medical science, frustrated at its inability to cure cancer, has lowered the bar as to what constitutes a cure. If symptoms vanish for so long as five years, the patient is considered cured. If symptoms thereafter return, that is thought be a new case of cancer and perhaps that, too, can be cured. One of the children, who did die, was told that blood would enable her to live only three to six months longer, during which time she might "do many things," such as "visit Disney World." There's little here to suggest that "thousands of youths are dying for putting God first" who would otherwise live. Frankly, I think the quote is sloppily written. "They are still doing it," says the quote. Doing what? Dying? Dying in the thousands? Or putting God first without regard for the immediate consequences?"

One of these children apparently "still doing it" was a fourteen-year-old from the Seattle area who, in 2007, refused further transfusions deemed crucial by his doctors, and did die. The news media picked up the story and gave it wide publicity, almost all of it unfavorable to the boy's convictions. On my own blog, I posted the following, incorporating some of the points made above:

"...This post is to put things in perspective. It is what the boy would want, I am confident. He would not like to see his sincere religious conviction dragged through the mud by persons speaking from emotion, much less from staunch opposition to his convictions. That said, death of a young person is always tragic, no question about it. You can be sure he would have far rather lived. Yet people routinely put their lives on the line for any number of causes, and they are generally lauded as heroes for it, not deluded nuts. Which are they? Take the one who "gives his life for his country," for example. Only some of that person's own countrymen will think his death noble. Everyone else will conclude he died in vain.

"Don't more youngsters die proportionately each year in high school sports than in refusing transfusions? Each year I read a few local examples of the former. I am not sure I would know any of the latter were it not for the news media relaying any such event around the globe. Does anyone think high school sports should be banned or it's coaches judged accessories to 'negligent homicide,' as some bloggers thought would be appropriate for those who may have contributed to Dennis's mindset?

"Dennis was 14. In just four years he'd be eligible for the military. For every youngster who has died via refusing a transfusion, there must be 10,000 who have died as combatants. Jehovah's Witnesses don't go to war. So not only do their 10,000 not die, but there are 10,000 others of all faiths who don't die because there are no JW combatants to kill them. Does anyone think dying in one of the world's never-ending skirmishes is more noble than dying in consequence of observing one's religious conscience? If all persons refused transfusions, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, and all persons refused to take part in war, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, this would be on balance a far safer world.

"Look, death of any youngster in such circumstances pushes a lot of emotional buttons. I understand that. But the hard fact is that most of those voicing strong opinions now were nowhere to be found during the first ten years of Dennis's difficult life. Nor did they lend any support to the aunt generous enough to assume raising the boy after that. Nor, had this crisis resolved itself in any other way, would they take any interest in his subsequent life. The ones who should speak for Dennis are those who knew and shared in his convictions.

"But one also must address the assumption, never challenged in the media, that rejecting a transfusion is tantamount to suicide. (The judge stated that "I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.") How often does one read the noun "blood transfusion" not proceeded by the adjective "life-saving?" The facts suggest the label is not especially fitting.

"For example, Surgeon Bruce Spiess addresses the Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists a few months back, and he declares that blood transfusions have hurt more people than they've helped. Transfusions, he observes, are "almost a religion" because physicians practice them without solid evidence that they help. We all know that blood is a foreign tissue and we all know that the body tries to reject foreign tissue, even when the types match. Another study concludes that the chemical which permits transfused blood to transfer oxygen begins to break down within hours of storage, yet in the U.S, blood is stored for up to 42 days. Another study concludes that transfusion triples the risk of kidney impairment, strokes, and heart attacks.

"Jehovah's Witnesses steadfastly refuse blood transfusions (for religious reasons, not medical) and have created hundreds of Hospital Liaison Committees composed of members who interact with local hospitals and doctors. As a result, some in the medical field have pioneered bloodless techniques. By eliminating the risk of foreign tissue, human error, and blood-borne diseases, these new techniques offer a safety margin that conventional blood transfusions do not. The film Knocking states there are over 140 medical centers in North America that offer some form of bloodless surgical techniques. Might the day come, or is it even here already, when the number of lives saved through such medicine will outnumber those lost by a few members of a relatively tiny religious group that stuck to its principles amidst much opposition? And if Dennis's death is seen in that light, it is not in vain, even in a non-JW context. He should not be remembered as some deluded kid. He deserves better."

back

# Chapter 20 – This Author Goes Under the Knife

Dr. Neil Blumberg runs the transfusion medical unit at the University of Rochester Strong Hospital. He concedes that the public health impact of transfusion immunomodulation is very difficult to estimate. Then he ventures to do just that—if anyone can do it, it will be someone immersed in the field—and says "that in the United States we can expect that 10 to 50 thousand patients a year may be dying from transfusion immunomodulation related causes."

He doesn't mean dying on the operating table. He means dying somewhere down the road through disease transmitted directly by means of a blood transfusion or indirectly due to a compromised immune system later admitting such disease. He might even have had in mind science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, who died in 1992 of AIDS transmitted through a transfusion given nine year previous. Blood transfusions come with severe risks. Those risks have mostly become known only in recent decades, largely through research attempting to meet the needs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

An October 15, 2012 article in The Telegraph, entitled 'Killed by a Needless Blood Transfusion,' quotes Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ian Roberts, as saying: "Like many interventions that have been used for a long time, the necessity for blood transfusion has never been properly tested." Transfusions are "engrained in medical culture," he says. "A doctor will assess patients for levels of oxygen in the blood, find it's low and think: 'Oh, I'll raise it.' It's a bit like cooking – you make a casserole, you taste it and think it's not very salty and you add some salt." Mike Murphy, a professor of blood transfusion medicine at Oxford University, says: "Most blood transfusions are non-urgent, used routinely to 'top up' patients about to undergo planned surgery." (The patient "killed by a needless blood transfusion" died afterwards of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, acquired through the transfusion, though his hip-replacement operation itself was successful.)

It is not easy to find such material. It is drowned out in a flood of promotion as to how safe transfusions are said to be, often advanced by those who have vested interests in preserving the status quo. One suspects that Jehovah's Witness detractors are chief among them—the status quo they wish to preserve is the perception that anyone who would turn down a "life-saving" blood transfusion is either a lunatic or, more likely, a victim of a brainwashing cult. "Today at least 80% of the patients would strongly favor not to have blood transfusion" says medical professor Roland Hetzer. To hear Witness detractors carry on, one would think that they all drop to their knees and beg for one.

Though they might strongly favor not having a blood transfusion, they will not necessarily be given that option. In most places still, blood transfusion is standard fare. Indeed, the hospital that Dr. Blumberg works for has long been uncooperative with Jehovah's Witnesses wishing to avoid blood transfusions. I know this because I long resided in the general area. An area doctor, who is a Jehovah's Witness, knows Dr. Blumberg. When I asked him why Blumberg's expertise and authority—he is in charge of the blood unit, after all—has failed to sway his own hospital, his answer was: "Because he is not political." Exactly. It's not enough to be on the cutting edge of science. One must also battle day and night those who want to knock you off that edge. Not everyone is up to it, for it may entail arguing one's life away. Don't people have spouses, children, and their own health to consider? One must choose one's battles.

Hospitals that have added bloodless to their toolbox report favorable outcomes. Such techniques make for cheaper medicine due to reduced recovery times, for everyone knows that blood is a foreign tissue, and everyone knows that the body tries to reject foreign tissue. It is also cheaper in terms of avoiding liability for transfusions gone bad. Overall, there is no negative impact upon mortality. As far back as 1962, heart transplant pioneer Dr. Denton Cooley was known to cooperate with Jehovah's Witnesses, declaring that their stand could be accommodated with "acceptable risk." Fifty years later, bloodless has become the gold standard—where it is available.

Up to half of adverse transfusion reactions are due to simple human error. If the transfusion is unnecessary to begin with, any adverse reaction at all is a huge penalty to pay. A 1994 study gave further evidence that many of them are unnecessary. Known as the Sanquis study, the records of 43 European teaching hospitals and 7000 patients were examined. It was found that transfusion usage varied greatly from hospital to hospital and depended upon preference of the doctor, not the condition of the patient. The same type of surgery that came with standard transfusion use in one hospital came with almost none in another. In the aftermath of such research, some hospitals have halved their use of blood transfusions simply by relaxing the trigger that calls for one—from 10.2 g/dL to 9 or even 8, at no cost whatsoever, and with no impact upon mortality. The 10.2 figure is but an arbitrary figure that dates back to 1942, yet it still holds sway in the popular mind—drop below it, and, for many doctors still, a blood transfusion is indicated.

A storekeeper will the sell the customer, not necessarily what is best for him, but what is on his shelf. A mechanic will choose, not necessarily the best tool, but the one that is in his toolbox. It is the same with bloodless medicine. If the facility is not equipped with it, for all practical purposes, it does not exist, and the doctor may know of it only in the abstract. For now, it is a specialty, and one can hardly expect all doctors to specialize. To the extent possible, Jehovah's Witnesses lay the groundwork well ahead of time, even choosing specific hospitals, so as not to show up suddenly at one of them and say: "Surprise! No blood!" It is no wonder that some doctors have blown a gasket in such circumstances.

It is not always possible. When I was admitted suddenly for a condition that required prompt surgery, I made clear several times that I would not accept a blood transfusion. 'Not a problem,' I was told more than once. 'We do it all the time. It shouldn't be indicated for this type of operation, anyway. Here, sign this, initial that, and rest easy.' Yet, on the verge of going under anesthesia, the anesthesiologist introduced himself and asked if I would prefer to die rather than accept a blood transfusion should one prove necessary. The reason that it is not advisable to do this, as I discussed with the man afterward, is that it introduces to the patient at the last moment the notion that maybe his surgeon is not very skilled after all—perfectly capable of botching an operation that everyone else has said was a piece of cake.

Taken aback, I had responded that if he were to come to a point in which he felt a blood transfusion was necessary, he was to find an anesthesiologist to whom it would not prove necessary—it wasn't my fault if they couldn't get their ducks lined up. But it wasn't his fault, either. The man was just being conscientious. If a fault was to be assigned, it was with hospital management that had not afforded opportunity to settle this ahead of time. Probably the man had received only five minutes training on the subject: "Run with them if you can but run them down if you can't."

The account is related in greater detail in my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me, in which I have changed all names and even attributed the experience to someone else. There, I came up with the seemingly cute idea of giving all medical staff names that would suggest drugs or diseases. My nemesis anesthesiologist became Dr. Mike "Ace" Inhibitor, and his trusty assistant, Nurse Hep See. Some of the other characters have not aged well, having been named after drugs that were then advertised heavily on television, which was frequently playing in the background as I wrote, but which have today been replaced by other drugs. I would do things differently today.

In every area of medicine, Jehovah's Witnesses know less than their doctors, and they never pretend otherwise. But in the area of blood transfusion, sometimes they know more. This is not because they're smart, but because it is their special cause. "The trouble is," I told Dr. Inhibitor, that our people are likely to know about the New Scientist article, (see chapter 18) and if you do appear not to, they will panic, even to the point of questioning your qualifications.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not medical reformers. They don't tell doctors what to do; they just would like that their consciences be respected. By sheer happenstance they have spurred major advancement in the field of blood transfusion therapy. Some Witnesses will say, however, that it is not sheer happenstance. They will venture the opinion that if the Bible consistently says to not "eat" blood, it cannot be that transfused blood is overall good for you.

It is the underlying principle that counts. If the doctor was to say that absolutely you had to avoid alcohol at all costs because it would cause excruciating pain with your unhealed dental surgery, and you concocted a plan to bypass your mouth and transfuse directly into a vein instead, well—whatever floats your boat. Go for it. But if the reason is that your liver has taken all the abuse it can take and but one more drop of alcohol will cause it to shut down, then you will pour that alcohol out on the ground as if water. The fact that Christ's death fulfilled the Law of the Old Testament, yet the requirement to abstain from blood is still carried over into New Testament times, indicates that something more than mere dietary law is at work here.

Among the greatest repositories of bloodless medical research is that found at JW.org in a section entitled 'Medical Information for Clinicians.' Not that the Witnesses do any of the research themselves, but they keep track of it for obvious reasons. They have produced two videos in which doctors and academics from around the world inform on the latest developments in bloodless therapy: 'Transfusion-Alternative Strategies—Safe, Simple, and Effective,' and 'Transfusion-Alternative Health Care—Meeting Patient Needs and Rights.' Several doctors here quoted are taken from this source.

When the first rudimentary blood transfusion experiments were performed centuries ago, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), objected. His concern was not on scientific grounds but on spiritual: "Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely," he wrote. "Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited."

The only people I know of who still have regard for this aspect of "divine law" are Jehovah's Witnesses. If there were others, (and judging from Bartholin's comment, there must have been) they abandoned it when transfusions were adopted by the medical mainstream. More or less the same thing has occurred with both abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Science advances. It is now possible to separate blood into the tiniest of fractions. This development occasions the seemingly deliberate misunderstanding on the part of Witness opposers that the Watchtower organization has "flip-flopped"—they now "allow" what they formerly "forbade." The reality is that Witness HQ simply recognizes that it is for the conscience of each member to decide which of these minuscule components constitutes blood and which does not. Some will reason that any fraction, no matter how tiny, is blood. Others will reason along the lines of: "It's not a cake until you mix the ingredients."

Chichester-based Dr. Vipul Patel has stated: "I can foresee in the future that patients will almost expect that any surgery that is necessary is carried out without blood transfusion." If his vision comes true at all, it will be a long time away, probably, because the forces of inertia favor the status quo. Of the many developed techniques of bloodless medicine, Dr. Aryah Shandler has said: "This is universal, can be practiced in any institution, in any part of the world....This is the best way of treating patients and truly should be a standard of care."

back

#  Chapter 21 – Who Are Intolerant Like the Anti-Cultists?

Few are unaware that the Bible depicts the epic battle between good and evil, even if they know it in but inkling form. It is the subject of the final Book of Revelation. Foreglimmers of it appear in several other places.

The contest involves the choice between human rulership and divine rulership of the planet. The former is expressed in the present reality of two hundred eternally squabbling nations. The latter is expressed in the Lord's prayer, as God's kingdom (Catholics may know it as the "Our Father prayer), which, when it "comes," results in God's "will be[ing] done on earth, as it is in heaven." Human rulership of the earth has not been such a stellar success that those who point to God's government as the one true hope should be run off the road.

As with the Don McLean song, "the marching band refuses to yield." Though it involves no human agency, God's kingdom forcibly is to replace human rulership. It does not wait for "the broken-hearted people living in the world to agree," for they never will. Daniel 2:44 says it succinctly: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite."

This can be dicey to express in literature, much more in artwork. Still, it has been expressed as long as there have been persons longing to see a final end of evil. One recent offering is from the book _Pure Worship of Jehovah Restored at Last_ , published by Jehovah's Witnesses. The writing gets explicit toward the end. For example:

"During the war of Armageddon, Jehovah will execute people, not in a cold, clinical manner, but in a "great rage." (Read Ezekiel 38:18) He will direct the explosive force of his anger, not against one army or one nation, but against countless individuals living across the globe. On that day, those slain by Jehovah "will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth."—Jer. 25:29, 33.

The Bible verses cited are, from Ezekiel:

"On that day, the day when Gog invades the land of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'my great rage will flare up. In my zeal, in the fire of my fury, I will speak...all humans on the surface of the earth will tremble, and the mountains will be thrown down, and the cliffs will fall, and every wall will collapse to the ground.' 'I will call for a sword against him on all my mountains,' declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. 'Every man's sword will be against his own brother. I will bring my judgment against him...'"

and from Jeremiah:

"'You will not go unpunished, for I am calling for a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth,' declares Jehovah of armies....' And those slain by Jehovah in that day will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be mourned, nor will they be gathered up or buried. They will become like manure on the surface of the ground.'"

That's not very pleasant, is it? Let no one accuse the Bible writers of beating around the bush.

Is it too much? Should the Bible be banned, as it clearly is the fiery source material for such paragraphs as in the Watchtower publication? Ought one side in this epic struggle be allowed a preemptive strike so that the view of the other be muzzled? Is it the sign of a cult not to interpret such passages out of existence?

Should the view that God might be displeased, even outraged, at the present state of the planet be outlawed? Should the only allowable view be that he cheerleads for the present world, having his feelings hurt with each new atrocity, to be sure, but that he quickly rebounds with the chipper hope that if his creatures but elect the right set of leaders, all will be well? Should only that neutered portrayal of God be allowed to stand, and any portrayal that God might actually _do_ something about the state of the world be consigned to the state of fantasy, even harmful fantasy when those of that view reprioritize their lives to better accommodate it?

Taking their place among the most intolerant people on the planet are the anti-cultists. Religion they will allow so long as it does not forget that its place is to reinforce the status quo. "If religion helps you to be kinder and gentler, so be it," they seem to say, "but don't go rocking the boat. Human leadership is the only reality—if your god can come on board with that, he's welcome, but only if. There may daily be discouraging checks, but they are not checkmates, so don't go bringing any literalist religion into it saying that the final checkmate looms ahead."

What's it to them, anyway? If the verses are to become reality, then Jehovah's Witnesses offer a fine heads up and an opportunity to sidestep the trouble. If they are not to become reality, then there is no harm done other than egg on the faces of those announcing it. Jehovah's Witnesses will take that chance. The Bible is still the most widely distributed book on earth, and it is so by a huge margin. Not all will consign it to the dumpster when they hear of such fiery passages. Some will be more like the Hebrew king Josiah of long ago:

"As soon as [Josiah] heard the words of the book of the Law, he ripped his garments apart. Then the king gave this order.... 'Go, inquire of Jehovah in my behalf, in behalf of the people, and in behalf of all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found; for Jehovah's rage that has been set ablaze against us is great, because our forefathers did not obey the words of this book by observing all that is written concerning us.'" (2 Kings 22)

It will ever be the minority view. But only the anti-cultists seek to banish it so as to keep everyone on the same page of human rulership. For Jehovah's Witnesses, who unapologetically choose God's rulership over human rulership, "the wicked" will primarily be those who clearly see both sides and decisively choose human rulership—abysmal track record and all. It will not be those with only a hazy concept of one or both. It will be those who know what they are choosing.

Destruction of "the wicked" so that "the righteous" may live unmolested is a long-understood Bible theme. It is a staple. It has traditionally been seen as a hopeful message, ultimately, and a fine inducement not to be "wicked." Today the anti-cultists try to categorize it as practically on a par with hate-speech. Sometimes they use the reasoning that such language must terrify young children—that it is a form of child abuse to expose young ones to such verses. Is it? Do Jehovah's Witnesses scare children? Or is it the gradual accumulation of ever more obscene conditions that they are expected to adjust to? Tweeted one woman: "I understand why our schools need to have lockdown drills. I cannot even begin to express my rage that this is normal now. But we also need to have a conversation about the psychological harm that's being done to children because of them."

The above paragraph in the Watchtower publication will raise eyebrows, at the very least. That is understood. Yet, many religions ratchet up the consequences to a far greater degree, in effect making Jehovah's Witnesses a "kinder, gentler religion." Many hold that, regardless of how "the wicked" may meet their end, their afterlife will be such as to make that end seem like a walk in the park. Many religions have held that "the wicked" will be tormented forever and ever in some sort of a hellfire. It is notable that Isaac Asimov called hellfire "the drooling dream of a sadist" and wrote of the obvious villainy of imposing _everlasting_ punishment for but _a few decades_ of misdeeds during life—even the most regressive human government knows that the punishment must fit the crime. It is also worth noting that Charles Taze Russell, often described as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, was known during his lifetime as the man who "turned the hose on hell and put out the fire." Jehovah's Witnesses have never believed in an afterlife of torment. These days Watchtower literature associates Russell and those of his time with "the messenger who prepares the way," drawing on a John-the-Baptist reference. One of the first things that must be done in preparing the way for any building project is to cart out the trash. From Day 1, Jehovah's Witnesses have regarded eternal torment in hell as among the trashy doctrines that must go. The teaching makes drawing close to God a real challenge—for who can be drawn to a God capable of such cruelty?

"Have plenty to do in the work of the Lord," says 1 Corinthians 15:58. To those taking such counsel to heart, almost by definition they will have little to do in works not of the Lord—to the point where they may even lose touch with those who speak the language of those works. This will not be the case with religion that views the "works of the Lord" as a buttressing support to the prevailing system of ruling the earth through human governments. But it will be the case with religion that sees the two as separate—that sees the present system of human self-rule as something slated for replacement by divine rule. Those of the latter view can be expected to align themselves with what they think is to come. They can readily be painted as out of touch with concerns that they have set aside to focus on what they think is more relevant.

Were they not dispersed worldwide, their situation would not seem strange in the slightest. The citizens of one nation will know almost nothing of issues that form the very core of consciousness for the citizens of other nations. They are usually dissuaded from learning those concerns. Sometimes, it is active dissuasion from governing forces. Other times, dissuasion is more subtly accomplished by putting so much on one's plate as to forestall exploring elsewhere. "Insularity" with regard to national groups relating to one another is readily facilitated—it is most often the norm.

Plainly, not all can think as Jehovah's Witnesses. It they did, the very system of dividing people by national groups would crumble. But that is not going to happen in this system of things. One is reminded of the American judge who, during the height of World War II, addressed Witness attorney Victor Blackwell, who was defending a conscientious objector: "This whole matter troubles me. What, with Jehovah's Witnesses increasing and spreading out all over the earth, if everybody got to be Jehovah's Witnesses, where would we be...." Mr. Blackwell responded: "Your Honor, if everybody on earth became Jehovah's Witnesses, there would be no war, and no need for armed forces of any kind, in any nation. Would the Court object to that state of affairs?" Proceed with the case, the judge said.

Had he been an anti-cultist judge, he might not have proceeded with the case. Had he been an anti-cultist judge, he might have zeroed in on religious people who dare to champion modes different than his own. He might indeed have objected to "that state of affairs" on the basis that it reflected cult-thinking. He might have not have moved on at all until he succeeded in getting everyone on the same page of human endeavor, bloody though it was at the moment.

back

# Chapter 22- Moses Strikes Solid Rock

Finally, Moses cried out to Jehovah: "What should I do with this people? A little longer and they will stone me!" Though the July, 2018 Watchtower article entitled 'Where are Your Eyes Looking?' nowhere makes the connection, beyond a vague reference to those having "a measure of responsibility in God's organization," which everyone took as a reference to congregation elders, this writer could not help but think that the ones the Governing Body had foremost in mind as beneficiaries of the counsel offered was themselves.

Much was made of the instance in which Moses produced water from the rock at God's direction. He did it twice, something that I had forgotten. The first was months after crossing the Red Sea, during a time when there was so much muttering over a lack of water that Moses in frustration cried out the words above. It didn't occur to them that the God who punished Egypt with ten plagues and parted the waters of the Red Sea, closing them upon the army in pursuit, could solve the problem of a drought. Jehovah told Moses to strike a rock. Moses did, and water gushed out. It is related in the 17th chapter of Exodus.

The next instance was almost 40 years later, and by this time the people had worn Moses down. They had never given up on the bellyaching and even occasional rebellion. This time when they started complaining over the same thing, Moses lost it. "Hear, now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you from this crag?" and he struck the rock twice, after which water again gushed out. God took exception to that which Moses had shouted. Much later, Psalm 106: 32-33 says: "They provoked him at the waters of Meribah, and it went badly for Moses because of them. They embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips."

If, at a congregation meeting, you approach the speaker after a good talk and tell him it was a good talk, he will as often as not say something to the effect that it is not really him who should get the credit but Jehovah. He says that even though people are perfectly capable of speaking all by themselves without any help at all from Jehovah. So what about someone who takes full credit for doing what no human in a thousand years could do? It is what Moses did. That's what can happen when the scoundrels are nipping at your heels day and night for forty years. This last bit of correction from God—that Moses as a consequence of his outburst would not be the one to take his nation into the promised land, strikes the average reader as overly harsh. Yet it is entirely in harmony with the verses "to whom more is given, more will be expected," and "he will finish your training; he will make you firm." Moses, like everybody else, is being trained for the real life, not this transitory one.

Notwithstanding that the Internet is the perfect breeding ground for complainers, one has to ask: What is it with all these malcontents? It is as though kicking against the goads has become the order of the day, seen everywhere, not just in the field of religion. Acquiescence to the authority of the parent, the teacher, the counselor, the coach, the boss, the consulted advisor, the party leader, the union steward, and those taking the lead in the congregation was once an entirely unremarkable fact of life; today it is selling out one's soul. I begin to imagine the Governing Body posting God's rebuke to Moses as their own personal year text, in hopes that they do not also lose it one day in kicking back at the grumblers.

God counted the constant complaints about Moses as though it were constant complaints about Him. "When your forefathers tested me; They challenged me, though they had seen my works," reads Psalm 96:6. "Yeah, well, they're no Moses," I can hear the retorts already, muttering about the Witness Governing Body. "Where are their comparable works? What Red Sea did they lead anyone though?"

Given that literal food and drink prefigures in the Bible the greater spiritual food and drink, the accomplishments of the Witness organization today are nothing short of amazing, The average person of a developing nation must make do with an archaic translation of the Bible that he can neither afford nor understand because those in the church world think it only natural that Big Business be entrusted with the distribution of God's word. Only Jehovah's Witnesses devise an entirely separate channel to place a modern understandable translation in his hands at minimal cost, even free. The Bible satisfactorily answers questions that are answered nowhere else, the deeper questions of life such as 'Why would God permit suffering?' 'Why do people die?' What hope is there afterward?' and 'What is the ultimate purpose of life?' Although this fellow may not have a nickel to his name, he has access to the answers no less than those in more affluent lands. Some in those latter lands count it the accomplishment as nothing as they grouse about matters of personal inconvenience.

It is not nothing. However, when people become obsessed with their own immediate needs and wants, it can become as nothing. This writer doesn't dare do it—simply become a whiner over present inconveniences. There are some inconveniences, of course, in pursuing a united service to God today, but to carry on excessively about them seems to me a reality not too far off from Moses in Sinai. In any organization there is a chance that a given decision will not go your way. Should organization be jettisoned on that account? It is exactly what opposers would wish. That way, individuals flail away, accomplish little, and eventually can be absorbed by the popular cause.

If you take away the upside there becomes nothing left to grumble about other than the downside. The trend today of the young is to go atheist. Who smoothed that path for them? When their new influencers come around, delighted about the restrictions they have broken free from, always ask them what they have found that is better. What is it that they have to offer? Are they not just "promising them freedom" while existing as "slaves of corruption?" What do they have to offer? Simply the freedom to do whatever one wants without check? History shows that brand of freedom has not worked out particularly well for humankind.

With the wandering Israelites, it went well beyond complaining about the dry weather. They reached the point where they wanted to go back to Egypt. Imagine. It is widely told, if only from the Ten Commandments movie, that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt—deliverance from a harsh life. They had there been slaves. Now, just a month later, they wanted to go back. When the going got especially rough because the ten timid spies planted fear amongst them, "they even went to saying to one another: 'Let us appoint a head, and let us return to Egypt!'" says Numbers 14:4. Egypt! The land in which they had suffered slavery for decades. They wanted to go back!

So, too, apostates to the faith today want to go back to "Egypt." It is as though they want to return to slavery. The Lord was impaled in Egypt, Revelation 11:8 says. Everyone knows that he was not impaled there. It is a symbolic usage of "Egypt," an "Egypt" at cross-purposes with God no less than the Egypt of the Old Testament. It, too, features "slavery," and apostates long to return to it because they have decided that it was not so bad after all. The slavery is not so obvious. Rather, it is so universal as to go unnoticed by most. We are slaves to sin with its ultimate consequence of death, Romans 5 tells us. The inherited imperfection by which, try as we might, we let ourselves and all around us down, is the sad reality that God proposes to reverse by means of his Son's sacrifice. "Nah, it's not so bad," the apostates say. "We'll go back to it. Opportunities abound in the world we left, and we want to not miss out on them." It is no different than "Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things" of 2 Timothy 4:10.

If there is no God, Demas is exactly right. Paul would agree with him. "If it is in this life only that we have hoped in the Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied," (1 Corinthians 15:9) in other words—if it is all a myth, an unreality. "However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead," he goes on to affirm next. Faith in God's purpose or the absence of it determines two starkly different outlooks in life. The goads that are absolutely unbearable to those without it are accepted by those with it with barely a notice.

There are times in Bible history when so many became too smart for their own pants and God simply gets fed up. Paul announces that he will take his missionary show on the road. (Acts 13) The king announces that those invited to the feast are not worthy of it, and he redirects the invitation to one and all. (Matthew 22) God himself announces that he will scrap his people and build for himself a new nation from Moses. Moses talks him out of it. Everyone recognizes that God is affording his prophet extraordinary consideration—allowing him to plead a case and demonstrate where his heart lies. Only persons of "critical thought" conclude that he is such an unreasoning hothead as to not know that killing off his own people will damage his street cred. (Exodus 32)

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ," cautions Paul at Colossians 2:8. In the case of opposing young people, former Witnesses themselves, it becomes almost silly to affix to them the label "apostate." They do fit the bill, technically, but they haven't really earned their stripes yet—call them "junior apostates," if one must, or "apostates in training." At present, they are "someone 'carried off' as prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men." They will have to see through it for themselves now. Very likely, few of them will, for the animal carrying off prey is not known to release it. They have aligned themselves with masters skilled in the use of new blinders, the type that permits observation of the trees but not the forest. Still, young people are forever doing rash things that they later rethink, so one never knows how things will turn out. "It ain't over till it's over," says Yogi Berra.

back

# Chapter 23 – The Anti-Cultists are Directly Responsible

The term for a faith-based community of relatively recent origin is "new religious movement." But if you really dislike that community, you resurrect a word already reviled and apply it to your target—you say it is a "cult." That way you don't have to demonstrate that the group is bad. Your label does your work for you.

Time was when if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from normal societal contact, and began doing strange things, you just might be part of a cult. Today, the word is expanded to cover those thinking outside of the box that we are not supposed to think outside of. If the box of popular goals and thinking undeniably led to fulfillment, that might not be such a bad thing, but everyone knows that it does not.

Says religion.wikia.com of the term "new religious movement:" "Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word 'cult.'" How can it not follow that "cult" is therefore not scholarly but more in keeping with those who want to stir up ill will, if not hate?

It is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. People may act upon it. They particularly may do so if "cult" is coaxed just a little bit further in the public eye to become "extremist." Such a thing has happened with regard to Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia under the guidance of anti-cultists.

Anton Chivchalov has described himself as an "observer of the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." He covered the Supreme Court trial resulting in a ban of the faith, as well as the appeal and events thereafter, with a steady stream of tweets. As to anti-cult apostates stirring up hate, he wrote: "The active participation of apostates in the trial against Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian Supreme Court is a vivid example of their unprincipled and indiscriminate cooperation with anyone, if only against us. And I'm not talking here about how incompetent and preposterous this participation was (none could testify anything about extremism). Only emotions, zero facts. But this activity is also utterly immoral, since they want to send innocent people to jail. They are not sincerely misled, like many others. No, apostates are well aware that Jehovah's Witnesses neither killed nor rob anyone, yet they are happy to prosecute us on criminal charges. Of course, they still consider themselves good Christians. [Apostates from the Witness faith do not necessarily become atheist, however the ones that align themselves with anti-cultists usually do.] And it is completely beyond my understanding that with all this hatred towards us they are offended that we don't want to communicate with them!"

Many other new religious movements are shaking in their boots that their turn will come next, for they all have their own apostates eager to grab the popular ear. In Russia, Witnesses are officially designated "extremist," a designation shared only with ISIS. As the human rights group khpg.org points out, "you can't claim that people are 'terrorists' or 'extremists' and then simply knock on their doors to arrest them, though in all cases there is nothing at all to suggest that resistance would have been shown. Instead, there are armed searches, most often by masked men in full military gear, with the suspect hurled to the ground and handcuffed, often in the presence of their distressed and terrified children." This has become the reality for many Witnesses and it is a direct result of those who expand the definition of "cult" to cover people not covered previously.

Note how this meme plays out in the following event. Note also that it has nothing to do with controversies that have dogged the faith in the West: A mass shooting occurred in Crimea, and the shooter's sole parent, raising him alone, is said to be a Jehovah's Witness. Let us assume that it is true. This is not a safe assumption, for another Witness was recently denounced by Russian media as having a cache of arms. It turned out that her non-Witness husband had a few rusted and inoperable souvenir grenades from World War II. Nonetheless, one must start somewhere. Let us assume that mom was a Witness.

Khpg.org reports: "Whether or not his mother is, or has ever been a Jehovah's Witness, there is no proof that Roslyakov had any religious beliefs, or that his mother's alleged beliefs affected him in any way....the entire 'story', as presented, for example, on the Russian state-controlled Vesti.ru, is based solely on value judgments which are presented as though they were facts.

"The Vesti.ru report is entitled 'The Kerch killer was surrounded by supporters of totalitarian sects.' It claims that Roslyakov's mother...'forced her son to live by the rules of the banned organization.'

"It then asserts that people who 'have pulled themselves away from it' are sending messages of sympathy to the bereaved families and claiming that 'all that happened was the result of pseudo-religious upbringing.'

"The supposed 'expert on religious sects', Alexander Dvorkin, makes allegations about the Jehovah's Witnesses faith that are seriously questionable, as does the Russian Orthodox priest interviewed. None of the claims are in any way checked or analyzed, nor is the viewer offered anything in the way of an alternative point of view. The Crimean Human Rights Group is surely correct in identifying all of this as hate speech, which can result in crimes being committed against the targets of attack."

Note that simply being raised as a Witness is said to account for his crime. He simply snapped amidst an intolerable upbringing—it wouldn't have happened otherwise, is the premise we are asked to believe. There have never been any other mass shootings. "Oppressive" religion is solely to blame.

He must have snapped substantially, for Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few groups on earth whose members categorically reject violence for any reason. Yet they are the ones said to be at fault when a young man does a 180 from his taught values. This ridiculous perception prevails because of anti-cultists, whose champion in Russia, Mr. Dvorkin, is soul-mate to Western anti-cultists, he even having the Western connection of a French NGO.

Some enemies of Witnesses in the West, who hurl the "cult" label liberally, are gleeful over this development, even though it results in machine guns pointed at the heads of their arrested and shackled former loved ones. More typically, however, they disapprove of it. Some have denounced it. But their verbiage is directly responsible. Their denunciation is akin to the California campground arsonist denouncing that the state has burned to the ground. One must not be obtuse. Once you release the hounds of hell, you find that you cannot control just how many they maul.

And what have the Jehovah's Witnesses done to deserve such an outcome? Do they interpret the Bible differently? Do they publicize the view that this grand experiment of human self-rule will one day end, to be replaced by God's kingdom? Surely such a view should be allowed to stand, even if ones adopting it change their life goals accordingly. Not everyone will think that the present world sails proudly upon the high seas, with sharpshooters in the bow ready to blast to smithereens icebergs as they approach. Some will think it more likely that the Titanic will hit one. Must that view be stomped out of existence by bullying anti-cultists?

Christianity started as a religion of the working class. It took the scholarly Paul to make the connections with the Law of Moses—a feat that might not be expected of fishermen and laborers. The upper classes cared little about such doings, and so references to the faith in Roman writings are few and unflattering. Earliest of them is from Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who point out that when suspicion fell upon Nero for setting fire to Rome, he blamed the Christians instead.

Writes the historian: "Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome....Accordingly, first those were seized who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race.

"And in their deaths they were also made the subjects of sport, for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when day declined, burned to serve for nocturnal lights. Nero offered his own gardens for that spectacle, and exhibiting a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the habit of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. Whence a feeling of compassion arose toward the sufferers, tho guilty and deserving to be made examples of by capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but victims to the ferocity of one man."

Let us pass over what first draws our attention—the barbarity of it all—to dwell on the evil reputation of those early Christians that made it possible. From where did it come? How can it be that, three decades after Jesus' death, his followers were "hated for their enormities?" How can it be that they were convicted on the charge of "hating the human race" as much as of setting fire to the city? How can it be that they could so readily be thought "guilty and deserving to be made examples of by capital punishment?" They could not have been made the scapegoat without that ugly reputation, no matter how vigorously the depraved emperor had pointed to them. How did they acquire it?

Professor G. A. Wells, author of _The Jesus Myth_ , opines that "the context of Tacitus's remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants." No genuine Christian is going to say: "We hate the human race," but exactly the opposite. It was their "informants"—their apostates, that spread the ill report!

A faith that is "anything goes" will produce few apostates. What would they apostatize from? Repeatedly we read in scripture that apostates "despise authority." How does that become a problem unless there is authority? They love "lawlessness." How does that become a problem unless there is law? They favor acts of "brazen conduct." They have "eyes full of adultery," and they are "unable to desist from sin." How does that become a problem unless there is someone to tell them that they cannot carry on that way? Not only is the nature of apostates revealed in the above verses of Jude and 2 Peter 2, but also the nature of the Christian organization. A faith too bland to produce quality apostates is too bland to be given the time of day.

Persecutions today are not like in Nero's day. The mistreatment of Christians in Russia is not the mistreatment of Christians in the first century. History is not repeating—but it is beginning to rhyme a little. Jehovah's Witnesses and other "new religions" are under assault by a modern "anti-cult" movement, incensed at their "authoritarian" nature—just as first-century apostates to the faith were of theirs, and misrepresented it popularly as being "haters of the human race."

Jesus said to his followers that "if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you, also." Those who would follow his footsteps were to be separate from the greater world—insular to it—even as they tried to lend a helping hand to those within. Their insularity was the source of different expectations, goals, and conduct that their apostates could work into a lather in their attempts to foment opposition. It is the same today, with miscues of the faithful—some real and some concocted—blown up beyond all bounds of reason in efforts to eliminate arguably the most peaceful and law-abiding people on earth. When Kingdom Halls are burned to the ground, as were two in 2018 Washington State amidst six separate attacks, can it be possible that the still-at-large arsonist will not have been whipped into a frenzy by the incendiary C-word? Screaming that word pushes the crazies over the edge; such is the power of hate speech and it is the reason authorities distinguish it from normal protected free speech.

back

# Chapter 24 – One Last Chance For Religious Freedom in Russia

Dennis Christensen "has spent the last 20 months in a cold cell with suspected drug dealers and only been allowed to meet his wife, separated by bars and a corridor, twice a month. If convicted, he could spend up to a decade in jail," writes Andrew Osborn for Reuters. How much do you want to bet that those drug dealers now know their Bibles quite well? Alas, that may make them more unwelcome in Russia than had they landed the area distribution franchise for Drugs-R-Us.

He must have his moments of despondency. He must. But you would never know it. He is serene in appearances, and sometimes even cheerful. Jehovah's Witnesses could not have wished for better examples to face the Russian bear than he and his wife Irene. See how he typifies the spirit of 1 Peter 2:23:

"Christ suffered...leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely.... When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously."

Has he wavered in his love for his adopted homeland? He "does not regret that he moved to live in Russia. 'It is one of the best decisions that I have made in my life, and it brought me much happiness,'" he tells the Reuters reporter. This despite his being anything but starry eyed. "To call me or other peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses extremists is the greatest stupidity that I have ever heard!" he says. "Of course I hope that he (the judge) will be just," he said. "But I also know which country I've been living in."

Only a month ago, President Putin, when asked, stated that the equating of Jehovah's Witnesses with terrorists was "of course...complete nonsense," something "you need to carefully deal with," and later, "so this should be looked into" since "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too." We may soon learn just how carefully he means to deal with and look at it, as the time of Dennis's sentencing has arrived. As for Irena, "I'm not afraid of anything and Dennis is not afraid either," she told Reuters.

I have never seen a picture of him in which he is not mild, even well dressed. He actually broke into song at one hearing via Internet, before the guard told him to shut up. Could one ask for a better example? The symbolism is complete. His surname points to the one he follows. Even his carpenter profession lines up. Even his last project as a free man spotlights the idiocy of branding him an "extremist"—building a playground for the community children. Would members of the only other group in Russia officially designated "extremist," ISIS, also build a playground for the community children? Maybe, but it would be a long time gaining my trust to let my children play on it. On January 23, the prosecutor requested a sentence of 6 years and 6 months in prison. Why not add 6 days to the request to make it a nice, biblical 666?

It's déjà vu for Jehovah's Witnesses in that country, whose period of freedom has lasted only 17 years. "The only difference is that at that time [of the Soviet Union] they were called 'enemies of the people'. Now they are called 'extremists'," says Irena.

Journalist Osborn does what all journalists must do. He probes for the actual reason that Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed. Usually all one must do in such cases is read the charges of the prosecution, but here in the Christensen case the charges are ridiculous, and the 'crimes' easily refuted. So Osborn hits on one spot of contention after another, but presently puts his finger on the real trigger: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." He refers, perhaps unknowingly, to a burgeoning anti-cult movement which finds conditions fertile in Russia for a perfect storm, but which is active everywhere.

The reason that Putin declares it complete nonsense to call Witnesses "extremist" is because it is. As such, he and his in government would never have dreamt of doing such a thing. However much any of them may dislike Jehovah's Witnesses, ISIS has taught them what extremism is. They are not so stupid as to confuse the two.

Likewise, the dominant Russian Orthodox Church did not originate the ban against the Witnesses. That is not to say that some of them did not squeal with delight like kids on Christmas morning, but it was not their idea. The thinkers there are not particularly happy about it, for the same set of laws that declare it a crime to proclaim the superiority of one's religion in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses might easily be turned against them.

No, problems with the Church and the suspicious government merely make for excellent tinder. The spark that sets it off Osborn identifies with: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." It is a determined anti-cult movement that sets the match to the tinder. It is not even Russian originated, but like Bolshevism itself, is a Western import. Religion writer Joshua Gill has outlined how a French NGO dedicated to protecting people from ideas considered socially destructive—the manifest goal of anti-cultism—sent a well-known emissary to Russia who spread that view with missionary zeal, maximizing his existing status with the Russian Orthodox Church.

The anti-cult movement ever seeks to extend its reach. Only in Russia does it find conditions ripe for the perfect storm, but its influence is afoot everywhere. The match was even literal in 2018 Washington State, where six attacks resulted in two Kingdom Halls burnt to the ground. Of course, that is not the intent—to incite violence. Anti-cultists speak against it, for the most part. But when you yell "CULT!" in a crowded theater, who can say what will happen? The correct term, non-incendiary and chosen by scholars for just that reason, is "new religious movement."

Assembling material in preparation for 'Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' I became more and more convinced that the anti-cult movement was behind it all, and it is a conviction that has only strengthened since. In the book's introduction, I wrote:

" _Does Kuraev really mean to suggest that prosecution presented no intelligible arguments at the Supreme Court trial? An observer of the trial might well think it. He might well wonder just what does the government have against Jehovah's Witnesses? There must be something, but it is not stated. At one point the judge asked the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice) whether it had prepared for the case. A decision had been plainly made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it. Of course, he did, perhaps because he wanted to remain a judge. The actual reasons behind anti-Witness hostility were never presented. So I have presented them in Part II, along with how they might be defended."_

I even went on to caution members of my own faith:

" _Some Witnesses, truth be told, will be uncomfortable with Part II and might best be advised to skip over it. They will love the idea of defending the faith but may be unaware of the scope of the attacks made against it, some of which are truly malicious. Deciding to sit out this or that controversy will earn them taunts of 'sticking one's head in the sand' from detractors, but it is exactly what Jesus recommends, as will be seen. Not everyone must immerse themselves in every 'fact,' for many of them will turn out to be facts of Mark Twain's variety: facts that "ain't so." You can't do everything, and most persons choose to focus on matters most directly relevant to their lives."_

That caution is repeated, with even greater applicability, in the newer ebook 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses is: "Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?" The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.

In some respects, the Witness organization appears to this writer to be out of step with regard to the attacks it faces today. With a long history of persevering in the face of religious threats to stomp it out of existence, it seems slow to acknowledge that religions are mostly licking their wounds these days, and it is the irreligious world, with anti-cultists in the vanguard, that most vehemently presses for its downfall.

***~~~***

At a December 11, 2018 meeting with the Council on Civil Society Development and Human Rights, one council member, Ekaterina Shulman, addressed President Putin: "There is a list of organizations, for which there is information that they are involved in terrorism and extremism. There are 489 of them, and 404 of them are Jehovah's Witnesses."

Pressing her luck, she continued: "Here I will take a sinister pause. There could be an abundance of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses—they don't allow blood transfusion, don't send children to hospitals, [ed: not a charge that I have heard before or one that is in-the-main true] but they definitely are not calling for violence or committing it."

Putin's response was: "We should treat the representatives of all religions in the same way – this is true, but still, it is also necessary to take into account the country and the society in which we live. True, this does not mean at all that we should include representatives of religious communities in some destructive, or even in terrorist organizations. Of course, this is complete nonsense, you need to carefully deal with it. Here I agree with you."

Later in the meeting, Putin returned to the topic and added: "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too. I don't quite understand why they are persecuted. So this should be looked into. This must be done." The Washington Post and Time Magazine picked up on the story the next day, the Post saying that he "has pledged to look into the reported persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Now, what to make of this?

Yaroslav Sivulski, the press secretary for JWs in Russia, stated: "We have noted the president's reaction with surprise. If he knows about the whole situation, then probably his reaction could change something. We hope that he will give instructions to have the matter examined and something may happen. Though, knowing the realities of our country, there is not much optimism." Okay, so they're not breaking out the champagne just yet.

The online community of Jehovah's Witnesses was a cynical bunch, by and large, with many thinking Putin was just being slippery. In fact, since translating from Russian to English poses challenges, one Witness understood him to say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, for which I do not really understand how to persecute them," as though he was searching for more effective ways to do it. Hmm. Did he say: "I really do not understand how to persecute them" or "I really do not understand how they are persecuted"? It is the six-million-dollar question. It is a little like the Twilight Zone episode in which the earthlings were relieved to find the alien's handbook: "To Serve Man." 'Ahh, it means their intentions are good,' and they breathed easily, but at the show's end they discovered to their discomfort that it was a cookbook.

I tend to take President Putin's remarks at face value. There is no reason that he has to say what he does, even expanding it to 'Jehovah's Witness are also Christians,' contradicting prominent religious people who say they are not. When his Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, who was also among the officials that Witnesses contacted via a letter campaign launched in hopes of averting the 2017 ban, was asked a similar question last year, he could not have answered more harshly than he did. I think Putin is being genuine, at last waking up to something that he has barely paid attention to. Maybe it is like the hinge squeaking in the background somewhere that he has barely noticed but now it is driving him nuts. Perhaps he will even pick up his WD-40, go lubricate it himself, and subsequently vent his wrath upon whoever allowed such idiocy to take center stage in the first place, painting his country before all the world as a nation of goons--in the spirit of Ahasuerus avenging Haman.

A president is a busy man. It is popularly believed that anything that goes down in a country will have his fingerprints all over it, but this is seldom so for matters of 'low priority.' Of course, this is not low priority for Witnesses, but it can hardly be otherwise for him. At a subsequent news conference, he spoke to the danger of nuclear war, which he hopes the West does not get too cavalier about: "The danger of the situation escalating is being downplayed," he said, adding that the lowering of thresholds for nuclear capability "could really lead us to catastrophe." If he loses sleep at night, it is not over the travails of a small religion. It is over the thought of the world going up in flames.

Western media excoriates him, but it cannot be wise to let the propaganda of one king mold our view of the other. I was very careful, in writing the book, Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia, not to do that. In the event it was ever read by anyone that mattered, I did not want to sabotage it by being disrespectful or accusing.

It wasn't that hard to do—for example, by spotlighting the two, likely three, times that Russia, not the United States, saved the world from certain nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov spotted an incoming missile from the U.S. on his screen, correctly judged it a malfunction, and against orders, did not relay the report to the excitable Kremlin. Second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov refused to sign-off with his two fellow officers to launch a nuclear attack during the Cuban missile crisis—thwarting an attack that had to have unanimous backing. Nikita Khrushchev arguably brought that crisis to a close with his last-minute telegram to President Kennedy.

However, in refraining from criticizing Putin personally, I was not just being expedient. I honestly came to feel it not likely that he was one of the instigators. I admit that feeling wavered in view of the abuses of the last few months, with Witnesses physically accosted by police, but now it intensifies. Promisingly, he is not cut from the same cloth as many in high government. He was not born to privilege in the ruling class. He started from the ground up, as a regular office worker, and lived with his parents during the early days of his working life. He thus probably retains a feel for the interests of the 'common man' that his co-rulers do not. In the end, it hardly matters, because 'the heart of a king is as streams of water' in Jehovah's hands. But it helps if it is neither ice cubes nor steam to begin with.

He didn't have to say it, is the point. He could have issued some boiler-plate beatitude of how 'the situation is serious and we continue to monitor it closely.' He certainly didn't have to say that Witnesses are Christian too, thus showing that he will not be shoved around by ones who insist they are not. His statement makes it much harder for Russia to thumb its nose at any upcoming ECHR verdict, indicating that he has no intention of doing that. How can his words not ease the pressure on Jehovah's Witnesses in that country? After all, if you were a Russian cop, would YOU violently accost one after what he just said?

Still, he is conscious of the majority. How much freedom of worship will be restored remains to be seen, since he observes that with 90% of the country being of a certain religious orientation, one cannot throw everything overboard so as to please the "sects." It is enough not to persecute them, which he seems inclined not to do. Maybe the brothers will have to tip-toe around for a while, and it will not necessarily be a bad thing for our people to focus on being discreet. That has long been the direction of theocratic training, anyhow. If Putin truly had evil intent, however, he would not have returned to the topic to say that he doesn't really understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Now let's see how well he holds up as the more devious ones labor to 'educate' him on the topic. We will see whose resolve prevails. Probably, JW representative Sivulsky has it just right: he is surprised and cautiously optimistic.

In some respects, it may prove a replay, with hopefully different outcome, of the situation with Pilate judging Jesus. Pilate knew that he was being set up. He knew Jesus was innocent. He worked rather hard to free him—that much is clear by reading any one of the gospel accounts, and the conclusion is inescapable upon reviewing all of them. But the scoundrels were so insistent, even hinting that to release Jesus would be treasonous, that he eventually caved. After all, it wasn't his prime concern. He had a province to run. He tried to do the right thing. That's how it is with many today. They try to do the right thing, but they only try so hard. When the going gets rough, they opt for expediency.

The Russian Orthodox Church has insisted that it did not instigate the ban and I am inclined to believe them. That is not to say that prominent ones were not delighted at the outcome, or that some instigators did not have Church connections. But the villainy stems from an anti-cult movement, with French connections, that is active in many lands. Conditions in Russia were ripe, that's all, just like they were ripe for Communism 100 years ago, which was also imported from abroad.

Writing 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia' took the better part of a year. There were few publicly available online sources that I did not read during this time, save only for those that were repetitive. The most telling report was one by Joshua Gill, a religion writer, revealing from where most of the trouble came.

"The Russian Supreme Court's July 17 ban on the Jehovah's Witnesses was the result of a decades long conspiracy funded by the French government, blessed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and sanctioned by the Putin administration...The latest phase of that plan first garnered international attention with Russian authorities' arrest of a Danish citizen." That would be Dennis Christensen, arrested May 25, 2017 for conducting a congregation meeting after the ban had gone into effect, and still in prison at this time of writing, (December 2018) his case only recently coming to trial.

Gill spotlights the role of Alexander Dvorkin, the Russian Ministry's Expert Council for Conducting State Religious-Studies. That Council exists so as "to investigate religions that deviate from Russian Orthodox teaching and to recommend actions against those religions to the state." They have recommended taking strong action on non-majority faiths. Mr. Dvorkin is also vice president of the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS), a French NGO dedicated to identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit." It is an organization fully funded by the French government, and it may be remembered that that government tried to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses by imposing a 60% tax on their activities in 1998. The tax was steadfastly appealed by Jehovah's Witnesses until it was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights fourteen years later.

The Daily Caller article reveals the depth of Dvokin's misinformation and dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. "Their adepts recruit failed university enrollees, and people on vacation as well; they have a wide range of psychological influence, especially on the unstable minds of adolescents and youths," he says of them and the Hare Krishnas. He has encouraged the public to "take part in the fight against sects, file complaints and collect raw data so that the local authorities can react quickly." In a 2009 documentary called 'Emergency Investigation: Jehovah's Witnesses,' he compared Witnesses to drug dealers. The Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews attributes instances of public violence against Russian Witness members to that documentary, just as the violence visiting Kingdom Halls in Washington State is similarly stoked by the inflammatory use of the C-word. Is the FECRIS mission of identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit" not exactly the battle cry of the anti-cultists worldwide?"

Mine was the minority view among the Witnesses I spoke with. "You are a better Christian than I am," one said. "You always expect the best from people. I don't believe a word a politician says." Note that his distrust is of "a politician," not of Putin specifically, though he hardly sings his praises. One could even say that it is a sign of being "insular"—they are all the same to him. Having said that, they are all the same to many persons today—it is hardly a quirk of him alone. Why, long ago Mark Twain even said that politicians must be changed as frequently as a diaper—and for the same reason.

It is true that I try to think the best of people. Am I a "better Christian" in this instance? Or just a dumber one? Time will tell.

back

# Chapter 25 – Let us Appreciate Brother Lett

In the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, the chapter in which I try to tie up many loose ends, I threw in this little snippet: "Brother Lett gave a talk in the Ministry School and was given a 'W' (work) for gestures. Surely if he applies himself he can learn to be more expressive!"

It is almost like what they said about Jesus, though not with the same degree of admiration: "Never has another man spoken like this." As one brother put it: "Let no one ever say that Jehovah's organization uses paid actors."

Witnesses love this guy. He knows that he is nutty and he builds upon it as a strength rather than get all bashful over it. If I had any doubt about that, it was erased at the behind-the-scenes broadcast that explained how such programming is produced. As he is beaming in the chair and assistants are dabbing him with make-up, the voice-over (his) says that the final step is to apply make-up to the host so that he "looks his best!" He knows he is a nut. The important thing to remember is that, when Jehovah's Witnesses go nuts, they are still harmless eccentrics who wouldn't hurt a fly. When those of the greater world go nuts, you'd better call in the SWAT team. A guy that knows how not to take himself too seriously is a precious guy to have around. There are far too many people who do not suffer fools gladly—and a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.

That Lett is not one of them affords him huge respect in my eyes. It's not so much where you are but how far you have come. When a Christian Life and Ministry program suggested that we think of brothers we appreciate, I picked two not commonly recognized. They are both from a pronounced socially awkward background, and they both have overcome it to serve capably in roles that anyone would have previously thought forevermore beyond their reach. They are not "heavy hitters," in my view, and probably never will be, but they are solid and respected. In an age where elders seldom have to give talks, but just use discernment in applying Q&A sessions and via personal interactions, it is enough.

What does Jesus three times tell Peter, recently returned from one of the greatest failures in history? "Feed my little sheep." It is not one's stellar brilliance that is going to make one most effective in doing that. It is the love that one shows, and Lett shows it in spades.

In the August broadcast, he gives one of the most ridiculously over-the-top illustrations that I have ever heard, in which volunteers are supplied 2-inch brushes to paint the Kingdom Hall, and everyone knows that is a crazy way to do it. On and on he goes about some grumbling that 4-inch brushes would make more sense, even 6-inch brushes, even rollers. And why not go all the way and rent a spray painter? Or hire a contractor? And, come to think of it, someone else grouses, the Kingdom Hall doesn't need painting in the first place. Furthermore, Lett almost makes this the central issue before all creation, with God potentially saddened because the friends are bickering over the tiny brushes and the Devil jumping for joy at their disunity, as though neither one of them really has much to do in the other realms.

Tempering this verdict of the illustration being ridiculous is that Brother Lett admits from the start that it is over-the-top. It is an hyperbole, and the man himself is an hyperbole. And come to think of it, anyone familiar with the gospels knows that Jesus employed hyperbole all the time. Through their exaggeration, they have the advantage that anyone of common sense and unhardened heart instantly gets the point.

They also have the advantage that anyone "wise in their own eyes" and too enamored with "critical thinking" does not. "I don't have time for this nonsense!" they sputter, and thus are sifted out. I begin to think that hyperbole is a tool in the toolbox that serves to fulfill Jesus' words at Matthew 11, on how God has "hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and revealed them to babes," and is even a way in which he "catches the wise in their own cunning," the "wisdom of this world" being "foolishness" in his eyes. I mean, if the stuff is so great, show me the peaceful world it has collectively produced. Real wisdom should enable diverse people to overcome divisions and work smoothly together—a sub-theme of Lett's illustration.

You should have heard how some of the malcontents savaged him! "Classic JW thinking. So typically black and white!" But just because there is black and white thinking does not mean that some things are not black and white, and not long ago, a car group of sisters was rear-ended by a cop in an actual black and white because he was not single-mindedly focused upon his driving. It is possible to overthink things.

Though they are not the people that those of critical thinking pay any attention to, most persons in the world are quite simple, and thus so are Jehovah's Witnesses, who draw disproportionately from this pool. One out of six persons in the world today cannot read. Do the wise ones of this system of things even know that these people exist? The Watchtower produces simplified versions of material already written simply so as to reach them.

There is an apocryphal story that one of the Governing Body told Lett to "stop acting like an idiot." It is impossible to know with apocryphal stories what is true and what is concocted. That said, as I close my eyes, I can see it, for the two are vastly different in presentation. Even that "mystery" serves to beneficially separate people, as some dismiss it with a "who cares?" and some obsess over it. It is not unlike when Rex Tillerson supposedly called President Trump a moron and the news media suspended all other activity to find out whether he really did or not—a quest that continued even after Tillerson himself called a news conference to say: "Back where I come from, we don't have time for that nonsense." Incredibly, they were not chastened by this. "Yeah, well, did you or didn't you?" they wanted to know. That is another way in which people are separated today. One person's nonsense is another person's manna.

[Edit: It turns out that Brother Lett has grappled with Bell's palsy, which paralyzes facial muscles on the affected side, and as part of rehab, he got into the habit of exaggerated facial movements, a habit that stuck, or is perhaps even still advisable. The elder telling me this said, when I pressed him, that he had it "on good authority." Knowing him, I rate it as probably a 90% chance—for the student of history knows and is aghast at how easily stories are distorted in transmission. So you never know. You just don't. All the people saying nasty things about him are no doubt hanging their heads in shame just about now. Imagine! Calling such a man a nut! Who would ever do such a slanderous thing?]

back

# Chapter 26 - The Value of Organization

Anti-cultists mutter about the assumed "rights" of "religious corporations." Such corporations need to be reined in so that they do not harm people, goes the charge. It sounds lofty, for who wants to be harmed? but it is only an attempt to neuter religion by depriving it of governance. It is akin to saying that the French people, or the Australian people, or the Nigerian, or the Russian, are fine people, but they should not be allowed to govern themselves—masking the unspoken hope that they can be better assimilated that way. It is the same way that you might seek to deprive enemy soldiers of their generals, thus "protecting" them from fighting for a cause you do not want them to fight for. People of religious bent form a corporation because it is the only way in which they can legally operate in the world of nations. They would have no interest in it otherwise.

Apostates don't hate Jehovah's Witnesses, many of them will tell you. They love Jehovah's Witnesses. They want to help them. They want to break them free from their oppressive organization. It is like this writer saying that he loves Americans. It is only their government that he would seek to destroy. Surely, they've drunk too much of the Kool-Aid themselves. Some of them envision springing loved ones free from the Watchtower to their undying gratitude, like Dorothy freeing the guards from the Wicked Witch of the West and her winged monkeys.

My wife and I had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodeling project nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away on vacation. Many people would die for such a brotherhood in which you can place such trust in total strangers.

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O'Malihan heard of this and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside. The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O'Malihans returned to four bare walls. Steamed, they contacted the Independence Day church headquarters. "Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too," they were told. "No, they're not congregation members – they're imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling."

It's not a true story. I made it up for the sake of contrast. But the guests from Texas are true. The Witness visitors are quality individuals to start with because they are known to have dedicated their lives to God, and they work under the direction of the organization that they are convinced he directs through his spirit. They are also screened through that organization so that, when you come to find that they need a place to stay, you know they are who they say they are. It doesn't just happen by chance.

It is not like in the 1970s, when I, on a whim, drove to a St. Louis International Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses and presented myself at the rooming desk with the expectation that someone would put me up for the four or five days. They did. The only way that they knew I was a Witness was that I said I was. I stayed with an elderly sister and her non-Witness husband who treated me as though one of their own. But that was long ago, and "wicked men and imposters have advanced from bad to worse," says the verse. Today there is vetting.

You can do more with organization than you can without it. It is no more complicated than that. In the case of an organization such as Jehovah's Witnesses, devoted to spreading "this good news of the kingdom throughout all the inhabited earth," stellar organization of voluntary efforts has enabled an entirely new channel of Bible production and distribution to be invented, so that the poorest person on earth can yet have a low-cost, free if need be, modern and understandable copy of what he has come to believe is instruction from God.

That same organization invents a website, for spread of the Christian message, which translates into 1,000 languages. People speak a dizzying array of languages throughout the earth. If your mission is to teach them all a common message, then somehow you have to deal with that. In today's digital age, one can hardly be serious about Christ's commission to preach throughout the entire inhabited earth unless one has such a website. There is no excuse not to have one, and having one is powerful evidence that you are qualified to do the work you have taken on. After all, when your car needs service, do you take it to the garage content to operate with duct tape, vice-grips, and WD-40? Or do you take it to the garage that has equipped itself with every modern tool?

Not everything has become more organized over time. Some things have become less so. Go back far enough and one could expect to be served a full meal at any convention of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen an empty cavernous room, with only water and electric hook-up, converted to a full-scale kitchen capable of serving thousands in only a few hours' time. With no knowledge of cooking, I almost ruined one, disposing of an unneeded vat of cooking grease by pouring it down the drain.

Feeding arrangements were simplified with the passage of time, for the members so sacrificing of their energies caught very little of the program in those days. Eventually, prepared meals gave way to various items of pre-packaged food, purchased beforehand, and distributed via a donation arrangement. One of those items was known as "a pasta salad," and, as though anticipating my future role, I used to refer to it as "an apostasy" salad. I had been placed in charge of that food distribution at our circuit assemblies, so I used to say it a lot, offering everyone apostasy salads, ever suggesting that they try one. They were very good.

Today, Witnesses brown-bag it at their large gatherings. You cannot just waltz up to the directors of any huge organization and slip in your suggestions—they are slammed with things to do. However, the new method came about in very nearly that way. "You know, why doesn't everyone just bring their own lunch?" a member observed in one of the local congregations, "we all know how to pack a lunch." The circuit overseer included it in his report to the branch. The branch liked the common-sense idea. Should it be passed on to the Governing Body? It was, and they loved it. Everyone packs a lunch now, not through some lofty command from On High, but through the two cents of a local publisher.

If he can do it, maybe I can do it. My suggestion will spell the end of five or more persons in a vehicle—I am a known pain-in-the-neck on that point—save for special considerations of weather or safety. Four is ideal, and three is to be preferred. That way, one can always develop the experience of one-on-one speaking. I'm not sure I like the idea of "counting time," either, that is, keeping track of how much time is spent in the ministry. It is done so that reports can be made and the needs for support can be assessed, but it tends to lead to quirky perceptions of being on-duty and off-duty, and even avoiding productive times in the ministry in order to accrue time in less productive but more convenient other times.

Ah, well. They're small things. I probably won't get them. It is true that people respond to goals. In any organized arrangement, there will be many things that do not go your way. The trick is to remember what is important and what is not. It is even true with big things. You don't win them all.

The spiritual component of a person comprises probably two thirds of his or her total makeup. Everything else is but so much window-dressing. It is why I wrote of Prince in 'Tom Irregardless and Me:' "I would have enjoyed jamming with Prince. Not musically, of course - I can't play guitar – but spiritually, in the ministry. We would have been seamless together; we're on the same page – all Witnesses are. But it wasn't to be in this system of things. Prince was always busy. And I was – well, no – I would have found the time."

We would have instantly hit it off. Doubtless, I would have discovered differences in preferences, even on matters of substance, but it wouldn't have mattered. All Witnesses know how to keep such matters in their place and not allow them to disrupt the peace of the congregation.

I tweeted, with photo included, that all Regional Conventions had witnessed scenes of Russian police breaking up Christian meetings. Instantly, the tweet was liked from three entirely separate parts of the world, none of them in English.

There is nothing like the worldwide brotherhood. Admittedly, three is not a million, but the diverse background of the likers partly offsets this. A prominent human rights person, frequently quoted in the media, picked up the tweet and retweeted it.

If you spend any time on the music video section of JW.org—not the choir part, but the convention interludes and original songs, you cannot but be struck by the international flavor, so different from the general world which too often views anyone significantly different as one of "those people." For some odd reason, I almost prefer lyrics sung in languages I don't understand. It adds to the appeal of unity despite differences. Can you view such videos, ranging from small groups to international conventions, and view participants as addled victims of a cult? You have to work at it. You really do.

Is it too much, the degree to which Jehovah's Witnesses are organized? You could make a case for it. When a ten-minute talk at the Kingdom Hall focuses in on just how to handle the sound equipment, how far to hold the microphone from one's mouth, at what angle to hold it, and what to do if you are the microphone handler and the one you hand it to is doing it wrong, there is a part of me that says: "Oh, for crying out loud! Just heave the microphones into the trash and tell people to speak up—the room is not that large!" It can get picayune. Still, that's just the way people are sometimes.

back

# Chapter 27 – Is it Time for Jehovah's Witnesses to Apologize? Part 1

Elizabeth Chuck wrote an article about Jehovah's Witnesses and I would have preferred she write one instead about the PTA meeting in her town. It is a normal reaction, for it was news of a huge-dollar verdict against a religious organization I hold dear. Of course I hate to see it; that's only natural. When you find yourself on the gallows you do not angle for a selfie with the hangman.

Still, if you must hear bad news, hear it from Ms. Chuck, for her news in this case is straight reporting, not one of the hatchet jobs Jehovah's Witnesses often get. The topic is the most white-hot topic of all, child sexual abuse, and temptations to whip it into fever pitch are not resisted by all. She does resist it. That's not to say I might not write it up differently. With every story, it is a matter of which facts you put where. But she doesn't make any up or deliberately misrepresent them. Having said that, it is not to suggest that even those who do misrepresent do so on purpose. Well—I guess it is to suggest that, but only to suggest. It is not proof positive. When your own people merely say that they "abhor child abuse and strive to protect children," but otherwise do not comment, what's a reporter to do?

Here's what I like about the Elizabeth Chuck story: First of all, it is not like the AP article, picked up by many sources, that expressed seeming bewilderment that "the Jehovah's Witness cases haven't received the same national attention" [as the Roman Catholic Church]. Is not the reason a big 'Duh'? The Montana case abuse under trial was all within a family and church leaders were accused of botching the handling of it, though blameless themselves. It's a little different than church leaders actually committing the abuse, something which is very rare with Witnesses.

Ms. Chuck correctly (and atypically) makes clear that a "two-witness rule" used by Witnesses "is only for internal modes of discipline and does not prevent a victim from going to the police." She correctly points out that "there are very strict internal modes of discipline within Jehovah's Witnesses." Yes. It is not an anything-goes religion. She correctly observes that being disfellowshipped is often a painful experience and serves as a negative incentive to do what might trigger it. So far so good. It might not be as I would phrase it, but it is certainly acceptable reporting.

She stumbles briefly, though not seriously, when she says: "Jehovah's Witnesses are a misunderstood and very self-enclosed group, despite counting some celebrities among its ranks—including Venus and Serena Williams." She is right that they are misunderstood. The only footnote I would add is about her seeming acquiescence to the common wisdom that groups are validated by having celebrities in their camp, some of whom are the most silly people on earth, living fundamentally different lives than anyone else. However, the miscue is minor. And, after all, I have made use of poor Serena Williams, too, in chapter 4.

Ms. Chuck does her homework. She consults experts on religion, such as "Mark Silk, a professor and the director of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn [who says of Witnesses]: 'They don't vote. They don't celebrate birthdays and holidays. They don't say the pledge [of allegiance]. They are not just another Christian denomination.'" It is not her fault if she does not know that the guy (likely) has it in for Jehovah's Witnesses, spinning his facts negatively, and the reason is revealed in his very job title: he is a professor at Trinity College. If you do not accept the Trinity teaching, you are toast in the eyes of many of these people. Nonetheless, what the professor says about voting and not pledging allegiance is true enough. He does not mention that if nobody pledged allegiance to human institutions maybe the national king could not pit them so easily against each other in times of war, but that is beyond the scope of his information request. At least he doesn't inaccurately charge that Jehovah's Witnesses are disrespectful to country, for there are few people as scrupulous about "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's" (taxes) than they. Reporter Chuck relates the words of another expert: "Whatever belief they have or mode of internal discipline they have, they have a biblical justification for it." I'll take it. It's true. We don't apologize for it. I prefer it infinitely over church reporters saying we are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity. The reason we do not accept it is that its scriptural support is based almost entirely upon taking literally certain passages which, if they were read in any other context, would be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.

She relates dutifully the sparse words of the Watchtower organization that they "abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts," attributing the sparseness to "a penchant for privacy." She takes it at face value. She does not imply that they are lying through their teeth, like the reporter in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dismissing the words as 'boiler plate,' and even ending _his_ article with an anecdote of spying artwork at the JW headquarters captioned: "Jehovah loves children," and using it as a pretext to wink at his readers as though to say: "Yes, I guess we know just _how_ they love them," before returning to his Witness-hating base on a Reddit thread, where he is hailed as a hero.

However, eclipsing her skill at side-stepping all these potential landmines is that she puts her finger on the real problem in the very first paragraph of her article: Jehovah's Witnesses are "insular." She doesn't even try to spin that into a crime, as do some. Most Witnesses would not agree to the label "insular," but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are "separate from the world" and "no part of" it. It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself. Not all will agree that life today is constantly-improving. Some will say the overall picture more closely resembles a ship floundering. Did I not just read that generalized anxiety has replaced depression as the number one mental health malady? Can that be because there is nothing to worry about in life today? I think not. These interplay of two views—that society is ever-improving vs ever-floundering—causes most of the "misunderstanding" that opponents of Witnesses speak about.

Witnesses are "insular," by design. "Insularity" is biblically mandated, but here is an instance in which that insularity has contributed to a significant tragedy. Witness leaders find themselves in a situation parallel to that of certain vehicles being exempt from normal traffic laws—say, police and fire emergency vehicles. Yet, in making use of that exemption, a terrible accident results and the public outcry is so great that they are convicted even though following the law. Or, to apply it more accurately, public anger is so great that the law is reinterpreted so that it can be established that they did break it.

This writer is not a lawyer. He can step out of his depth. Yet most persons reading the following pertinent section of the Montana child abuse reporting laws would, I suspect, agree that the Witness organization followed the letter of them. They make every effort to do that. The prompt appeal of any Witness judicial committee to their Branch organization legal department is not to see how they can evade child abuse laws, as their opponents often spin it, but how they can be sure their actions are in harmony with them. I can think of no other situation on earth in which consulting one's own attorney, upon presentation of matters with likely legal ramifications, would be spun as an evil, as this one frequently is.

On the very bottom of the document "Montana Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children" is a section labeled "Members of the clergy or priests are not required to report when the following condition is met...if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice."

Even "established church practice?" It seems extraordinarily loose, and yet there it is. It is a part of a doctrine called "ecclesiastical privilege." It has long been encapsulated into law, as has the privileged nature of the doctor-patient relationship and the attorney-client relationship, on the recognition that these relationships cannot function without the expectation of confidentiality.

If such is the law, why is the Witness organization found culpable despite stringent efforts to follow it? Because the war today is against child sexual abuse, deemed the most critical crusade of our time, and they were expected to "go beyond the law" so as to facilitate that end. Thus, the law was reinterpreted so as to allow that they did violate it. The child wronged though sexual abuse has proven to be among the most powerful forces on earth, affording ample occasion for other scores to be settled.

The Witness organization finds itself in a situation similar to that of Joe Paterno, the Penn State coach who was universally praised throughout his tenure as an excellent role model but then was excoriated beyond redemption when he merely obeyed the law regarding an unspecific allegation that he heard of child sexual abuse but did not "go beyond it." He reported the allegation to his superiors. When the allegation turned out to be true, however, his response was later deemed in the media to be not enough—he should have "gone beyond the law" to report it directly to police. His career was over, and even his life, for he died two years later.

If it is so crucial to go beyond the law, then _make_ that the law. This is exactly what Geoffrey Jackson of the Witnesses' Governing Body pleaded for three times before an Australian Royal Commission. Isn't that the purpose of law: to codify what is right? Make the law clear, unambiguous, and allow for no exceptions. Jehovah's Witnesses are universally recognized for meticulously following secular law even as they are primarily guided by biblical law. Make universal mandating the law, with no exceptions. Expecting parties to "go beyond the law" only enables Monday-morning quarterbacking to assign motives, invariably bad ones, to unpopular parties that have failed in this regard.

An article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle dated November 20th, 2011, observed that "it's a mistake to think that the failure...to report the abuse is a rarity....Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so.... 'I think that we fail miserably in mandated reporting,' said Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Kristina Karle..." Is it not haphazard to excoriate those who did their best to follow the law when two thirds of all professionals, for a variety of reasons, do not? Does anyone charge that two thirds of all professionals do not give a hoot about children? Plainly there are other factors at work. Yet when the crusade against child sexual abuse reaches fever pitch, only one factor is deemed to have any significance.

back

# Chapter 28 – Time to Apologize? Part 2

Jehovah's Witnesses did fail in this regard. Let us admit it. They failed to "go beyond the law." The stakes are so high the law is thereafter reinterpreted to mean that they did violate it. Why did they fail? Ms. Chuck accurately states that any Witness victim or family of victim was always free to report child sexual abuse and that congregation justice did not preclude outside secular justice. They failed then, she implies, because they were insular, and she may not realize just how firmly she has put her finger on the reason. They were not inclined to air their dirty laundry before the public.

It is not so hard to understand. In some cultures, the concept of "saving face" is so firmly entrenched that your efforts to communicate are doomed to failure if you ignore it. The very reason there is an expression "skeletons in the closet" is the universal human instinct to keep them there. It is even found in the scriptures that Ms. Chuck acknowledges underlie everything Witnesses do. Decrying the spectacle of early Christians taking one another into court over personal disputes, the apostle Paul writes: "I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that!" If Jehovah's Witnesses today are "insular," it is because Christians at that time were "insular."

In this case, however, insularity, and the failure to "go beyond the law" has resulted in child abusers who did not take their turn in the police lineup, as well as victims thereby deprived of that justice. Whether they would have received justice otherwise is arguable, for no end of persons manage to evade the wrath of the law. But that is not the point. They should have been turned over to police, the argument goes, for the latter to either nail them to the wall or let them slip through their fingers. The victims want justice. Like victims anywhere, they don't always get it. But don't get in the way of their quest for it. Since the Witness organization is perceived to have gotten in the way, with law being reinterpreted so as to more damningly point to that conclusion, should they apologize to victims or issue a public statement of regret? You could certainly build a case for it.

When the cop speeds in hot pursuit and a horrific accident results, pointing out that he had permission to speed only goes so far. There are times when only a sincere expression of regret stems the tide of outrage, for who is going to dismiss a run-over pedestrian as 'just one of those things?' At such times legal matters become technicalities and you appear tone-deaf if you harp on them. Best to say that, in pursuing one's mission, even within existing rules, a terrible tragedy has resulted for which there is sincere regret.

Were the Witness organization to ever do that, it would cut them no slack with the Reddit group. They would merely drop down a notch on their list to highlight the next reason they hate their former religion before surfacing briefly to declare the statement of regret insincere. Were the entire Governing Body membership to resign, or even hang themselves, it would not make them happy. They know that their successors would be cut from the same cloth.

No, there will be no placating these folks. But it might very well clear the air for all other persons, who know very well, simply through personal experience, that Jehovah's Witnesses are very fine people. Even arch-enemy Barbara Anderson concedes this, as she somehow manages to insinuate that this is despite their evil Governing Body, rather than the much more reasonable 'because of it.' Not because of it solely, of course, for Witnesses' decency stems from the God they worship. But in the sense that the their Governing Body keeps them clearly focused on the Bible, their chosen source of instruction, they surely deserve credit, not condemnation. Almost all other faiths have swayed with the changing winds of contemporary culture. Witnesses have not. They merely update now and then, as they have with their procedures of child sexual abuse investigations. Is it intimidating for a victim of child sexual abuse to appear before the three men of an investigatory committee? Well, they never thought of that. Maybe they should have. So now it is that a child's recorded testimony can serve itself as the witness and he or she does not have to appear personally. If he or she does, it can be with any congregation member of choice, whether male or female. The religion's fiercest critics say they will never stop opposing until Witnesses fix their child abuse policies. Arguably, they already have been fixed, since the vast majority of cases tried are from many years ago.

Not everyone likes Jehovah's Witnesses. Probably more do not than do. But people are mostly fair. A statement of regret would go a long way for them to say: "Oh, I see. They did botch it up, but now I can see why. They really _do_ abhor child sexual abuse over there." Otherwise, their enemies find it a cakewalk to portray those in leadership positions among Jehovah's Witnesses as "arrogant," and in some cases, as willful nurturers of child abuse. Everyone these days calls those of the other side "arrogant" upon proving unable to sway them, but in this instance, the accusation more readily sticks. They are probably the least arrogant people on earth, but that does not mean they cannot be painted that way.

They do Bible education work. They do it extensively and effectively. In the developing world, a person is stuck with some 200-year old turkey of a Bible translation that he can neither afford nor understand because nobody other than Jehovah's Witnesses thinks it is inappropriate for Big Business to handle distribution of the Word of God. The Witness Governing Body does think it is inappropriate, and they have invented an entirely new production and distribution channel so that the person can obtain a modern Bible at minimal cost, or even free. That accomplishment is not insignificant.

They do not do all of this personally, of course. Detractors routinely spin it that Witnesses are "controlled" by "eight men in New York." It makes no sense. The eight men are modest persons. Many of them cut their teeth performing their trademark door-to-door ministry in the developing world, carrying out a work more lowly than that of the ones they will ultimately lead. They have a certain knack at administration, as with any effective organization, but other than that, they have little expertise in anything. But they know where to find it when they need it. From a field of eight million members, where there are neither paywalls nor turf wars, they can quickly assemble whatever is deemed necessary.

Their latest offering in the field of Bible education consists of an online, self-guided, and anonymous course of Bible study offered on the home page of their website, JW.org. The Bible offers convincing answers to important questions of life, Jehovah's Witnesses feel, questions not readily answered anywhere else. Of course, it is free and presented without any mention of money. After each lesson there is the option to 1) go deeper, for the presentation is necessarily simple, 2) attend a group study at the Witnesses' Kingdom Hall, 3) request a personal instructor, or 4) say 'none of the above' and proceed to the next lesson. It is a relatively new feature. I don't know how it will be incorporated. But with only some exaggeration, I am looking forward to saying: "I don't want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself. If you have any questions or want to go a level more, I'll be around." With only slightly more exaggeration, the new feature illustrates that, if need be, the main Bible teaching component of the Witnesses' work could be run out of a server in someone's dorm room.

They will always be "insular," or to put it in their terminology, "no part of the world." Surely, they must be permitted to be, for the alternative is to snuff out the type of Christianity that existed in the first century, the model most true. Snuffing out this model in favor of societally evolved ones might be a very fine outcome in the eyes of today's anti-cultists. But it will be a defeat for worship of God per the standards of his written word. It must not be that religion can have a place only so long as it is clearly subservient to contemporary life and leaders, labeling anything not meeting this subservience a "cult" that "brainwashes" people through "mind-control." Those of that same Western anti-cultist spirit have used exactly that reasoning to fuel the furor that has banned Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and confiscated all of their property, with many other faiths shaking in their boots that they will be next. It is a result of hate speech—not the investigation of grievances—but the hurling about of the C-word.

Be that as it may, it might well be time to acknowledge that this avenue, this one involving child sexual abuse reporting, is one that became riddled with axle-bending potholes, express sincere remorse, help out to whatever extent is necessary to fill them in, and then get back on track with the overall program.

back

# Chapter 29 – Time to Apologize? Part 3

A former elder quits his faith and posts his reason online: it is the Watchtower's child abuse policy. He presents himself as a pillar of conscience. He chose to leave and there were "many reasons for his decision," which he does not go into. Child sexual abuse policy is not his only reason, though at first glance it might appear that way. He could have reported any hint of an abuse allegation the instant he became aware of it—forget the phone call to legal HQ. True, he might have to step down as an elder, because one holding office in anything must carry out the policies of those making them. But it is all volunteer service anyway. He could have taken his place as a regular congregation member and not thrown everything away with regard to his belief system.

Instead, it appears that he did throw it all away in order to become a warrior for a cause. He has thrown in his lot with the ones crusading against this one grievous wrong, who appear, for the moment, to be enjoying greater success in the war. Or are they? They are undeniably good at outing and punishing perpetrators of child sexual abuse, but are they proving any good at stemming the evil itself? Thirty-plus years of all-out war has produced little result; you can still throw a stone in any direction and hit five molesters. In contrast, there is good reason to believe that the Witness organization overall has significant success in prevention.

What of the reasons that he became a Witness in the first place—the clear answer as to why God allows suffering, the knowledge of what happens to people when they die, and even the reason that they die? He has forgotten all about it. What of the Bible principles that have succeeded in producing one group, and practically only one group, that has not been molded by changing tides of morality, sexual and otherwise? Not worth the bother, his course suggests. What of the effort to educate ones the world over in knowledge of God's purposes and the one true hope that conditions will not always be as they are now? It no longer interests him. What of the work to make known God's name and defend it against those who would malign it? None of it seems to be a concern any longer. If he remembers God at all, he will address him as 'The LORD,' since the rule elsewhere is to bury God's name.

He throws it all away to become a foot soldier in a cause. The cause is certainly not nothing, but neither is it everything. Every notion he once had about God taking a separate people for his name appears to have vanished. Christianity should not be separate from the world, in his apparent revised eyes. It should jump in and help fix it, even if most of the tools it offers will be scorned. If the world scorns them perhaps it has a point, he seems to suggest. His new course says it loud and clear: elders should put aside concerns of safeguarding the congregation and should become agents of the state so as to do their part in safeguarding the whole world.

He has bought completely into his new role. It is not enough for him that elders, at present, leave it to parents and victims as a personal matter whether they will seek help from outside counselors. He is upset that they do not order them to. Seemingly he would hold them accountable even if they did order them and the parents or victims yet declined. They did not order them enough, he would maintain. Too, he is concerned that an offender might go door to door as a Witness in search of new victims. Well, nothing is impossible, but it seems an extraordinarily difficult way to go about it. The house to house ministry is a challenge even when done for the right reasons. Witnesses will often fret about how difficult it is to find people home today, at least at the most customary times of calling. How many of them are going to be unsupervised children? How many of those children are going to be trusting of strangers? It's ridiculous, but the former elder has swallowed it all. Why not simply hang out where children are? Volunteer at a children's camp. Coach youth sports. Drive a school bus.

He could have just relinquished his office and reported whatever allegations of sexual abuse of which he became aware. Instead, he has flushed everything away to focus on the popular crusade. If he remains religious, he will probably lean right. If he has gone atheist, he will probably lean left. They mostly do. Nor should it be a surprise. If you go atheist, you put your full trust in human self-rule. Obviously, nations have to band together for this to be successful, so any populist movement is viewed as counterproductive. The question reverts right back to that of 1919, when Jehovah's Witnesses, then known as Bible Students, chose God's kingdom as the true hope for all mankind, and their opponents, throwing in their lot with human efforts, chose the then-new League of Nations.

All of this said, the former elder prefaces his diatribe by his having seen "the extent that the organization would go to in order to defend their position." It is a point that merits addressing.

Those brothers most eager to not air dirty laundry in an attempt not to sully God's name appear to have succeeded in sullying it, albeit unintentionally, more than if outside authorities were called the instant any congregation member so much as hiccupped. In their zeal to present the image that child sexual abuse could never have happened among true followers of Christ, they succeeded in planting the notion with their enemies that their group is the worst of the lot. It is hardly just them. Most organizations have proven equally conscious of reputation, be they schools, Scouts, business, alumni, institutions of any sort, even the U.S. Olympic team. Jehovah's Witnesses, who preach what they regard as a life enhancing message, have also proven conscious of reputation. They are composed of regular people, and at least they have the atypical quality of their leaders seldom being abusers themselves.

It is not hard to understand how this can happen, yielding to the instinct to not air unflattering news. But it is not useful here, and any hint that one is concerned with reputation as more than an insignificant footnote will incur the wrath of those focused on one and one thing only. They will say: "If you really do abhor child sexual abuse why do you even think for a moment about reputation?" It is a very difficult row to hoe. Anyone who watches popular television today knows that playing to the jury on the jury's own terms is critical. Does the Watchtower attorney in Montana do that? Or does he give evidence of being "insular," quoting Bible verse a couple of times when it is not necessary to do so, when omitting them might have better resounded? He is a fine brother, I am sure, with a monumental job, but I suspect the verses hurt more than help with a jury composed of persons who simply do not hold scripture in the same esteem as was once the case. They might even reckon it an attempt to schmaltz them and pull the wool over their eyes. Might his explanation fall flat that the "regular Montana folk" who are Witnesses call "because they love you," and since "many of you are Bible readers," they will recognize that Jesus followed just that course? How many people are regular Bible readers these days? He misses completely the political nuances of the expression "fake news" that few of them will miss, and he spins a folksy story of the caught fish that gets bigger with each telling to suggest that abuse victims might unconsciously embellish with the passage of time. He covers all the right points but with a backdrop that will suggest to some that he just doesn't "get it" as regards the trauma of ones who have suffered abuse. Can child sexual abuse in any way be likened to a fisherman's tale? Courthouse proceedings are not therapy sessions and one can only be so therapeutic with plaintiffs seeking millions—thereby clearly indicating their chosen means of comfort. But more putting oneself into their shoes can hardly be a bad thing and it is something Witnesses typically try to do in their ministry.

He commits these perceived lapses because he comes from a faith described as insular. Insularity is not a crime (yet) but it does here present obstacles to heart-to-heart communication. His talk would play well indeed to persons on the same page as he, such as he might find in a Kingdom Hall, but to a public conditioned by events to be skeptical as to whether Jehovah's Witnesses truly do "abhor child abuse," as they say they do, it shows stress cracks.

The ones overly interested in reputation have been caught in their own righteous trap and it is being played out in plain sight before all the world. The only thing that takes away from their detractors' efforts to make maximum hay out of this debacle is that there are so many atrocities to compete for attention today, many of which are far worse, that it is a challenge for them to keep the spotlight focused where they want it.

Rather than try to maintain the illusion that ungodly deeds could never have occurred among true Christians, these Witnesses might have let the chips fall wherever they might and trust that a relative scarcity of abuse will be enough in a world where one out of every five children suffers molestation before age 18. Instead, their insularity made them miss the determination and progress of outside authorities to stamp out child sexual abuse, slow to acknowledge the cause when they did come to hear of it, and thus they are readily framed by their detractors to make it seem that they oppose it.

It could have been me. I am not better than these ones. I, too, might have become distressed when the media did not seem to notice the elephant in the room. Will the greater world enjoy success when it embraces every permutation of sexual interaction as fine and good, except for one that _will not be tolerated_? The world today nurtures the pedophilia with one hand that it seeks to eliminate with the other. Even the New York Times swoons over a child model in a November 22, 2007 article. "His eye makeup is better than yours," it writes, as it gushes over a ten-year-old boy who has 330,000 Instagram followers. How many of them are pedophiles? Why, the Times does not think to go there.

Meanwhile, the organization that teaches family values from the Bible, that specifically warns about child sexual abuse, that doesn't settle for merely punishing the wrong, but significantly exerts itself to prevent it—what of that organization? _That_ is the organization on the hot seat, tried by those dubious of it and a few that outright despise it. However ill it plays today, one can understand a reluctance to broadcast shortfalls believed to be comparatively scarce—a lot of them, to be sure, but proportionately less than in the greater world. But that reluctance serves nobody well in this instance.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses insular? To the extent that they are familiar with this excerpt from Jesus, how could they not be? "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it has hated you. If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you." (John 15: 18-19) Christianity as defined in the Bible is insular. It is not part of the world. It is separate from the world, and from that position of safety it attempts to extend a helping hand to individuals therein. If contemporary variations of Christianity are not insular, it is due to having compromised long ago to neutralize that which the overall world finds objectionable—a course that Jehovah's Witnesses have sought to avoid. One will have to ban the Bible itself to forestall insularity—and there are many in an irreligious age who would like to do just that. No longer is it the legal climate of decades ago, when a Watchtower lawyer could cite his Bible and the judge would follow along, nodding thoughtfully. Even Hayden Covington, the Witness attorney of the 1940s known for his ability to sass Supreme Court Justices and get away with it, would be hard pressed today.

In October of 2018, the Australian government issued an apology in the wake of a Royal Commission looking into child sexual abuse, an investigation that had spanned several years. That apology is lauded as the example for everyone to follow, but it is worth noting that the victims did not accept it. Prior to that, victims of child sexual abuse from the Boy Scouts did not accept an apology from that organization. Now, the Boy Scouts take you camping and teach you how to tie knots. Jehovah's Witnesses show up at your door in suits and wake you when you are sleeping in late. Will they be forgiven when the Australian government and the Boy Scouts were not?

Many of the victims of child sexual abuse will never accept any apology. What they will only accept is for their abuse never to have happened—something that surely speaks well as regards prevention being the prime focus.

Detractors are chagrined that Jehovah's Witnesses are not specifically mentioned in the apology, but it may be because for most institutions investigated, the leaders were the perpetrators. With Jehovah's Witnesses that was rarely the case. Their 'wrong' was to investigate first, and in so doing, fail to coordinate with outside authorities. Seeming frustrated, one Witness opponent tweets: "So sick of Watchtower apologists trying to say that it's OK to protect pedophiles & for child sexual abuse to go unchecked & unpunished. I wonder if now they will use the same defenses to support the Catholic Church & its mishandling of child sexual abuse?"

I responded to that one: "They have made their own bed & must lie in it. Unlike JWs, where leaders were seldom the perpetrators, theirs exclusively were. Heaven help us if the members are ever looked at, as with JWs. Still, to the extent faith in God is destroyed, it is a tragedy even greater than that which triggers it."

back

# Chapter 30 – Time to Apologize? Part 4

The Old Testament tells some very strange tales and one of them is told at 2 Samuel. David, the Israelite king, under duress because he is facing an armed insurrection from his own son, enters a town where loyalty is not assured. He and his men are received hospitably, but there is one man decidedly not hospitable. The account reads:

"...a man...came out shouting curses as he approached. He was throwing stones at David and at all the servants of King David, as well as at all the people and the mighty men on his right and on his left. Shimei said as he cursed: "Get out, get out, you bloodguilty man! You worthless man!"

"...Then Abishai the son of Zeruiahm said to the king: "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, please, and take off his head." But the king said: "...Let him curse me, for Jehovah has said to him, 'Curse David!'...Here my own son, who came from my own body, is seeking my life... Leave him alone so that he may curse me, for Jehovah told him to!...With that David and his men kept going down the road while Shimei was walking alongside the mountain abreast of him, shouting curses and throwing stones and a lot of dust." (16:5-19)

Imagine! David is not too hung up on himself, is he? The fellow curses him, throws stones at him, shouting he is bloodguilty and worthless. And David as much as says: "Well, maybe he has a point. I mean, if God is letting it happen, who am I to smash in his head?"

The passage is included in the midweek meeting study material for October 15, 2018. That program also incorporated a passage at Matthew chapter 11, in which Jesus said of his detractors that they criticize you no matter what you do, so the best recourse is to go full speed ahead and let "wisdom be proved righteous by its works." Meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially Bible studies that one can prepare for, organized around themes suggested by current needs and the pre-determined schedule of Bible reading that members have observed for 100 years—work your way through Revelation and start in again at Genesis.

Nothing gets in the program without the okay, if not the direct insertion, of Witness governing members, who serve on various supervisory committees. The Matthew verse demonstrates how they respond to public criticism. They like Psalm 38:13 as well, another verse of David, about how he determined to muzzle his mouth as his adversaries kept "muttering all day long" unsavory things about him. Luke 9:62 is also a favorite. That one records Jesus saying: "No man that has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well fitted for the Kingdom of God." They press ever forward. They content themselves with a Newsroom tab on their public website that does not get into specific complaints, much as one would not expect to find a citing from the building inspector on the restaurant menu.

It was a program that October week on how Jesus set the pattern for those who would follow him, not specifically concerned with how to answer criticism, but also not avoiding the topic, particularly in the final half-hour segment. And Shimei's tirade was right in there, with David conscious of the abuse he is receiving, and acquiescing to receiving it, as though it were discipline of sorts, as though he says "Well, maybe I had it coming," even as he expresses hope that perhaps "Jehovah will see...and will actually restore me to goodness instead of his malediction this day." (vs 12)

Do not think that the Witness Governing Body, as they are teaching others by means of the scriptures, do not also teach themselves. "If David was subjected to it, I guess we will be too," they seem to say. One should not think that they will not reflect on just how they got into this predicament in the first place, as David surely must have, with stones bouncing off his helmet. They will remedy it to the extent they can, but it will not be at the expense of betraying their prime directive of leading through Bible principles. They have been loath to pull rank on family heads, reporting abuse which is sometimes entirely within a family, usually a step-family as was the case in Montana, and assume their responsibility or prerogative.

Likely they will say of these courtroom battles, as they did of Russia banning the entire organization within its borders, that it is an area of "concern" but not "worry." They don't get overly attached to things, even things of their own construction. They put it all on the line routinely as they do their best to advance kingdom interests, not cowering before their enemies. They plow where they plow as they apply their view of the Bible, unconcerned, sometimes unaware, of the quicksand such a course may get them into, confident that, should that happen, God will somehow get them out of it.

They do not deliberately court opposition, but they do expect it. The king makes a law and Daniel is thrown into the lion's den. He makes another law and his friends are thrown into the furnace. Another king makes another law and the entire nation of Jews faces extermination until Esther the queen opens his eyes to the murderous scheme he has been maneuvered into. It happens to their spiritual descendants to this day. The modern Witness organization expects no less. They are "insular," separate from the world, and the latter finds no end of reasons to oppose them for it.

They have really stepped in it this time, or at least it has been painted that way. It is not like last year, when Russia banned them, declared the Bible they favor illegal, and confiscated their property, doing so for completely separate reasons that never even mentioned child sexual abuse. It is not like Jehovah's Witnesses of decades past, trying issue before first amendment issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, nobody engaging more frequently other than the government itself, so that Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote: "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." No. This time it is the unsavory subject of child sexual abuse, and the question that cannot be answered: If they did not go "beyond the law," why didn't they?

Is it to be included as among the "wicked things that they will lyingly say against you" that Jesus speaks of? (Matthew 5:11) Nobody can ever say that the charge is not wicked, on the same level as first-century charges that Christians practiced cannibalism and that they burned down Rome. Just possibly it takes their breath away, as it is a legitimate bad that they never saw coming. Just possibly they are dumbfounded at enemy attempts to negate the clergy-penitent clause on the basis that elders are unpaid volunteers. The insistence that Witness elders can count as "clergy" only if paid is an attack on the purest form of religion. One could even uncharitably call those of the paid variety "mercenary ministers," whose motives are ever clouded. "You received free, give free," Jesus said. The world has swung to recognition of only the mercenary model.

With Shimei's stones knocking on their helmet, just possibly they drop to their knees like Hezekiah besieged by an enraged enemy. Just possibly they appear to outsiders as deer caught in the headlights while they are doing so. Just possibly they are like Adrian Monk, insular among his many hang-ups, who finds himself both outside of his normal element and in a pickle because he cannot choose which chair in which to sit until Natalie gently pushes him down on whatever one he hovers over at the moment.

At a supposedly confidential 2017 meeting of elders, leaked for Internet perusal by a self-styled freedom fighter—a meeting dealing with the ramifications of child sexual abuse litigation, a Witness representative stated: "Well, we know that the scene of this world is changing, and we know Satan's coming after us, and he's going to go for us legally. We can see by the way things are shaping up." It is not hard to imagine what certain ones are doing with the explanation that "Satan's coming after us."

How could he say it? With religion in general, it is the misconduct of leaders that has come home to haunt them. With Jehovah's Witnesses, it is misconduct of members whose cases allegedly were mishandled. God help us if the _members_ of other faiths are put under the magnifying glass, as with Jehovah's Witnesses. On the other side of the world, Jehovah's Witness are banned in Russia for reasons having nothing to do with child sexual abuse—the topic was entirely absent, as government and media partnered to whip the public into a froth, hurling many virulent accusations against the faith—but never that one.

There, it is "professing the superiority of one's religion." There it is being Western spies disguised as a religion. There it is blood transfusions, and should a Witness refuse one and thereafter die, the death is invariably attributed to the refusal, with leaders of the faith likened to murderers. Surely, somewhere along the line it should be acknowledged that Jehovah's Witnesses have absolutely no deaths at all attributed to illicit drug abuse, overdrinking, and tobacco use, save only for when someone is slipping into old habits. All things considered, they are, far and away, the 'safest' religion out there. Yet they are said to be the murderers.

Keep in mind that we are speaking of the faith whose members are universally recognized as 'pacifist,' who will on no account resort to violence or support war efforts. It is highly unusual for a large group of people to have absolutely no blood on their hands in this regard, but they do not. Is it so crazy for the Witness spokesman to say: "Satan is coming after us?" Given the foregoing, it would be crazy for him not to. One thing that we know about opposers: they will always overplay their hand.

Drive this matter of child sexual abuse to the Supreme Court, if need be. If they decide to hear it, it will be case number 50-something that Witnesses have tried before that body. Let it be resolved once and for all when the time is right. Many groups are driven to the edge these days over child sexual abuse, as it becomes almost the only issue that matters to some. Over such matters, the Boy Scouts are exploring bankruptcy proceedings. The Boy Scouts! who have long fought the evil but did not succeed in eliminating it. The Boy Scouts! who taught generations of boys to be responsible. The Boy Scouts! who I can't walk the area trails without coming across historical kiosks or other amenities constructed as someone's Eagle Scout project. The Boy Scouts! who when they were successfully sued on behalf of a single plaintiff in 2010 for $18.5 million, one of that person's legal team stated his belief that they "have undertaken a truly noble and important task in mentoring young boys, for which they are to be commended," and it was his sincere hope that the $18 million judgment "will impress upon them the need to do it better." Now that he has driven them clear to insolvency, it will be a little hard for his dream to come true. Though groups as the Boy Scouts manifestly benefit children in ways not readily duplicated, their deep pockets permit a pummeling such as cannot be visited on unorganized segments of society, though it be every bit as accommodating to child sexual abuse—and without providing any benefit. It will be so with groups that instill religious values into youth as well.

Don't be put off by the sordid backdrop. The world wallows in sordidness these days. It is accustomed to everyone being accused of everything. The Week Magazine reports (September 3, 2018) that referrals of child abuse online images have increased seven-fold over five years. On average, one child in every primary school classroom has received nude or semi-nude pictures from an adult. They quickly adjust to this new normal: "A girl from my primary [was] sending half-naked pictures because it's what everyone does," said one. Don't let this be painted as a Witness pandemic or even a pandemic of any religion. What! It is only where there are deep pockets that child sexual abuse occurs? It is only taxpayer-funded schools, scouting organizations, or faith groups that suffer child sexual abuse? In any such lawsuit, it is actually the customers, the members, or the taxpayers, who pay out the award, as massive transfers of wealth occur in every direction, with barristers netting a third.

The roots of the evil fail to line up. Christianity, where it remains true to its roots, is an offshoot of Judaism, where pedophilia in Bible times was exceedingly uncommon, and even now one seldom hears of it. A verse from the ancient Sibylline oracles, a collection of oracular utterances written in Greek hexameters, ascribed to the prophetesses Sibyls, claims that only the Jews were free from this "impurity." They were "mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations of other, Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed."

In contrast, where does the mainstream educated world of today find its underpinnings? Is it not the world of ancient Greece, known as the cradle of democracy? It is also the cradle of accustomed pedophilia, a societally accepted practice nowhere condemned in that society. The only condemnation to be found is from Christians who withdrew and became "insular" as regards that world. It is found at 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NABRE) A footnote to the New American Bible – Revised Edition on 'boy prostitutes' and 'sodomites' reads: "The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys." They even had a god for it!

Montana law being what it appears to be, it is hard to imagine that the present case could not be appealed successfully. The Court's greatest mistake may have been the excessive punitive damages imposed, clearly indicating that they felt the Witness organization was trying to violate law. If it can be shown that they made every conscientious effort to follow law, everything might reverse. Whether they are insular or not should not factor in. Separateness from the overall world is not yet a crime. It may factor into public opinion, but not yet that of law.

What would be the repercussions in the event of a higher court reversal? They would be not necessarily favprable for Jehovah's Witnesses, who always sought, perhaps to a fault, not to "sully God's name." It's a little late to worry about that now. Or maybe it is not. A higher court reversal of the Montana verdict could cause the average person who learns of it, particularly as spun by opponents, to say: "It's unbelievable! The Court says it's okay for Jehovah's Witnesses to abuse children!" There is no question that their vociferous opponents would spin matters that way. But if there was a sincere expression of regret in the interim—for children truly have been harmed—they might say, "Oh. I understand. They did bollox things up but now I see how it happened."

People, by and large, are fair, even when they don't especially care for Witnesses. They don't buy for a minute that Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Methodists, Boy Scouts, and taxpayer-backed institutions are the only settings in which child sexual abuse occurs. They understand that these parties have deep pockets, and there is no sense in going after anyone who does not. Vary the facts to be prioritized before all others and there is nobody that cannot be damned. A higher court victory giving opportunity to 'come clean' as to how the whole mess began may well clean up that Name that Witnesses are so concerned about.

Any movement suffers when the haters get on board to misrepresent things, capitalizing on complaints to go for the jugular. It is acknowledged here that children did suffer sexual abuse on the watch of the Witness governing organization. It is acknowledged that some of the abusers came to the attention of outside authorities later than they would have otherwise, and some likely not at all, exacerbated by a concern over reputation. What is not acknowledged is that laws were broken, for Jehovah's Witnesses are very good at ferreting them out and obeying them. It is also acknowledged, however, that laws are being reinterpreted after the fact to make it appear that they were violated, Witnesses being unpopular and the subject being hot. These are general observations. In any group numbering several million, there will be countless contrasting examples of anything, and it is the task of the court system to ferret out what is valid and what is invalid.

Let it be framed as it is. It is an attack on separate religion, in which child abuse matters are employed as a righteous smokescreen. It is not merely Jehovah's Witnesses under the gun. It is religion in general, and the more determined a given religion is to resist mainstream thinking the more of a target it becomes. Prejudice against the Jehovah's Witness faith runs deeper than most and it is a very real child abuse tragedy that enables it to be disguised as justifiable outrage. Nonetheless, the attack on the right to worship in a manner undefined by the State ought to be the subject of focus.

End of Main Body

back

# Archival

# Chapter 31 – What Witnesses are Allowed to Read

(July 2009) "I'm wondering, Tom, if you've even taken the time to read any of these 'atheist' books?" asked one of my interrogators. Dawkins and crew had come up in conversation.

Well....um...ah...ahem...that is to say.........(no)

Perhaps in fairness I should read one or two. Moristotle used to all but plead with me to do it. The trouble is, I've read atheist arguments singly, through blogs and so forth, and have not been impressed. Why think that would change were I to read them in orchestral form? I come from that point of view in the first place, or if not from that point of view, at least from the agnostic point of view. I worry these books would exasperate me, since I'd agree with much of them. By all accounts, they expose hypocrisies of religion. I've no problem with that. But it would be 'been there, done that.' Jehovah's Witnesses were exposing hypocrisies of religion before these guys were born, and doing so when it took guts—that is, before it became trendy. But by trashing religion, these authors think they're trashing God. How are they doing that? When it comes to fraudulent religion, the Bible foretold that development exactly:

For example: "There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." (2 Peter 2:1-2)

and

"They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort." (Titus 1:16)

Furthermore, these books keep calling me a deist. What a ridiculous word! Wait until they find out I'm a married man. Will I be then called a wifist? Besides, one can only do so much reading. My long-suffering wife, Mrs. Harley, thinks that I read too much as it is, to the detriment of nobler tasks like fixing things around the house. She accuses me of living by the motto: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, don't fix it." Can you imagine such an accusation?

But that opening question—about reading atheist books—was a trap! My interlocutor responded: "My question to you was actually a bit loaded, (he never asked me one that wasn't) because the organization that you are a part of would not wanting you reading such things at all. My church, on the other hand, would encourage such reading because we know we have the truth and have nothing to fear."

Actually, I've heard it put more strongly than that. From time to time, you will hear characters, even some who were once Witnesses, carrying on about how they weren't "allowed" to read anything but what was Watchtower-published. I swear, I don't know how grown people can make themselves such children. Who do they think is going to "not allow" you? One might hear counsel that it is well not to waste one's time on drivel. Is that the same as "not being allowed?" These days, cigarette packs feature the caution: "Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy." Does that mean people aren't allowed to smoke? To make the point, I stated: "I assure you, though, that if congregation elders were to pay me a visit, and the entire Dawkins-Harris-Hitchings trinity was lying on my coffee table, I would not be in trouble." Some opposing website quoted the line, to howls of disbelief. What is it with these people?

Oh, I suppose if one of those meddlesome persons is coming around—you know, the sort who delights to put in their two cents on everything—we all know them when we see them—then you might tuck those books out of sight, unless you deliberately want to get a rise out of said persons. And you might do the same if ones whom you respect are coming around, the same way you might silence a song with smutty lyrics, out of embarrassment, mostly, as you ask yourself: "If I'm embarrassed listening to this stuff in their presence, why am I listening to it in the first place?" These are purely human factors and they have nothing to do with "getting in trouble." Actually, I'm not likely to have those books laying around anyway, on account of 1 Timothy: 6:20: "O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge."

To hear the grumblers carry on, you'd think persons new to the faith were bound and force-fed. Look, before persons decide to "join" Jehovah's Witnesses, they go through a period of Bible study, seldom lasting less than a year. They weigh what they are learning. They sift and compare. They consider how it applies. By degrees, they make various changes to align their lives with the Bible. Throughout this time, they function in general society just as they always did—it's not as though they are suspended from daily life. If that's brainwashing, (a common accusation) then so is every other endeavor upon which people may make a stand. (One new Witness observed that, given today's world, our brains can use a good washing.) Should they eventually become Witnesses, they may well decide thereafter to read mostly Watchtower published material, from which they learned Bible teachings in the first place. They trust the source.

In the late 1960's a newspaper editor in Trenton, Ontario commented on Watchtower literature. "Among the interesting plethora of publications, some come regularly from the Watchtower Bible Society, better known as Jehovah's Witnesses. This is an organization which, by any man's standards, must command respect. The magazines are well written, with plenty of research, and quite apart from the special religious theories advanced, with which many may disagree, the society touches on every aspect of human life and the world God gave man. It upholds Biblical principles and inculcates in its adherents the ideas of honor and purity, good citizenship, and impeccable behavior, which a world rent by the distortions of so-called freedom would do well to read." It's not bad stuff, and there is no end of it.

Frankly, there is only so much time most people have for reading, and in some cases, only so much interest. So if somebody chooses to read only Watchtower publications—and we do have many people like that—what problem would I have with it? They prioritize reading material as they see fit.

Christian values are poles apart from those of the world in general. Not in shallow surface ways, but in the most basic fundamental of ways. So once you decide to diet, why stuff the fridge with ice cream and the cupboards with chips, things that will serve only to undermine your newfound determination? No, I have no problem should someone decide to read mostly JW published material. Some do. Some don't.

What I like about the JW organization is that they're unafraid of verses like 1 Timothy 6:20: "O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge." For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith."

Everyone else embarrassedly pretends those verses don't exist, fearful lest they be seen as narrow and restrictive, the worst of all possible sins in today's world. Watchtower applies them, unconcerned with how the world will react, so long as they discharge their scriptural responsibility to warn against specious reasonings. They want Christians to "attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God...in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error." (Ephesians 4:13-14) It is a stand that takes guts, that exposes them to sneering ridicule, and to absurd charges that they want to "control" people.

Yes, there is caution about what we read, what we view for entertainment, and so forth. It is GIGO: computereeze for "Garbage In, Garbage Out." You can find such counsel in Watchtower material. But counsel is just that; it is counsel. It is advice. It is often strong advice. It is not rule, nor law, and it is not presented as though it is. Now, if you will excuse me, I have the latest issue of Reader's Digest to plow through. But don't tell anyone. I don't want to get in trouble.

[Edit: December 2018:] I came across a BBC list of the 100 greatest books of all time. To my surprise, I discovered that I had read over half, far more than anyone commenting on that thread. I hadn't actually "read" them. I had listened to most of them via Books on Tape while working as a janitor. "Stupid janitor forgot to leave an extra roll of toilet paper," some CEO recently tweeted, adding "I'm screwed." I tweeted back: "I read half the BBC Great Books via Books on Tape while working as a janitor. Sorry about the toilet paper."

When my nemesis heard reports that I had read a lot, he taunted: "Which of the major atheist books do you find the most compelling?" It is a one-track-mind with these fellows. I shot back: "Which of the ancient Greek tragedies do you find the most compelling? Which of the novels of Dickens do you find the most compelling? Give me your review of War and Peace."

Should I read one of those atheist books? Possibly so, but my desire cools with the impression that foremost among them, the author of _The God Delusion_ , has presented himself on Twitter as one of the most unpleasant persons on the planet. See how he reviles anyone he disagrees with, giving the distinct impression that it is personal with him. Maybe he isn't feeling well. Still, sometimes I fear that his cherished evolution is right, and that he is the foremost example of it. If so, it is curtains for humanity, for the ability to get along with others surely must be a pillar of peaceful life.

As founder, he is, for the most part, a hero of the modern atheist movement and its anti-cult subset. He becomes most unhelpful, however, when his stated view of child sexual abuse is taken into account—that except for penetrative abuse, it is overemphasized. After all, it happened to him, as it has happened to countless ones. He relates it all in his signature book. People need to get on in life, his words suggest—it's not that big of a deal. Whether he is right or wrong about this is immaterial. Suffice it to say that his words reflect the prevalent attitude of a time period. And they throw a wrench into anti-cultist efforts to try in the courtroom abhorrent conduct of yesterday by the standards of today.

back

# Chapter 32 – Who Are Those "Mentally Diseased?"

(October 2011) Seeking to curb disintegration in human society, and having failed to curb human violence, nations increasingly resort to political correctness. If you can prevent people from saying certain things, the theory goes, perhaps tolerance, peace and good will to all will one day come about. There's not much evidence that it works that way, but one must try something. In my youth, the phrase: "I'll kill you for that!" was both innocuous and commonplace—a mother might say it to a mischievous child, as mine did to me. The turning point for the play Twelve Angry Men came with the realization that the wrongly accused one's: "I'll kill you for that!" meant nothing. But that was long years ago. Today the words are taboo, though the deed has become commonplace. Woe today to anyone uttering words suggesting lack of tolerance.

Has the Watchtower run afoul of that stricture recently? In its July 15, 2011 issue, for consideration in JW congregations, the magazine recommended (strongly) avoiding "apostates," even calling them "mentally diseased." You should have heard the howling from those who don't like Witnesses, grumblers who immediately broadened application of those words to include all who left the faith, something the article never suggested. Government ought to investigate such "hate speech," they insisted.

Most persons who leave JWs simply move on in life, some with the viewpoint that the religion just wasn't for them, some with minor grumbling over this or that feature of the faith that prompted their decision, some with the viewpoint that they couldn't live up to it. None of these are viewed as apostates. To be sure, those who remain do not regard the decision as wise, but they're not "apostate." A fair number eventually return. One could liken those leaving to a man or woman leaving a failed marriage. After initial trauma, most pick up the pieces and move on. But there's always a certain few psycho ex-mates that can't let go, who devote all their time and energy to harassing the person they once loved. With the Internet, such ones loom huge. That's the type of individual the magazine commented on, not at all simply everyone who departs.

Moreover, "mentally diseased" was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It is merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Timothy 6:3-4...."If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa!" one said. "That's not in any Bible I know of except the New World Translation, your Bible!" He offered some alternatives, and I'll quote from his blog:

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions. (NASB)

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. (KJV)

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions." (Douay-Rheims) He then progresses to an unbelievable "But of course, translations are unnecessary for people like me who can read the original Greek: 'ει τις ετεροδιδασκαλει και μη προσερχεται υγιαινουσιν λογοις τοις του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου και τη κατ ευσεβειαν διδασκαλια τετυφωται μηδεν επισταμενος αλλα νοσων περι ζητησεις και λογομαχιας εξ ων γινεται φθονος ερις βλασφημιαι υπονοιαι πονηραι' (Wetscott-Hort)"

I answered: "But of course! Fortunately, people like you produce translations so that dumb people like me can hope to understand the original. Surely, we are permitted to use translations. If not, then all international dealings/relations need be suspended unless all parties involved are thoroughly conversant in all languages. By comparing many translations, even the dunce can get an accurate feel for the original.

"You've objected to 'mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.' What do your other quoted translations say? Douay-Rheims says 'sick about questions and strifes of words.' In view of the context, what sort of 'sickness' do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that 'mentally diseased' is not such a bad rendering after all? NASB, which you admire, offers 'morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words.' Does 'morbid,' when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is 'sickness,' even 'mentally diseased,' more to the point?"

Here's a few other translations:

'diseased' (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)

'filled with a sickly appetite' (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)

'morbid appetite' (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)

'morbid craving' (An American Translation; Goodspeed)

'unhealthy love of questionings' (New Testament in Basic English)

'morbidly keen' (NEB)

'unhealthy desire to argue' (Good News Bible).

"Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind to you? So the NWT's 'mentally diseased' is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this application abundantly clear." But my blogging opponent declared all such context (apparently without knowing it) "irrelevant." The last time I carried on that way with regard to the remarks of some scientists, I was immediately accused of "quote mining." Surely that sword must cut both ways. Malcontents who harp on that Watchtower sentence are quote-mining, totally ignoring (or disagreeing with) its context, so as to lambaste a religion they detest.

[Edit: December 2018:] Apparently my own people (after all my work!) decided that this was not the hill they wanted to die on. The NWT was revised in 2013, and the new rendering of 1 Timothy 6:4 is: "He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words" and the footnote for "obsessed" reads "Or 'has an unhealthy fascination.'" Thus, the 2013 revision puts the NWT safely in the middle of the pack, no longer out there with the most pointed rendering.

back

# Chapter 33 – What the #@%! is Next?

(April 2011) A common theme of Witness opposers is that their former religion scared the socks off them. All this teaching about Armageddon—it was just too much, they say. Artwork of the final day caused them nightmares, they say—it should be outlawed. These ones have reassessed their former view that today's world merits God's disapproval, instead concluding that it is a nifty place to find fulfillment.

Typifying this view, one website of comparative religion accuses the Watchtower Society of "maintain[ing] a state of high anxiety in their membership by stressing the imminence of the end." Witnesses would not have phrased things this way. Instead, they would say that recognition of where we are in the stream of time goes a long way to allay anxiety. It's as though these web writers think all is just peachy worldwide and everyone would know it were it not for JWs fouling the air with their "high anxiety."

Well, two can play at that game. Take a look at Newsweek's cover for March 28, 2011. Emblazoned over a backdrop of a crashing tidal wave was: "Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Nuclear Meltdowns, Revolutions, Economies on the Brink!" No anxiety here, is there? I tell you, for anyone with a memory, it's absolutely amazing to see such despairing words on the cover of a national magazine. Surely Newsweek, representing the world's collective wisdom, has some reassuring words for the children? Ah—yes, here it is, just below the list of calamities: They say: "What the #@%! is next?!"

And to think that my 7th grade Social Studies teacher had us all subscribe to Newsweek, on the premise that we would thereby become well-informed. Was I anticipating future covers of that magazine when I began my World News Oral Report with the words "What the #@%! is next?" and spent the rest of the semester writing, "I will not swear" on the chalkboard? As adults of this system have failed the children in so many ways—in morals, in education, in personal and group and financial security—they now fail them even in reassuring rhetoric. "What the #@%! is next?" is the best they can manage. Why not further say: "We haven't a clue, kids. We've loused things up in every way."

For that matter, why not say: "Jehovah's Witnesses were right?" For Jehovah's Witnesses have been saying for decades that the present system of things is doomed to extinction, to be replaced by God's kingdom. Everyone else says or hopes that God will somehow bless the present hash of human governments, so as to collectively bring us all a happy future. Well—who doesn't want a happy future? But a happy future is not something humans can provide. It comes only under God's kingdom. No human has the slightest role in bringing that kingdom about. God himself does that. But we can position ourselves to benefit from it. That is the long-standing message of Jehovah's Witnesses, coupled with an invitation to study the Bible itself.

Hey, it's not been as easy job. "What a bunch of alarmists! We've always had bad things happening!" I can hear the refrain now. Naturally, the Bible reader thinks of 2 Peter 3:3,4: "First off, you need to know that in the last days, mockers are going to have a heyday. Reducing everything to the level of their puny feelings, they'll mock, 'So what's happened to the promise of his Coming? Our ancestors are dead and buried, and everything's going on just as it has from the first day of creation. Nothing's changed.'" (the paraphrased Message translation; it may not be literal, but it sure is fresh)

Well, we sure haven't always had magazine covers like this one of Newsweek's! It's as if the editors are collectively throwing up their hands and crying: "Sheesh! Everything humans touch turns to s**t!" (Normally I would never use such unsavory words as "s**t," but I am unwholesomely influenced by Newsweek's #@%! It really is true that bad associations spoils useful habits.)

The only time I said: "What the #@%! is next?" was when I saw the price of the magazine. $5.95! Weren't these things under a dollar when I was a kid? With more pages? And better written, not dumbed down like it is today? I know, I know, it's unfair to be critical of a mass publication for "dumbing down." The Watchtower is dumbed down, too. We all know it. As the world's education system steadily deteriorates, so do collective reading skills. If you want to reach a broad audience, simple writing is the way you have to go, however painful it may be for those who cherish reading. But there's hardly any need to rub it in: Note above the Newsweek banner is the byline for another story: "How Ignorant are You?" Am I being too sensitive when I read between the lines: "We're not ignorant—you are!"?)

To be faithful to the Bible, you need to talk about things not so pleasant. You just do. And destruction of "the ungodly" is not so pleasant. Nobody says otherwise. The only caveat—and it's a significant one—is that a person can be saved from it by adhering to divine direction. Isn't that, when push comes to shove, a good thing?

Now: see if you can spot the spurious words I've cleverly inserted in the following passage: Revelation 6:12-17 (Message Translation, again) in which John prophesies

"...a bone-jarring earthquake, sun turned black as ink, moon all bloody, stars falling out of the sky like figs shaken from a tree in a high wind, sky snapped shut like a book, islands and mountains sliding this way and that. And then pandemonium, everyone and his dog running for cover—kings, princes, generals, rich and strong, along with every commoner, slave or free. They hid in mountain caves and rocky dens, calling out to mountains and rocks, "What the #@%! is next?"

There. Did you spot it? What they actually cry is "Refuge! Hide us from the One Seated on the Throne and the wrath of the Lamb! The great Day of their wrath has come—who can stand it." But I try to keep up with contemporary jargon.

Or, what about the words of Jesus:

"The time is coming when they'll say, 'Lucky the women who never conceived! Lucky the wombs that never gave birth! Lucky the breasts that never gave milk!' Then they'll start calling to the mountains, "What the #@%! is next?" (Luke 23:29-30)

Nope. What they actually call to the mountains is: "Fall down on us! Cover us up!"

Witnesses take a lot of flak for adhering to the Bible's teaching of Armageddon, great tribulation, destruction of the wicked, paradise earth under Kingdom reign, and so forth. Jehovah's Witnesses are a serious religion that doesn't hedge its bets. They are not all over the board. They unabashedly hold to key Bible tenets, no matter if those find scorn elsewhere. For, to be sure, if one doesn't think that God will call "the ungodly" to account, if one doesn't think that God will one day intervene dramatically in world events, then Jehovah's Witnesses and all that they represent are ridiculous, a perfect target for derision. It all depends upon where one is coming from.

Pertaining to Armageddon, can one be some distance from theocratic provisions or not one inch? Dunno. Witness HQ clearly weighs in on the side of caution. Why not stay in a known place of safety and take part in a work in which it is good to take part in any event, simply on the basis of Revelation 4:11? "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created." God created all things. The massive experiment of human self-rule is turning out exactly as he said it would. He deserves our service.

back

# Chapter 34 - Nautical Bookends of Our Time

(January 2012) Sometimes the spirit of an entire age is captured in a single event. Even better, sometimes the spirit of an entire age is bookended by two separate events, one defining the "before," the other the "after." Whenever this happens, it is a fine thing. It saves a lot of work. You don't have to read up on the entire age. Just get your head around the two bookend events and you're home free. Like Morgan Freeman said to Miss Daisy, "We don't have to worry about what's in the middle?" No. We don't.

We have exactly this situation today with regard to the Costa Concordia, that luxury cruise liner that capsized January [2012] off the Italian coast. It's a nautical bookend. It's complement, the Titanic, also capsized, almost exactly a century ago, in 1912. The age thus bookended is the "last days" that Jehovah's Witnesses proclaim. Current view traces it to 1914, and it is near completion, since we are "right around the corner" from the end of this system of things—a most elusive corner indeed. One remembers that year of 1914 was the year of World War I, and it marks the first time that the entire world went to war concurrently. It is seen as setting off with a bang the events described in Luke 21:10, events that have cascaded to our day.

If ever there were contrasting events to illustrate the fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:1-5, they are to be found in these behemoth boats. Those verses read: "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

In other words, the verses point to a general deterioration of human character. People have "gotten worse" during the last days. As Pop, who is not a Witness and has little use for them, readily asserts: the world is going "to hell in a handbasket." But this is not necessarily easy to prove to one who thinks otherwise. It is subjective. If you show the verses to someone who doesn't agree that they apply more today than at other times, there is not much you can do about it. To some extent, it depends upon where you look. If you think in terms of technology, for instance, the notion of things worsening is patently untrue. One is reminded of that line from the 1968 book _The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life_ : "True, there has been progress in a materialistic way. But is it really progress when men send rockets to the moon, and yet cannot live together in peace on earth?" Some people think it is.

Still, the best chance we have of illustrating 2 Timothy 3:1-5 lies in contrasting similar events occurring in different time frames—events such as ship sinkings. Consider: After the Titanic struck an iceberg back in 1912, the captain expedited rescue efforts, then went down with his ship. After the Costa Concordia struck a rock in modern 2012, the captain, seen beforehand fraternizing with women in the bar, was among the first to jump ship. Titanic's crew, in 1912, urgently worked to shepherd passengers to lifeboats. Concordia's crew, in 2012, told them to go back to their rooms...surely this crisis would pass. With the 1912 Titanic, it was "women and children first." With the 2012 Concordia it was "every person for himself," said one of the survivors.

In short, all that was noble and self-sacrificing is replaced today with all that is cowardly and self-serving. That is the relevance of 2 Timothy 3:1-5. Tell that to those fatheads who cannot see any change in people. Even the big liners themselves seem to fulfill 2 Timothy 3:1-5. Titanic, in 1912, went down majestically, gracefully, symmetrically. Concordia, in 2012, rolled over on its side like a huge fat pig and just lay there lolling in the sun, like our overstuffed cat does in hopes someone will scratch its belly. People of the last days can't even sink a ship properly.

Okay, okay, so it doesn't prove anything, comparing the two sunken ships. It is pure symbolism. I understand that. But as symbolism goes, it doesn't get any better. I don't issue many prophesies, being a modest guy, but I'm comfortable with this one: James Cameron will never make a film entitled Concordia. Nor will I quickly modify my answer to some smart-aleck who challenged me: "Why do you have to think that things are getting worse? What does that view do for you?"

It helps me to explain why the Doomsday Clock is set at four minutes to midnight and not 10:30 AM.

back

# Chapter 35 – You Got a Timetable on That?

(July 2011) Years after he went apostate on us, Vic Vomodog would walk into the hospital transfusion room, roll up his sleeve and say: "Fill er up!" just to show Jehovah's Witnesses what he thought of them. He authored a book—I still it see sometimes on the Internet: " _Forty Years Down the Toilet_ – _My Wasted Life with Jehovah's Witnesses_." Online he's been known to log into forums as Tom _Puppydogs_ , so you have to watch out! More recently, he's somehow got his paws on a treasure trove of mundane Watchtower correspondence and he publishes each item separately as though each were a more damning indictment than the one preceding. I mean, if Jehovah's Witnesses pay their utility bill, he publishes the receipt as proof that they trust in _man_ for power, not God. What is it with this guy?

So I contacted him. It was probably not a good idea—they always say we ought not do it—but we used to work closely together at one time, and I just felt I should attempt to talk sense into him. What about the nearness of the end? I asked him. "You got a timetable on that?" he shot back.

No. I don't. Isn't that really what's at the crux of everything?

We don't get a timetable. Jesus said: "keep on the watch" and "at an hour that you do not think to be it the Son of Man is coming." Each time we've tried to force specificity on a prophesy we've been burned. And, no, it isn't frequent. It's happened just once in anyone's lifetime (unless you are really, really old). Everyone gets one free pass for a missed end-date. It's in the rules.

It is enough for Jehovah's Witnesses. We are convinced this system is a failure and slated for replacement by God's kingdom. Our hearts are in that new system. We proclaim it. We even refer to it as the "real life," applying the words of 1 Timothy 6. But if your heart is with this system, all the work and practices and beliefs of those whose heart is with the one to come seem extreme, unnecessary, or even deleterious. It all depends upon where your focus is. Live a good life now, even try to reform this world, or adhere to what JWs believe is the Bible's hope—a coming new system.

Our people tend to regard apostates as "the bogeyman," and I sometimes wish it wasn't that way. It lends them an undeserved air of mystery. They're not mysterious at all. Their actions are very understandable. Everything lies in that verse about the slave who, discouraged that the master keeps delaying, begins beating his fellow slaves. That verse never used to make much sense to me, but as I've seen the drama enacted in recent times, it now hangs together quite well: "But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, 'My master is delaying,' and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards..." (Matthew 24:48-49)

It is in the midst of parables and prophesies (Matt 24 & 25) concerned solely with Christ's parousia ("presence," often mistranslated "return") Once the slave gets fed up about the master's "delay," he jumps ship, and then he has a lot of time to account for—years, even decades, proclaiming a message he no longer believes—wasted years, as he now sees them. What better way to account for it than to say he was misled, lied to, brainwashed? In effect, he "beats" his fellow slaves, the ones who continue to stay the course.

To avoid even the chance of being caught up in this outcome, ending up like Vic, why not hedge one's bets a little? Why not hold back? That way, should one go sour on the whole Christianity thing one day, it won't be so hard to reintegrate into the world, since one never really left it in the first place. In short, why not learn, as is all the rage today, to "have your religion but keep it in its place" (which, of course, means last place)? Wouldn't that be the practical course?

Yes, it would appear to, except that makes one lukewarm, and Jesus doesn't like for his followers to be lukewarm. To that Laodicean congregation: "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:15)

You might even liken the apostates to bad Baruchs. You remember Baruch, serving by Jeremiah's side for decades, leading up to Jerusalem's overthrow by Nebuchadnezzar. He got tired of it at one point, though, and the 45th chapter of Jeremiah is written for him: "This is what Jehovah the God of Israel has said concerning you, O Baruch, you have said: "Woe, now, to me, for Jehovah has added grief to my pain! I have grown weary because of my sighing, and no resting-place have I found." "This is what you should say to him, 'This is what Jehovah has said: "Look! What I have built up I am tearing down, and what I have planted I am uprooting, even all the land itself. But as for you, you keep seeking great things for yourself. Do not keep on seeking. For here I am bringing in a calamity upon all flesh,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and I will give you your soul as a spoil in all the places to which you may go.'" (Jeremiah 45:2-5)

And Baruch proceeded to say: "You got a timetable on that?"

Oh, alright, alright—he didn't say it! I just threw it in. Apparently, he responded well to the council, for his name is mentioned later as one of the faithful ones. Would that the same could be said for his counterparts today.

back

# Chapter 36 – The Cake-Fruit Experiment that Blew Reason Sky-High

(April 2010) It was irksome when those atheists put up their 'Let Reason Prevail' billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on "reason?" Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of hope? Closer. In fact, I prematurely declared, that was it!

However, you don't necessarily express your innermost thoughts on the Internet, to be pawed over by all and sundry. In truth I was anything but convinced that my answer was it. Something was still missing. I've tossed and turned each night since.

Until now. For now I see clearly what was lacking: scientific validation. We all know today that one ought not think anything without first checking with scientists, yet I had done exactly that! Well—no more! Diligently consulting volumes of research, I at last came across an experiment that blew that silly 'Let Reason Prevail' slogan sky-high. Reason _cannot_ prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of a few years back. Alas, it has received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. That's what they were told, at least. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. "To show our thanks for taking part in our study," she said, "we'd like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?"

Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also all know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, "Yummy, cake!" wins out! "The astounding thing here," said the Wall Street Journal's Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for NPR, "is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It's how easily it wins."

Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. "Oh, so that's why I pig out after a hard day at work here," giggling Happy News people would tell each other on TV. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren't world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that "reason will prevail" among the world's policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

That is what was so irksome about the 'Let Reason Prevail' slogan. Reason _cannot_ prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah's Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Everyone else in the field of religion accepts the present setup of squabbling nations as a given, and prays for God to somehow bless the leaders running it—often with the proviso that whatever country they are in emerges on top. Of course, it doesn't matter too much, though, since said religionists are all heaven-bound! Just passing through, you understand. So while one might not like staying in a crummy hotel, you can at least console yourself that it's only for a night or two.

Not so Jehovah's Witnesses. Earth is where God meant us to be, so that is where we focus. Like the psalm says: (115:16) "As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, but the earth he has given to the sons of men." And our view that humans are incapable of governing the earth is no more than acknowledging the words of Jeremiah: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23) And: "The wise ones have become ashamed. They have become terrified and will be caught. Look! They have rejected the very word of Jehovah, and what wisdom do they have?" (Jeremiah 8:9) In other words, today's calamitous conditions are not really a surprise to those who have immersed themselves in Bible instruction. It is what they have always expected. They are not stuck with the pathetic hope that voting out the incumbents will somehow bring in a more amenable bunch of politicians among whom "reason can prevail." It is human rule itself that is at fault.

You could almost view it that God himself is conducting an experiment, just like Baba Shiv. Not that it was his purpose, but when humans insisted on setting their own standards of "good and bad," rejecting his sovereignty, he said, in effect: "Go ahead—for such-and-such an amount of time see if you can make good on your claim of self-government. When the time runs out, then—we will see." Is not this the meaning of those early Genesis chapters? Is not the grand experiment of human self-rule ending exactly as the Bible foretold it would? And does it not show, as any novice Witness will tell you—sometimes a bit parrotlike, but true nonetheless—that "it just goes to show that we need the kingdom?" Announcing this kingdom, so that people may align themselves with it, is the purpose of the Witnesses' public ministry.

back

# Chapter 37 – A Developing World at the Mercy of Rationalism

(March 2009) At first, following the financial markets crash of 2008, it appeared that the countries suffering the most would be the "guilty" countries: the ones whose banks invented the super leveraged credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations—the ones whose governments and citizens were head over heels in debt—the ones whose people had replaced the Bible with Consumer Reports. "Responsible" countries, those operating a surplus, whose citizens were frugal, such as China, Japan, and Germany, would emerge relatively unscathed. Ah, but it was not to be! The latter countries have suffered as much or more. Their strong balance sheet comes from exports, and now who remains to buy their goods?

But the really innocent countries, countries of the developing world, fare the worst by far. There, the downturn doesn't mean tarnished golden years. It means lives lost. Seldom are cause and effect linked so clearly. Most often there is sufficient disconnect so that the connivers on top can remain oblivious to the havoc they wreak below. But not this time.

Economist this week considers the plight of Africa, (The Toxins Trickle Downward, March 14, 2009) where in recent years, millions have inched their way above the poverty line, only to be shoved firmly beneath it again. Such countries are impacted in three ways: 1) credit market are closed to them, as they are riskier borrowers, and financial aid from wealthier countries wither, 2) commodity prices have collapsed, and commodities are usually their primary exports, and 3) remittances from citizens working abroad have dried up. The World Bank reckons these three factors will account for 200,000 - 400,000 lives lost, all children.

It is rare that the failure of human rule is shown in such stark relief, with consequences so directly traceable. How damnnable that people nonetheless prefer it to God's rulership as outlined in the Bible, as advertised by his Witnesses, and as practiced by the Christian organization. Here is an excerpt from someone who has left God—our God, no less, Jehovah, to embrace atheism. He gushes effusively about his new "rational worldview:"

"Rationalism for me means a life of pure freedom... But this means that this life that you're living now is the most precious thing you'll ever have... Because there is no Big Daddy to appease or suck up to, or be afraid of, you should be nice to people because it's nice! You should treat people like you want to be treated! You should not steal or murder because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. Always. No one needs a god to tell them this...

"Being a rationalist...if you say something irrational or realize the error in your own thoughts, a red flag immediately raises....rationalism is a worldview with no drawbacks, and only positives. It encourages honesty and truth...It promotes interest in the common good..."

How lofty and soaring the words sound! How much rubbish they are in reality! As the example of developing countries shows, people use their "pure freedom," to grind others into the dirt, and not to "treat people like you want to be treated!" (an exclamation mark, no less—oh, the joys of rationalism!) They are not "nice to people." They "hurt people," two to four hundred thousand of them, even though "hurting people is wrong." Plainly, we do need a "big Daddy to appease" and a "god to tell" us how to live.

If you had had a son or daughter high up in the banking world, who was devising the complex financial instruments that would ultimately ruin us all, you would have carried on about how well junior was doing for himself, how respected he was in the business world, and so forth. Even experts in the field had not a clue they were playing with dynamite; if they had, they would have cashed out their investments before the markets plunged.

The fact is that humans were not designed to rule themselves. It's an ability they do not have. Whether through greed, ignorance, pride, or some mix of the three, the record of human rule aptly illustrates Jeremiah's words: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23)

Today, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses govern its affairs in accord with Bible principles, which provides a hopeful foregleam of life under God's kingdom rule. It is well known that racial and tribal divisions—the ones tearing apart the world—utterly fail to divide Jehovah's Witnesses. It is well known that when natural disaster strikes, teams of volunteers promptly care for their own, rebuilding homes while governments are yet ascertaining the damage. It's well known that Kingdom Halls in the developing world are often the most impressive buildings in town, far more than what the locals could afford on their own—due to a sharing of resources and building talent from wealthier countries.

All this is provided through an organization which counsels, which directs, which disciplines its own, which insists on members living by Bible principles. Malcontents, such as one may find online, launch blistering attacks at this, for it seems to impede their freedom, and this they will not tolerate, even in trivial matters. But Witnesses's "economy" works to the good of developing countries, rather than trampling them underfoot.

back

# Chapter 38 – Inside Job: The Movie

(November 2011) 'Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Matt Damon wants to interview me. _Me_! He'll autograph one of his pictures, and (blush) he'll probably want one of my own. After all, he's reached the top of his field and I've reached the top of mine.'

But wait! Matt Damon is interviewer for a movie called Inside Job. About the root causes of the 2008 financial collapse! [the one replaying in Europe at this writing] Aren't you worried that he may ask embarrassing questions?

'Nah! He's just a dumb actor. What does he know? I'll razzle-dazzle him. He may be good at _pretending_ to be a successful person, but I'm the real thing! He'll be thrilled to meet me. Not a problem. I'll generously grant him a few minutes of my time.'

But it turns out that Mr. Damon is not so dumb after all. Plus, he's a quick study. Plus, he's been coached by the best. It's just my guess, but I think the filmmaker used him as bait, to lure in unsuspecting hotshots. You never see his face, just like in the old days when you never saw a newsperson's face—before they immodestly decided that they themselves were also news and so had to have their mugs on screen. But with Mr. Damon, it's back to the old ways; you never see him. You only hear his voice.

And if Glenn Hubbard (Chief Economic Adviser to the Bush administration and Dean of Columbia Business School) fell for the Damon bait, I've no doubt he's lived to regret it. "This is not a deposition, sir," the cornered Hubbard huffs, getting hot under Damon's unrelenting questions. "I was polite enough to give you time, foolishly, I now see. But you have three more minutes. Give it your best shot!"

I knew he was toast the moment he said it. If only I could have warned him. Words like that don't work. I know, because years ago I used those exact same words on Mrs. Harley when she was ragging on about some shortcomings that she imagined I had. It's amazing what a woman can do in three minutes!

But Mr. Hubbard is not the film's villain. Not by any stretch. He has a role, but it's only a tiny one. He's in a cozy "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" society, that's all, which nets him a good chunk of change. ($100,000 to testify in defense of a couple hedge fund managers, who were nonetheless convicted of fraud) But that's very small potatoes compared to the massive misdoings that Inside Job lays bare. All the really big fish were smart enough to lay low—they weren't taken in by any 'Oh boy! Let's talk to Matt Damon!' ploy. They have enough dough to buy and sell a hundred Matt Damons.

Painstakingly, Inside Job lays out what led up to financial disaster in 2008. "This crisis was not an accident," the film asserts. "It was caused by an out-of-control industry. Since the 1980s, the rise of the U.S. financial sector has led to a series of increasingly severe financial crises. Each crisis has caused more damage, while the industry has made more and more money."

Back in the day, the film explains, if you wanted to buy a house, you approached a bank for a loan. And then for the next 'what seemed a lifetime' you'd pay off your mortgage. The bank was careful loaning you money because it was their money. They wouldn't loan it if they thought you might not pay it back. Isn't that simple? It had been that way forever.

But starting in the 1980's, investment banks went public, raising millions from the stock market, and came up with new ideas to make money. Since Americans had never defaulted on their mortgages—I mean, who wants to lose their home?—even in times of crisis, it was the absolute last expense one would renege on—why not buy those mortgages from whoever wrote them, then sell them to investors in the stock market, reaping a fat commission on the way? Of course, no investor's going to buy a single mortgage, but if you bundled them up several thousand at a time, then it became something people would invest in! Brilliant! Profitable! A win-win! Did anyone see the flaw?

The mortgage writer held that mortgage for only a short time. He sold it to an investment bank straight away, who also held it only a short time. The bank put it on the stock market for individual investors to purchase. So, in time, it occurred to these two middlemen that they needn't worry too much about whether the mortgage could be repaid, so long as they could stick it to some investor further down the line, who was removed from the original transaction and might just assume that it was a sound investment! Especially if outside authorities—call them rating agencies—like Moody's, Fitch, and S&P—assured them that those investments were absolute rock-solid. Rating agencies did just that! After all, they drew their fees from those very same investment banks bundling the mortgages, and money blinds people. If they ever came to have misgivings as the mortgage quality deteriorated, they chose to look the other way. Such investments enjoyed the highest ratings right up until they crashed.

And crash they did. Financial types were enticed by fat commissions. Over the span of two decades, it became easier and easier to get a mortgage. People could do it with limited income, sometimes even with no income, since it got so that oftentimes nobody bothered to check if the applicant was creditworthy or not. Home prices began rising so quickly that people would buy one, even if they couldn't quite afford it, with the notion that they could flip it for a big profit in just a few months.

Here's Alan Sloan, senior editor of Fortune Magazine, interviewed by Inside Job: "A friend of mine, who—who's involved in a company that has a big financial presence, said: 'Well, it's about time you learned about subprime mortgages.' So he set up a session with his trading desk and me; and, and a techie, who, who did all this – gets very excited; runs to his computer; pulls up, in about three seconds, this Goldman Sachs issue of securities. It was a complete disaster. Borrowers had borrowed, on average, 99.3 percent of the price of the house. Which means they have no money in the house. If anything goes wrong, they're gonna walk away from the mortgage. This is not a loan you'd really make, right? You've gotta be crazy. But somehow, you took 8,000 of these loans; and by the time the guys were done at Goldman Sachs and the rating agencies, two-thirds of the loans were rated AAA, which meant they were rated as safe as government securities. It's, it's utterly mad."

They were called CDOs, "collateralized debt obligations." There's more. By 2006, the big investment banks realized the CDOs they sold were risky and might fail, so they began buying insurance, called credit default swaps (CDS) from AIG Insurance, so that they would reap a profit if the CDOs really did go bust. Obviously, they stopped selling those toxic CDOs, right? Nope. All the while they continued to market CDOs as a high-quality investment! Meanwhile, they continued to buy CDSs till it dawned on them that AIG itself might go bust (which did happen). So they insured against even that!

But wait! Could all this possibly happen under the watchful eye of regulators? Again and again, Inside Job reveals how regulators saw all this developing—and did nothing. One such regulator, a former Fed banker, is convulsed with the worse case of the stammers I've ever seen trying to explain his role to Matt Damon: "So, uh, again, I, I don't know the details, in terms of, of, uh, of, um – uh, in fact, I, I just don't – I, I – eh, eh, whatever information he provide, I'm not sure exactly, I, eh, uh – it's, it's actually, to be honest with you, I can't remember the, the, this kind of discussion. But certainly, uh, there, there were issues that were, uh, uh, coming up."

The top investment bank executives all steered clear of Matt Damon, correctly smelling a rat, but they couldn't really avoid Congress. The film provides footage of these big-time bankers being grilled by various legislators. Watch them squirm! It's loads of fun. But don't kid yourself. They only squirm to a point. And a little squirming can be endured if you're nonetheless walking off with a personal profit of millions, even billions of dollars.

Another aspect of the film which has a curious effect: Whenever you see a picture of some people, and one of them is the United States President, and the camera begins to zoom in, you know it's going to zoom in on the President, until presently the other nobodies fall of the frame. Inside Job zooms in on the other guys, all high-powered banking types who, the inference is clear, are really running the show. Here is footage of Ronald Reagan and his Treasury Secretary, former Morgan Stanley CEO Donald Regan, and it is Regan who is the focus. There is Bill Clinton side by side with his Secretary Treasurer, then Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin, and it is Rubin who takes the spotlight. Ditto for George W. Bush and later Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson; the same for Barack Obama and Tim Geithner, former President of the New York Federal Reserve branch. Who is not reminded of Amschel Rothschild's words of almost two centuries ago: "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." Democrats in power? Republicans? Doesn't matter. "It's a Wall Street government," says Robert Gnaizda, former director of the Greenlining Institute, with no reform in sight.

***~~~***

Trashing bankers was manifestly the way to go in late 2008, and Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing but opportunists when it comes to finding topics of discussion. I had no overwhelming love for bankers in the first place, so I improvised the following:

"Hi. We're speaking today about a group of people no one likes," I began my house-to-house presentation. "Bankers."

The householder replied: "I'm a banker."

"No, no, no, I'm not talking about you..." I backpedaled. "I mean big-time bankers!"

"I'm a big-time banker," she pursued. "So are all my family." For crying out loud! What are the chances? Believe me, there was nothing about the street to suggest big-time bankers lived there. I still think she was pulling my leg, but you won't have to stretch your mind too far to picture that the call sort of fizzled.

My companion was mortified. He still brings it up to suggest how embarrassed I must have been. But I wasn't. Light and semi-flippant is the way I like to go; that way you can readily retract if you see you've missed your mark. It is exactly the right tone to cut through apathy, cynicism, or dullness, and we have a lot of that here in the United States. Plus, if you find you've come across a different type of person, you can immediately modify your tone. This will not work everywhere. It might not even work in most places. In some places it will come across as downright rude, but in the U.S.A, at least where I live, it's just right, at least for me. It doesn't work for Mrs. Harley, but then, her approach doesn't work for me. We all have to make the most of the personalities we have.

I was aiming that day to speak of security, specifically financial security, since it didn't seem to exist just then. Remember, the whole world was on the edge at the time. "World on the Edge," were the cover words for The Economist Magazine, presented with such gravity that I almost thought I had picked up my latest Watchtower by mistake.

The 65th chapter of Isaiah points to happier, more secure times, and I wove this into my presentation: "And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance..."

Many people sense today that they are building and planting so that someone else can live the good life. Protesters were then camping out on Wall Street and major U.S. cities, angry about the top 1% of the population controlling 99% of the wealth. President Obama was preaching for all he was worth about creating jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Was it an ill omen for him that even _Steve_ Jobs died while he was doing so? So it seemed that folks might be receptive to this Bible promise recorded in Isaiah, that under God's kingdom rule, they will see good for their hard work, rather than finding that they just dig themselves deeper into a hole while someone else sees good for it.

Recall that the banks had just been "bailed out." They'd been given massive cash transfers, funded by the taxpayers, and taxpayers weren't happy about it. Would anyone bail _them_ out of their money troubles? Or would those banks, now that they had been saved, go easy on the small fry indebted to them? Not a bit of it! Instead, they began tossing people from their homes, as the housing market collapsed, jobs withered, and folks fell far behind in their mortgages. Yes, they booted them out right and left until someone uncovered a law that said you actually had to read documents you were signing when someone's home was at stake. Banks weren't doing that. They were robo-signing. The courts said they could no longer carry on like that. So they had to hire people to actually read the stuff, which slowed them down a bit. But only temporarily.

Doesn't this just make one's blood boil? Doesn't it call to mind Matthew 18:23-34?

"...the kingdom of the heavens has become like a man, a king, that wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. When he started to settle them, there was brought in a man who owed him ten thousand talents [60,000,000 denarii]. But because he did not have the means to pay [it] back, his master ordered him and his wife and his children and all the things he had to be sold and payment to be made. Therefore the slave fell down and began to do obeisance to him, saying, 'Be patient with me and I will pay back everything to you.' Moved to pity at this, the master of that slave let him off and canceled his debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves that was owing him a hundred denarii; and, grabbing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back whatever you owe.' Therefore his fellow slave fell down and began to entreat him, saying, 'Be patient with me and I will pay you back.' However, he was not willing, but went off and had him thrown into prison until he should pay back what was owing. When, therefore, his fellow slaves saw the things that had happened, they became very much grieved, and they went and made clear to their master all the things that had happened. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'Wicked slave, I canceled all that debt for you, when you entreated me. Ought you not, in turn, to have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I also had mercy on you?'"

As one senator (Ron Paul) pointed out, since the total bank bailouts eventually came to $17,000 per person, with no discernable economic benefit, you might have just given the money directly to the individual Americans. The results could hardly have turned out worse, and might well have turned out better. Debts would have been paid down, new purchases made, small businesses started. So that's why I led off with my "bankers" presentation. It's not something I would ordinary do.

Inside Job went on to win that year's academy award for best documentary. Director Charles Ferguson, accepting his prize, delivered the only serious line during that entire star-studded silly night: "Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong!" The pinnacles of human achievement rise ever mightier, but so do the wrecking balls of misconduct to level them all in an instant. Perhaps the following excerpt from his movie is the most telling:

Charles Ferguson: "Why do you think there isn't a more systematic investigation being undertaken?"

Nouriel Roubini (professor, NYU Business School): "Because then you will find the culprits."

back

# Chapter 39 – Carl Jung Gives an Answer to Job

(February 2011) I've said nice things about Carl Jung on my blog before. For example: "The next time I need my head examined, that's the kind of guy I'll seek out, rather than some modern-day critical type who declares: 'First thing we have to do is get rid of this nutcake religion!'" I'm not sure how many do that—most recognize the value of faith—if only for the community that often comes with it, but it seemed a good line.

Not only does Jung acknowledge that there is a spiritual side of things, but he maintains that the spiritual side is the more genuine, the more real, the more true. The "statements of the conscious mind," he says, "may easily be snares and delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions, but this is certainly not true of statements of the soul." However, these latter statements "always go over our heads because they point to realities that transcend consciousness."

The "inferior" statements of the conscious mind, which initially seem persuasive, but in reality may prove to be "snares. delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions," are not limited to the conscious mind of the individual, but include entire populations, movements, nations, and eras. Doesn't history continually bear this out? Nor do I think for one second that the modern day "age of science" will remedy this woe. Science gives us iPods and iPads but doesn't teach us how to get along with each other.

I like Jung. I like his writings on extroversion and introversion. I like his analogy on how the perspective of the rising sun differs from that of the setting sun. I like his work on personality types. His insights are the driving force behind those ubiquitous vocational tests that counselors foist upon us, in which you answer nosy-type personal questions, and they tell you what you ought to do for a living. Moreover, you have to be careful critiquing Jung, since he is a Great Man, and you are not. If he writes something spiritual with which you disagree, upon what basis do you disagree? "The Bible " _says_ what it _means_ and _means_ what it _says_?" Be careful. You don't want to come across as some Bible-thumping redneck.

But sometimes, even with Jung, a guy has to stand up and say: "The emperor has no clothes!" Such is the case when Jung starts analyzing the Book of Job, which he does in 'Answer to Job,' published in 1952.

Now, one has to know going in that, if Jung believes in spiritual things, that does not mean he is believes in any given set of scriptures. Rather, he maintains that certain spiritual legends and myths are universal; they are to be found in our "collective unconscious." Furthermore, they pop up continually as wisps and ghosts and hints in various places, the Bible being but one.

To briefly set the stage for the story of Job: he is set up as an example—a test case, as it were, to settle the question of whether man can keep integrity to God under adversity. Satan, who appears only in the first two chapters of the book, charges that he will not: "Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face."

God takes him up on this challenge and gives Satan permission to raise all manner of chaos. In short order, Job loses all he has, including even his children. Too, he is struck by a painful sickness; chapter after chapter describes his suffering. Job's three seeming-friends come to visit, supposedly, to comfort him. As time goes on, though, the comfort turns into accusation. 'You know,' they point out, 'God doesn't punish people for nothing. If you've fallen on hard times, it must be your own fault. Yes, you may have seemed upright outwardly, but God knows a scoundrel when he sees one! He knows your true worthlessness and so he's settled the score.' They merely hint this at first, but as Job protests his innocence, they become more and more strident, till toward the end, they're fairly hurling epithets at the poor fellow.

Now, Job is unaware of the Satanic challenge. He hasn't the least notion as to why he is suffering, nor does he have any indication that it will end. But he does know that he's done nothing to "deserve" it. Goaded on by these false friends, he gets increasingly heated declaring his innocence, hinting at first, then hinting more strongly, finally outright accusing God of villainy. Yes, if he could confront God face to face, he'd show Him who was in the right and who was moral! He'd argue his case—it was irrefutable—and God would have no choice but to back down! Job lets fly under his intense suffering and the provocation of his pals. Who hasn't been there before: doing something we would never do otherwise but for the goading of others?

Toward the end of the book, he gets his wish! God does speak to him!—but not to be reproved by him. Rather, God poses a long series of questions to Job that serve to readjust his thinking. Afterwards, health and possessions are restored. Job has successfully answered Satan's challenge—a challenge he never knew existed in the first place!

Now, there are many things that annoy me about Jung's commentary on the book of Job. In fact, almost all of it does. Why does Jung have to put the worst possible spin on everything? For example, with regard to when God manifests himself to Job, Jung writes: "For seventy-one verses he proclaims his world-creating power to his miserable victim, who sits in ashes and scratches his sores with potsherds, and who by now has had more than enough of superhuman violence. Job has absolutely no need of being impressed by further exhibitions of this power....Altogether, he pays so little attention to Job's real situation that one suspects him of having an ulterior motive....His thunderings at Job so completely miss the point that one cannot help but see how much he is occupied with himself."

But isn't it Jung who completely misses the point? Why not phrase matters as the Watchtower does (October 15, 2010, pg. 4)? "During his time of suffering, Job struggled with despair and became somewhat self-centered. He lost sight of the bigger issues. But Jehovah lovingly helped him to broaden his viewpoint. By asking Job over 70 different questions, none of which Job could answer, Jehovah emphasized the limitations of Job's understanding. Job reacted in a humble way, adjusting his viewpoint."

There! Isn't that better? I mean, before you go telling God how to run the universe, ought you not be able to answer at least one of the seventy questions? Issues were swirling about which Job knew nothing. Isn't that always the case with humans on earth? "For the true God is in the heavens, but you are on the earth. That is why your words should prove to be few," is a verse one is wise not to contest. (Ecclesiastes 5:2)

And do not carry on about God bullying Job while he is in abject misery as though holding a captive tortured audience through a boring speech. An appearance by God will always make your day. It overrides all else.

Furthermore, Carl Jung presents the entire matter as though it were a friendly wager between God and the Devil, serving no purpose other than their amusement, treating as nothing the intense suffering Job goes through. Why does he do that? It's Jung who completely misses the point that Job is a test case to establish that man can keep integrity to God under the most extreme conditions.

For, the fact is, people do suffer intensely at times. And when that occurs, some are inclined to blame God. Should they? In its opening chapters, the Bible spells out how mankind came to be in it's present sorry state. In its closing chapters, it spells out how matters will ultimately resolve. Abundant supporting details are in between. Make a search of these things, and you'll find why God is not to blame for human suffering.

Now, drawing conclusions from his own 'Answer to Job' analysis, Carl Jung observes regarding evil: "We have experienced things so unheard of and so staggering that the question of whether such things are in any way reconcilable with the idea of a good God has become burningly topical. It is no longer a problem for experts in theological seminaries, but a universal religious nightmare..." Jung wrote this book in 1952. What unheard of and staggering evil do you think he had foremost in his mind? Take a guess. Hint: the Nuremberg trials, which brought justice to some Holocaust Nazi criminals, took place in 1945-46.

Perhaps the most sadistic example of mass suffering in history occurred in Nazi Germany a mere decade before Jung wrote his book. Entire populations were herded into concentration camps, where many were gassed, starved, beaten, or otherwise worked to death. Twelve million died. The ones who survived left as walking skeletons. When General Dwight Eisenhower liberated Germany at the close of World War II, the mayor of a certain German town pleaded ignorance. Enraged, Eisenhower forced him to tour the nearest camp, he and the entire town's population. Next day, the mayor hung himself.

Among those imprisoned were Jehovah's Witnesses. They were unlike all other groups in that they alone had power to free themselves. All they had to do was renounce their faith and pledge cooperation with the Nazis. Only a handful complied, a fact which, 70 years later, I still find staggering.

From the Watchtower of February 1, 1992:

"In concentration camps, the Witnesses were identified by small purple triangles on their sleeves and were singled out for special brutality. Did this break them? Psychologist Bruno Bettelheim noted that they 'not only showed unusual heights of human dignity and moral behavior but seemed protected against the same camp experience that soon destroyed persons considered very well integrated by my psychoanalytic friends and myself.'"

Why didn't the well-integrated psychoanalytic-approved prisoners hold up? Probably because they read too much Jung and not enough Watchtower. Not Jehovah's Witnesses. They were not hamstrung by having been nourished on Jungian theology. Job meant something to them. It wasn't there simply to generate wordy theories and earn university degrees. A correct appreciation of it afforded them power and enabled them to bear up under the greatest evil of our time, a mass evil entirely analogous to the trials of Job. They applied the Book! And in doing so, they proved the Book's premise: that man can maintain integrity to God under the most severe provocation. Indeed, some are on record as saying they would not have traded the experience for anything, since it afforded them just that opportunity

So Carl Jung, in the Holocaust's aftermath, stumbled about trying to explain how such evil could possibly occur, and could do no better than endorse the view already prevailing among intellectuals that the God of the Old Testament is mean whereas the God of the New Testament is nice. He ought to have spoken to Jehovah's Witnesses. The latter didn't experience the Holocaust from the comfort of their armchairs. Those in Nazi lands lived through it, due in large part to their accurate appreciation for the Book of Job.

back

# Chapter 40 – An Organization to Withstand Hitler

(December 2009) There are any number of serial gripers on the Internet who are alarmed at any favorable mention of Jehovah's Witnesses, and who immediately attempt to negate such praise. Some of these characters strive with all their might to denigrate Jehovah's Witnesses' stand during the Holocaust. Of course, this is not easy to do, because the stand is among the most courageous actions of the past century. But they try. Generally, they feign applause for the astounding courage and faith of individual Witnesses, but then take shots at their organization, as though it were entirely separate. Yes, those Witnesses were amazing, they say. Too bad they were sold out by an oppressive, self-serving, uncaring Watchtower central machine.

Any Witness of the time would say that it was because, not despite, the support and direction of their organization, that they withstood Hitler. Nazi troops overran Watchtower branch offices in lands they controlled; their occupants were arrested and imprisoned alike with the rank and file. The mainline churches refrained from criticizing the Nazis, lest there be reprisals. "Why should we quarrel?" Hitler (correctly) boasted. "The parsons...will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes."* The major churches received large state subsidies throughout the war.

Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses. After the war, Genevieve de Gaulle, niece of latter French President General Charles de Gaule wrote: "I have true admiration for them. They...have endured very great sufferings for their beliefs....All of them showed very great courage and their attitude commanded eventually even the respect of the S.S. They could have been immediately freed if they had renounced their faith. But, on the contrary, they did not cease resistance, even succeeding in introducing books and tracts into the camp." Would that Catholics and Lutherans, who comprised 95% of the German population, were similarly "sold out" by their respective churches. The Hitler movement would have collapsed.

After the war, Catholic scholar and educator Gordon Zahn examined the records and found just one among 32 million German Catholics who conscientiously refused to serve in Hitler's armies. He found another 6 in Austria. Why so few? He reports that his extensive interviews with people who knew these men produced the "flat assurance voiced by almost every informant that any Catholic who decided to refuse military service would have received no support whatsoever from his spiritual leaders." Instead, Pope Pius XII, in 1939, directed chaplains on both sides of the war to have confidence in their respective military bishops, viewing the war as "a manifestation of the will of a heavenly Father who always turns evil into good," and "as fighters under the flags of their country to fight also for the Church."** No, it was not Jehovah's Witnesses who were sold out by their organization.

Now, seventy years later, along comes Ragoth, good old analytical Ragoth, who can always be depended upon for substantial comments—Ragoth, meaning no harm whatsoever, who "would also point out the Confessing Church during World War II, a la Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Granted, most of them were put to death, Bonhoeffer for spying for England and being involved with the plot to assassinate Hitler, but they stood their ground in opposition to the Nazi take-over of the German church. Now, also granted, they didn't take a pacifist stance. Bonhoeffer and Barth originally started that way, but Bonhoeffer became convinced that as evil a thing as it would be, he would have to suffer the consequences in the afterlife to help the Brits, and, eventually, to become involved in the assassination plot...they were a relatively small group, but, I just wanted to throw in there were some other religious groups openly and constantly opposed to Hitler and the Nazi party, even in the face of death threats and directly against the rest of the churches out of which they came from."

Ragoth has a point. Not everyone in the German churches supported Hitler. Perhaps 10% of German Protestants took a stand against the Nazis. Doubtless, Catholics as well. The point is, though, that they had to defy their church to do it. They were an embarrassment to their respective churches, from whom they received "no support whatsoever." So some of them banded together into schisms of their own—such as the Confessing Church. Others acted independently as renegades. These were the "political prisoners" mentioned before, no doubt. I have nothing but admiration for these persons. Ragoth is absolutely right to recognize and honor them. They were extraordinary people.

But not everyone is extraordinary. Most people are quite ordinary. It's true with Jehovah's Witnesses. Some are extraordinary, but most are just regular folk. Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand against their own religious organization or form a new one because theirs had betrayed its values. They stood against Hitler largely _because_ of their religious organization. Those others stood against Hitler _despite_ theirs.

People benefit from organization, even though "organization" has become practically a dirty word today. You should hear how often the terms "brain-washing" and "mind control" are applied to us. But without leadership from a genuine principled organization, only 10% of Germans were able to resist the greatest atrocity of all time. With leadership from a principled organization, virtually all were able to resist. If there really is a God, why would he not be able to provide some sort of organization so that believers are not tossed about like seaweed on the surf?

After the fall of France in 1940, the Vatican's Cardinal Eugène Tisserant wrote to a friend that "Fascist ideology and Hitlerism have transformed the consciences of the young, and those under thirty-five are willing to commit any crime for any purpose ordered by their leader." It's an extreme case, but it illustrates how people are. They run in herds, overwhelmed by national, economic, social or class concerns of the day. The then-current generation ever imagines they are the first to break the trend. When the dust settles, though, they're seen to be subject to the same laws of human nature as everyone else. It takes a loyal God-centered organization to stem the popular tide, and keep moral principles ever before its people, as happened in WWII and as happens today.

*Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, 1940, pp. 50, 53.

**quoted from the December 8, 1939 pastoral letter, Asperis Commoti Anxietatibus, and published in Seelsorge und kirchliche Verwaltung im Krieg, Konrad Hoffmann, editor, 1940, p. 144.

back

# Chapter 41 – Two Charles Darwin Things That Might Have Been

(July 2006) Two spiritual events can be traced in the life of Charles Darwin. Had those events turned out differently, one wonders what effect it might have had on his scientific contributions.

The first came with the death of his favorite child, his daughter Annie. At age 10, the child contracted scarlet fever. She agonized for six weeks before dying. Also a casualty was Darwin's faith in a beneficent Creator. The book Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, tells us that Darwin "lost faith in angels." That is an odd expression. Why would it be used? They probably told him that God was picking flowers.

Is there any analogy more slanderous to God than the one in which God is picking flowers? Up there in heaven he has the most beautiful garden imaginable. But it is not enough! He is always on the watch for pretty flowers, the very best, and if he spots one in your garden, he helps himself, even though it may be your only one. Yes, he needs more angels, and if your child is the most pure, the most beautiful, happy, innocent child that can be, well—watch out! He or she may become next new angel. Sappy preachers give this illustration all the time, apparently thinking it gives comfort.

Not surprisingly, the 'picking flowers' analogy is nowhere found in the Bible. However, a parallel analogy is found in 2nd Samuel, where it is used to make _exactly the opposite_ point: the flower picker should be executed. The setting is when King David took for himself the attractive wife of one of his subjects and, upon impregnating her, had that subject killed to cover his tracks:

"The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, 'There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

"'Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.'

"David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, 'As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.' Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man!" (2 Samuel 12:1-7, NIV)

Now, _this_ analogy appeals to us. This is just. The man is not expected to take comfort that the king stole his wife. No, he deserves execution! So how is it that when we are told God has done the same, we're expected to feel all warm and fuzzy?

Isn't this like Abraham Lincoln saying that he was not smart enough to lie? His meaning was that if you lie, you have to adjust every subsequent statement to be consistent with that lie, otherwise you will get caught. Telling the truth presents no such challenge.

The picking flowers analogy is an attempt to cover a lie, and as we have seen, it doesn't satisfy. The lie is that, when we die, we don't _really_ die, because the soul lives on, going straight to heaven if we've been good. Thus, death is a friend. It is a chance for promotion, and we are all happy to see good people promoted. In this context, the Bible's hope of a resurrection is meaningless. (Acts 24:15) How can someone be resurrected if they never actually died?

Better to tell the truth from the start, and then you don't have to invent ridiculous stories to cover your tracks. Death is not a friend; it is an enemy. Nor is it God's purpose for humans; it came upon us due to rebellion. Nor does it bring us into a new state of consciousness; instead we become nonexistent, a state that can be likened to unconsciousness or sleep. Nor does God purpose to leave us in this sad predicament, but he's taken steps to eliminate death.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned," says Romans 5:12. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1 Cor 15:25) "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten....Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

Consider Jesus' words in the Book of John: "After he had said this, he went on to tell them, 'Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.' His disciples replied, 'Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.' Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead...'" (John 11:11-14)

How different history might have been had Darwin known the truth about death. Not just Darwin, of course, but everyone of his time, as well as before and after. Instead, fed a diet of phony pieties—junk food, really—he and others of inquisitive minds searched elsewhere in an attempt to make sense of life.

The second spiritual event revealing another crisis of faith, is to be seen in a letter of Darwin's to American colleague Asa Gray. Darwin stated: "...I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world."

Plainly, this statement concerns, not science, but God. His question was spiritual, or at least philosophical: 'Why is there so much misery? How does that square with a God who is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful?'

Bear in mind that, in younger days, Darwin trained to become a clergyman. This is not to say that he was unusually devout. Rather, he was undecided as a youth; he didn't know what he wanted to do with his life. Most go through such a phase. Many never emerge. At the time, the clergy represented a respectable calling for educated people who didn't find a place anywhere else.

Why didn't he know why God permitted suffering? It's not as though an answer does not exist. It is outlined in chapter 45 of this work. If Charles Darwin had been familiar with the answer, yet rejected it, that would be one thing. But it seems clear that he had no clue. The fault is not his. It is that of the church, which was charged to make certain truths, or teachings, known, but which failed to discharge that commission, choosing paths more self-serving. You might say that Darwin was spiritually starved.

Had he known the Bible's answer regarding misery and suffering, it may be that he, and other active minds of his day, might have put a different spin on discoveries of rocks, fossils, and finches. It is why Jehovah's Witnesses are so enthusiastic over Scripture, sometimes to the point of being pests. The Bible's explanation of the causes of suffering and death is tremendously liberating. It affects powerfully one's outlook on life.

back

# Chapter 42 – Dr. Who Doesn't Like Living Forever

(March 2009) When they asked physicist Robert Jastrow about living forever—would it be a blessing or a curse?—he said that it all depends. "It would be a blessing to those who have curious minds and an endless appetite for learning. The thought that they have forever to absorb knowledge would be very comforting for them. But for others who feel they have learned all there is to learn and whose minds are closed, it would be a dreadful curse. They'd have no way to fill their time." If your purpose in life is to watch a lot of television, therefore, living forever would quickly become a drag. But our appetite for learning can be endless, unless we have closed down shop ourselves.

Of course, Dr. Jastrow is an egghead—a thinker—and so he focused on learning. But other things are probably boundless, too, like our capacity to create and to love.

Lately, though, pop culture has been selling death as though it were a benefit. It is probably those atheists. There are more and more of them and buying into their thinking means settling for a final death sentence perhaps not too many years away. Pay attention, and you'll see the 'Death is Beautiful' notion a lot. For example, it surfaced in a recent Dr Who episode: 'The Lazarus Experiment.' Now, Dr Who, for a time, was the only show that I deliberately worked into my routine. A British import, it is science fiction with a quirky protagonist, clever writing, travel in a space ship that looks like a phone booth—"it's bigger on the inside than on the outside!"—and it features endless visits from aliens, most of whom are up to no good. It just so happened that the show fit perfectly into some weekly down time in my schedule—I might never have discovered it otherwise. But having done so, I tried not to miss it. "Yeah, you just watch it on account of that cute blonde!" accused a workmate. But it was not true; the cute blonde was written out of the script, (she was stranded on a parallel universe) yet the show continued to hold its appeal. Years later, however, my interest in the show waned, so perhaps it really was the cute blonde, after all.

The episode name itself is a giveaway, since Lazarus is the biblical character whom Jesus resurrected. But this television Lazarus has invented a machine that makes him young again—he steps in aged and steps out a young man—to the amazement of all the high-brow folk invited to his gala bash. But Dr. Who (was he invited?) smells something amiss. He follows the newly minted youngster, and sure enough, the machine has malfunctioned and has doomed Lazarus to transforming back and forth from human to monster! (They like monsters on that show.) See, in setting back his DNA, the machine has selected ancient mutations long-ago rejected by evolution. (Hmmm...yes...indeed, plausible, nod all the atheists watching the show—whereas if you mentioned anything about God, they'd throw up.)

The Time Lord doctor lectures Lazarus on what a curse everlasting life really is, and what a dumb, greedy thing it was for him to seek it. For when life drags on forever and ever and ever, you will get so tired of it. You will have been everywhere, done everything. Living will have become an endless, pointless trek to nowhere. You will long for it to end, but—fool that you were for choosing everlasting life—it will not end, but it will go on and on and on. Oh, the monotony! See, without death, it is impossible to savor life—and so forth.

Please. Spare me (and Dr. Jastrow). This is atheist tripe. It all depends upon whether you see life as futile or not. If you do, then sure—you would want it to end. But as Jastrow stated, life is only futile if you have made it so. Of course, I'll readily concede that baked into this system of things are various ingredients to encourage that dismal view—for example, old age and frailty—but if they could be vanquished...

Next time you visit Rochester, New York, where I have lived, you may decide to visit the George Eastman house. Mr. Eastman, who brought photography to the masses and who founded Kodak, turned philanthropist once he'd made his fortune, and built half the city. His mansion on East Ave showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. But snoop thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his friends going senile, bedridden, or wheelchair-bound. He left behind a note: "To my friends - My work is done. Why wait?"

Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

A.) His work was done. Why wait?

B.) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for much too long.

C.) His health was failing and he (a lifelong bachelor) dreaded the indignities of old age -with its dependence upon others.

Does anyone honestly think that, with health and youth, he would not have found more work in which to engross himself? Or would he have longed, nonetheless, for life to end? What! Are you kidding me?

In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo DaVinci, the artist who painted the Mona Lisa, likely the most famous portrait of all time. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a renaissance man; perhaps he even originates the term. Yet toward the end of life, he reportedly sought God's forgiveness for "not using all the resources of his spirit and art."

Eastman and DaVinci—two fellows who typify Dr. Jastrow's statement. And they would be joined by most everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure—you might well long for death if you can only envision more of that. Ditto for the frailness that comes with old age. I recently attended a funeral of someone who was happy, content, and productive throughout life. Nonetheless, death was not unwelcome, his relatives assured me, since he'd grown "so tired of being sick."

That's why the Bible' promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It's Robert Jastrow's dream come true—unlimited time to grow, minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are "toiling for nothing." Note how Isaiah 65:21-23 describes life as God's purpose is realized:

"And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them."

There's a lot of things I'd like to do. I've done a few of them. But for the most part, I've just scratched the surface. And I've spent a fair amount of time shoveling through some of the you-know-what that the present life throws at one. No, everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all.

back

# Chapter 43 – Plato and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

(February 2008) In general, Jehovah's Witnesses don't know much when it comes to ancient Greek society. We are happy when the visiting speaker pronounces Socrates with three syllables, and not "So-crates." Oh, the Greeks are back there in our school days somewhere. After all, they lived in a window of time during which civilization got its act together long enough for some privileged persons to think deep thoughts and record them for our benefit. But we don't consider knowledge of them indispensable for enriched life. The rapidly ascending Chinese and Indian populations most likely are completely ignorant of Greece—the root of Western civilization, but not theirs—and don't bemoan the loss.

Nonetheless, there is this atheist fellow I've been conversing with lately who throws Greeks at me right and left. He's even assumed a Greek moniker, Moristotle, and he's prompted me to consider changing my own name to Tom Harleticus so as to win some respect. So it behooves me to read up on those Greeks. What do we find, for example, when we do some research on Plato?

Plato put into writing his concepts of ideal government. He advocated rule by "philosopher-kings." Several times in Moristotle's blog I read the term. Plato favored monarchy, but not hereditary monarchy. Instead, his rulers were to be selected (by already existing rulers) on the basis of merit. This would follow a lengthy period of education designed to separate the wheat from the chaff—so lengthy that it seems nobody under age 50 would be eligible for consideration.

Consider this excerpt from _The_ _100_ , an intriguing book by Michael Hart, which undertakes to rate the one hundred most influential persons of history: (Plato is #40) "Only those persons who show that they can apply their book learning to the real world should be admitted into the guardian class. Moreover, only those persons who clearly demonstrate that they are primarily interested in the public welfare are to become guardians.

"Membership in the guardian class would not appeal to all persons. The guardians are not to be wealthy. They should be permitted only a minimal amount of personal property, and no land or private homes. They are to receive a fixed (and not very large) salary, and may not own either gold or silver. Members of the guardian class should not be permitted to have separate families, but are to eat together, and are to have mates in common. The compensation of these philosopher-kings should not be material wealth, but rather the satisfaction of public service."

Anyone familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses will realize at once that this description almost exactly describes their Governing Body, the agency that governs members of the faith. Only the "mates in common" does not apply.

Compare Plato's dream government with this depiction of the Watchtower organization, submitted by a reader to the Gary Halbert letter in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 storm that flooded New Orleans: "They are the most non-profit of non-profit organizations I've ever seen. All of their workers are voluntary. *All* of them. From the top down, the way the entity is structured, even the executives of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, NY (headquarters of their worldwide organization) donate their time in exchange for very modest room and board. I've toured a few of their facilities in the Brooklyn, Wallkill and Patterson, NJ areas. I've seen it with my own eyes.

"Everyone who works at their printing facilities (where they print bibles and bible literature for their worldwide bible education work) works for room and board and they get a very small allowance (somewhere around $120/mo.) for personal items. This entire organization is supported by means of voluntary donations. And it's amazing......I mean, these people are not driving around in fancy cars and getting rich pocketing donations by any means.

"They spend their money on maintaining their printing facilities, printing bible literature, housing & feeding their voluntary workers (who all live in an apartment-like community maintained by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), supporting voluntary missionaries around the world, language and reading programs (where they teach illiterate people to read), DISASTER RELIEF....I could go on.

"But the bottom line is that NONE of their money is used to line pockets of greedy execs."

This organization is duplicated in the one hundred or so branch organizations that exist around the world.

Of course, one may object: Plato's recommendation is for the government of nations. Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. Worldwide, Jehovah's Witnesses number between seven and seventeen million, depending on the criteria you use in counting. That's more than the population of a great many nations. Moreover, Jehovah's Witnesses are overwhelmingly viewed as a moral, decent, and law-abiding people. This is no mere accident, nor is it explained solely by their belief in the Bible as the source of divine instruction. It is also the result of effective administration, governing if you will, since there are ever so many groups that claim to follow the Bible but whose lifestyles belie that claim. Jehovah's Witnesses are unified in a common goal and purpose, as the above letter points out. They would appear to be Plato's dream come true.

Author Hart allows for a religious setting when discussing the application of Plato's ideal. He suggests "there is a striking similarity between the position of the Catholic Church in medieval Europe and that of Plato's guardian class." I assume he is referring to the Church before the Inquisition. Otherwise, Hart acknowledges, Plato's ideals have never been adopted by any human government.

Oh, this is too rich! Here is Plato, poster boy of the modern Greek aficionados, devising a system of government which none of them have come close to reproducing, but which is adopted without fanfare by a group most of them would look down upon—Jehovah's Witnesses! The reason, of course, is that Plato's system depends on persons who are neither ambitious nor materialistic nor overly proud. It is not that such persons cannot be found among the general population. It is that the values of this world are such that these persons cannot rise to the top. Indeed, they are often dismissed as impractical nuts (as with Jehovah's Witnesses).

By the way, what happens when atheists themselves try to adopt Plato's ways? Hart continues: "The role of the Communist party in the Soviet Union has also been compared with that of the guardian class in Plato's ideal republic. Here, too, we see a self-perpetuating elite whose members have all been trained in an official philosophy."

Aren't communist systems atheist, indeed the only governments officially atheist? Yes—and when the atheists try to implement Plato, their creations are hijacked by bullies and even mass-murderers: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and so forth. Look at these guys crossways and you do ten years hard labor.

No, those atheists are unable to implement the ideals of their hero. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have done so. Okay, I guess it is too much of a stretch to suggest that if Plato were somehow to appear today on the world stage he would become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I do not suggest it. But I can picture the educated elite rushing to embrace him as one of their own, and he, upon assessing how they have failed to implement any of his ideals, wanting nothing to do with them. Meanwhile, he could not help but be appreciative toward the one sizable organization on earth that has managed to transform his dream into reality. He might even rush right over to Bethel to consult, where they, having no idea who he is, would make him take a number.

back

# Chapter 44 – Enemies

(May 2009) As though it happened yesterday, this gem appears on a recent Australian jurisprudence questionnaire:

"Some Jehovah's Witnesses approach people in a predominantly Roman Catholic neighbourhood and play a CD entitled ' _Enemies'_ to them. The CD describes all organized religions as 'instruments of Satan' and then viciously attacks Catholicism in particular. Do you think that the law ought to prohibit conduct of this kind? Discuss with reference to rights and the public/private distinction."

So a certain blogger assumes that it _did_ happen yesterday—why would she not? and fires off a response:

"Oh I really believe this scenario. It's exactly what they'd do. Not what I ever would have done. I never had that sort of conviction. Oh how embarrassing! No wonder other churches call them "weirdo religious strangers." They call other churches "enemies" and "instruments of Satan," for goodness sake!"

Well, for goodness sake, it _does_ seem mean-spirited, doesn't it? But it didn't happen yesterday. It happened eighty years ago. And it was a phonograph record, not a CD. _Enemies_ was published in 1937 and was distributed for less than ten years. Someone's doing a hatchet job here, hoping to embarrass me. But both the book and record were entirely appropriate for their time. In fact, given the same circumstances, I believe Jehovah's Witnesses would do it again.

In the aftermath of World War I, had not the mainline churches effectively proven themselves enemies of God, of Christ, and of man? They had, on both sides, stoked and cheered the conflict which would claim 16 million lives, with an additional 21 million wounded. With another world war approaching, they showed every sign of resuming that role. Yet in the interim, they had presumed to slide right back into that cozy seat of representing the Prince of Peace, claiming to speak in his name.

Eighty years later, it is hard to appreciate how enthusiastic church leaders were for the war, how they worked as cheerleaders for both sides. It hardly seems believable. Surely, there must be an exaggeration. But, looking back, we find numerous statements validating the unbelievable. For example, British brigadier general Frank Crozier stated: "The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have and of them we made free use." A few more quotes of the day follow, in all cases made by high-ranking clergymen, not lone renegades:

Bishop of London A. F. Winnington-Ingram urged the English people: "Kill Germans—do kill them; not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young as well as the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded as well as those fiends....As I have said a thousand times, I look upon it as a war for purity, I look upon everyone who died in it as a martyr." (Perspective (a Journal of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary), Vol. X, No. 1, Spring 1969, p. 78) He said it a thousand times!

And from the other side? The archbishop of Cologne, Germany, said the following to German soldiers: "Beloved people of our Fatherland, God is with us in this fight for righteousness where we have been drawn in against our wish. We command you in the name of God, to fight to the last drop of your blood for the honor and glory of the country. In his wisdom and justice, God knows that we are on the side of righteousness and he will give us the victory." (La Dernière Heure, January 7, 1967).

In America? An editorial in the Christian Register says it all: "As Christians, of course, we say Christ approves [of the war]. But would he fight and kill?...There is not an opportunity to deal death to the enemy that he would shirk from or delay in seizing! He would take bayonet and grenade and bomb and rifle and do the work of deadliness against that which is the most deadly enemy of his Father's kingdom in a thousand years." (The Christian Register, Vol. 97, No. 33 (Aug. 15, 1918), p. 775. quotation taken from the book Preachers Present Arms, by Ray H Abrams)

Sure, such fighting words might come from a general. And in the midst of war fever, from a statesman, or a patriot, or a businessman, or the average citizen. But from the Church, the institution claiming Christian leadership, asserting that they and they alone speak for Christ? Is it not a tad at odds with Christ's own words? "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) If you don't prove discipleship when it counts, during wartime, just when do you prove it? And after the war, should those clergy sweep their bloodthirsty record under the rug, and once again presume to speak in Jesus' name? Jehovah's Witnesses didn't think so. If _Enemies_ seems mean-spirited today, it wasn't a fraction as mean-spirited as the catalyst that prompted it.

Now, you must admit, it would take guts to distribute that book and play that record. Nowadays, every wussy milquetoast of an atheist takes swipes at religion on his anonymous website, but Jehovah's Witnesses went eyeball to eyeball with those enemies, in person, and what's more, they went to members of their flocks. Introducing _Enemies_ to a convention audience in Columbus Ohio, Watchtower President Rutherford declared: "You will notice that its cover is tan, and we will tan the old lady's hide with it!" It gives the lie to Sam Harris's one-time complaint as to how the moderate "good" churches failed to condemn their more belligerent brethren, reining them in, refusing to "call a spade a spade." We did it before he was in diapers and did it with a courage that he would be unable to match.

From the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses: "The phonograph work was not carried on without opposition. Ernest Jansma tells us: 'There were cases of some having their phonographs literally and viciously smashed right before their eyes. Others had them ruthlessly thrown off porches. One brother in the Middle West stood by and watched an angry farmer blow his machine into oblivion with a shotgun, then heard pellets whine past his auto as he left the scene. They were vicious and religiously fanatical in those days.' Amelia and Elizabeth Losch tell of an occasion when the recording _Enemies_ was played for a crowd on the porch of a certain home. After the talk ended, one woman took the record off the machine and broke it, saying, 'You can't talk about my pope like that!'"

Today, the influence of the clergy is insignificant compared to what it was then. I mean, they're respected so long as they stay in their place, but their place is much reduced from what it once was. In the days of _Enemies_ , their place was anywhere they wanted it to be. They maintained a stranglehold upon popular thought. Catholics, in particular, as one may have heard great-grandparents say, were not allowed to read the Bible. That's what the priest was for, and he would explain it as he saw fit, in accordance with church doctrine. In town after town, Jehovah's Witnesses would place literature with interested persons, and clergy would follow and demand it back. Such was the command they enjoyed, that they often got it.

Frankly, if Christendom's influence is a ghost of what it once was, Jehovah's Witnesses get the "credit," in my view. The _Enemies_ campaign was but one of many back in those days. Look, Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with inventing the airplane. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have planes had they never been born. Someone else would have invented them. But they were the first. They had the foresight and guts to persevere with a notion that everyone else thought was impossible.

Some, taking the opposite view of the blogger quoted in the third paragraph, mutter that Jehovah's Witnesses have become too cordial with other religions, that they have made their peace, that they have wimped out. But there's no point in kicking the 'old lady' while she's down. We kicked her while she was up. Nowadays, everybody kicks her. So why should we? Whatever account she must render is with God, not us. All we ever wanted to do was loosen her hold on people, so they would not be afraid to listen to new ideas. That was accomplished decades ago.

back

# Chapter 45 – Why Do Bad Things Happen, Updated, for Atheists

(February 2008) When Moristotle the Atheist read my post 'Why Bad Things Happen,' he almost threw up. He declared it a "fantasy," aspects of which were "utterly repulsive," and the rest "not only not nice at all, nor even adolescent, but simply infantile." If we could only get this fellow to say what he really thinks and stop pussyfooting around, he might amount to something!

Still, I took his concerns to heart. It's not pleasant throwing up—it just isn't. Was there a way to write essentially the same thing in a way that he and his would find more palatable? After all, he declared a related post of mine "profound." True, he was just being nice, he later pointed out, but at least there was no gag reflex, or at least he overcame it.

It may not be possible to make this stuff more palatable for a certain type of person. Any discussion as to why God tolerates evil must necessarily link to Adam and Eve, and link to them rather substantially. They simply are that key of a building block. And so you have to overcome the 'We are wise and learned adults, far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve. What's next, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?' syndrome. It occurred to me only much later that you could invite such persons to consider it as a symbolism that need not be taken literally. That almost works better. Certain types love being thought perceptive enough to be entrusted with such an interpretive task—leave it on the shelf till later whether it actually happened or not. Still, I did not realize this at the time. My job was not going to be easy.

Let's start with some common ground, just like Paul did at the Areopagus. Moristotle had recently trotted out a Greek named Diagoras, who is apparently the world's first recorded atheist. There was a little quibbling over that, but I eventually conceded the point. Okay. Here goes. Wish me luck.

***~~~***

Was Diagoras the world's first atheist? He is credited that way. Read up on him and you will find that he is remembered as Diagoras the _Atheist_. Isn't he the fellow who used a wooden statue of Hercules as fuel to cook his turnips? If Hercules didn't like it—well, let him _do_ something about it. And how did Diagoras end up an atheist? Wikipedia tells us: "He became an atheist after an [unspecified] incident that happened against him went unpunished by the gods"

Why wasn't it punished? Why didn't God fix it? He's _God_ , after all. Isn't he supposed to be all-powerful? We hear this all the time from atheists, agnostics, and even from some believers. Why didn't he solve Diagoras's problem and stop the man from going atheist?

It's because he'd never be able to do anything else. He'd be sticking band-aid after never-ending band-aid on a system of things that is inherently unjust, even designedly so. Instead, in keeping with his original purpose, he purposes to replace this system of things with one of his own design. Injustice in that system of things will be a memory only.

After all, what is the injustice that caused Diagoras such soul-searching? Only the one that touched him personally! Had he not witnessed hundreds of injustices in his lifetime? To say nothing of ones his society was built upon. We positively slobber over Greeks as cradle of wisdom, birthplace of democracy, mecca of free thinkers, and so forth, yet they enjoyed their privileged status only on the backs of others. That society embraced slavery. It treated women abominably. And weren't Greeks the original pedophiles? The same sexual molestation of children so roundly condemned today was enshrined in respectable Greek society. Are these among the injustices Diagoras was concerned with? Did he even recognize them as injustices? Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Let's face it, few situations of this world today are win-win. Generally, someone pays the price when we win. Hopefully, for politicians and Pollyannas, it is someone we don't see in another land or another class. But there _is_ somebody most often and we usually don't even know about it. One might easily conclude it is as though designed that way. Get the sufferer as far away from the privileged one as possible so that the latter does not see the link and declares any such talk as but crybaby whining. Don't think that any political party owns the problem. It is inherent with human self-rule. A new system of things is in keeping with the Bible's premise that humans were not designed to be independent of God.

Things might have turned out differently. The Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden account, brief though it is, demonstrates God's original intent. "Further, God blessed them and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it,'" says Genesis 1:28. The very name Eden means "pleasure;" garden of Eden becomes, when translated into Greek, "paradise of pleasure," and "subduing the earth" is code for spreading those conditions earth wide. Had humans, starting with the first pair, remained content to live under God's direction, life today would be a far cry from what it is. But almost from the start, they balked.

Consider Genesis chapter 3: "Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: 'Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?' At this the woman said to the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, "you must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die."'

"At this the serpent said to the woman: 'You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.' Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon."

Jehovah's Witnesses understand the "knowing good and bad" of verse five to be a matter of declaring independence. "You don't need God telling you what is good and what is bad. You can decide such things yourself and thus be "like God." The serpent even portrays God as having selfish motive, as though trying to stifle the first couple—a sure way to engender discontent. The ploy was successful. Those first humans chose a course of independence, with far-ranging consequences that have cascaded down to our day.

After a lengthy time interval allowed by God so that all can see the end course of a world run independent of him, he purposes to bring it again under his oversight. This is what the prophet Daniel refers to: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." (Daniel 2:44)

Jesus refers to it, too, in The Lord's Prayer: "...Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." (Matthew 6:10) Does anybody seriously expect God's will to be done on earth under the present system? Here and there, one can see a glimmer, of course, but to predominate? The time for God's will to be done is when his kingdom comes.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's permission of injustice, even evil, is bound up with this trial period of human rule, soon to end. In a sense, the modern-day atheist counterparts of Diagoras have voted for the wrong party. They voted Republicans out of office in favor of Democrats (or vice versa) and they are now incensed that Republicans aren't delivering on their promises! God's kingdom is the arrangement that will end injustice. But they continue to vote for human rule. Does anyone think that humans will end injustice?

What the upset ones really want is, not so much an end of injustice, but an end to the _symptoms_ of injustice, mostly the ones that affect them personally, just like with Diagoras. But human rule itself is the source of injustice. We're simply not designed with the ability to "rule" ourselves. Is it "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" God's Kingdom will not treat the symptoms of injustice; it will uproot the source.

back

# Chapter 46 – LANDRU

As the $40 billion dollar Beijing Olympics romped through closing ceremonies, NBC commentator Cris Collinsworth gushed with emotion. Two weeks of persons from all corners of the earth mingling, smiling, and learning about each other's cultures! No battling, save only that of sports, and that done amidst mutual respect and good will. Maybe....maybe....I mean, it's probably pie-in-the-sky, he conceded, but maybe.....if they could do it for two weeks, then what about three weeks? And then what about a month? And then a year? And....oh, utopian dream come true!....why should the party ever stop? Can't we all just get along?

When they do, it's called a cult.

Of course, kids can also behave pretty well for the two weeks prior to Santa's Christmas arrival, or at least, I was generally able to manage it. It is pie-in-the-sky Cris.....but then, he knows it.....everyone was moneyed and pampered and well-fed for those two weeks. Stress-free, really. And weren't they all pretty upper crust? Excepting perhaps the poor relations of some of the athletes, and these must have seemed to be in material fairyland for those 17 days.

Still, a glimpse of unity is very impressive, even if it's temporary, even if it's artificial. It speaks to a yearning deep within most of us. Is not the world breaking into more and more independent factions, all of whom resist cooperation with anybody else? So every once in a while there will be some circumstance to evoke a contrasting taste of unity, and people like Cris wax poetic.

But again, seven million Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy such unity daily, as a matter of course—and it is called a cult. In all circumstances, our people of all races, nationalities, socioeconomic classes, and educational levels mingle freely and without strife. Wars, riots, and social upheavals do nothing to mar the peace. We tell people of this unity...doubtless we've told Cris...but by and large they want no part of it. Peace and unity....yeah, that's great, it's what they want....but not at the price of adopting a cult religion like Jehovah's Witnesses!

But it only seems cultlike because JWs have renounced attitudes that make unity impossible, and embraced those that facilitate it. This the general world has failed to do. Alas, it is not just a few teeny tiny tweaks that need be made so as to achieve unity. No, but a massive overhaul of thinking and behaving is required, and Jehovah's Witnesses have done that. But that revised viewpoint makes us seem very strange to general society and not especially palatable. Nonetheless, surely it is beliefs that will get to the crux of why people can or cannot get along, and what institution in life is credited with molding a person's beliefs? Where does morality come from? Surely it is not found in higher education. If we are warring louts, going to college usually just makes us smart warring louts. It is through spiritual growth that a person's conduct can change for the better.

The peace and unity typifying Jehovah's Witnesses is so well attested that even detractors—we have quite a few of them—don't deny it. Instead, they sometimes attribute it to (gasp!) LANDRU.

***~~~***

Captain James T. Kirk and the Star Trek boys came across the LANDRU clan when they were way, way out there, on the very fringe of the galaxy. No matter how far they traveled, whatever aliens they found looked just like us, save for raised eyebrows, different skin color, pointy ears, peculiar dress and grooming, and so forth. This particular bunch was a nauseating race of folk with syrupy smiles who carried on trancelike and greeted each other with slogans such as "May you have peace...Joy to you, friend," and..."LANDRU gives blessings," and so forth. Tranquility prevailed, but none of them could think for themselves.

Kirk couldn't stand them, but then he found out why they were the way they were. A well-intentioned human named Landru had brainwashed them and stolen their souls—I hate it when that happens! He'd come across them when their world was about to self-destruct and given them peace though mind-control! Now—all was joy. And Landru wasn't even a person, but a machine (that should please the atheists) which the aging Landru had designed (that should displease them) to carry on after he died. And above all things, you were not to step out of line. If you did—why, there were enforcers to zap you into oblivion. The Enterprise crew was so distressed at this society that they violated their own Prime Directive [Mind Your Own Business] to short circuit the computer and free the people. Having done so, they cruised on, leaving the citizens raping and pillaging as in the good old days.

Mind controlled zombies! Just like under LANDRU! _That's_ why Jehovah's Witnesses are so peaceful, charge guys like Vic Vomodog, and even Tom Sowmire. But their unity is really not so strange, nor hard to understand. It just seems that way because that quality is unheard of in today's world.

Jehovah's Witnesses share a common vision and purpose. Moreover, they defer to God Jehovah as their lawgiver. That's really all there is to it. They've voluntarily made the choice, and so encounter a Christian formula for achieving practical unity. They find the Bible's way of life to be not oppressive, but rather like a highway with guardrails. Nobody gripes about the guardrails in real traffic, recognizing that they serve a purpose. They neither infringe meaningfully on your freedom nor stifle your personality. On the contrary, they help you become all you can be. Just like in chess. Once you decide to abide by the rules, you can do amazing things on the board, but you can't do any of them until you follow how the game is played.

One of the public talk outlines currently in circulation spends considerable time contrasting unified and uniform. They're not the same. Human organizations tend to squeeze persons into common molds, stifling individuality, often literally slipping them into uniforms. But unity based upon observing Bible standards is different. The apostle Paul likened it to the human body:

"For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many. If the foot should say: "Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body," it is not for this reason no part of the body. And if the ear should say: "Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body," it is not for this reason no part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the [sense of] hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the smelling be? But now God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now they are many members, yet one body." (1 Corinthians 12:14-20)

Note that the eye, ear, hand, foot, and so forth cooperate seamlessly and yet do so without sacrificing any individuality or uniqueness. They don't all become the same. Rather, they each bring their own contributions, for the benefit of the entire body. It's much the same with Jehovah's Witnesses. They are fully individuals, with unique likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, assets and liabilities. You will like some of them; others may not be your cup of tea, just like anywhere else. In cooperating towards a common theme, they lose none of what makes them unique, but they carry on free from the endless divisiveness that characterizes the world today. It's a very appealing aspect of JW society which newcomers tend to recognize quickly. Not like LANDRU at all!

There! Another ill report disposed of! And now—"May...you...have....peace...friend....Joy....blessings....and tranquility!"

back

# Chapter 47 - The 1933 Letter to the Fuhrer

See how Rabbi Tovia Singer, fierce in his defense of Judaism, says: "Remarkably, denominations that evangelical Christians regard as heretical, such as Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses, DO NOT have a strong history of anti-Semitism." [Caps his] The remark is included within a blog post at tomsheepandgoats.com entitled: 'So There Was this Lutheran Evangelical, and He Approaches this Rabbi...' a post that also speaks well of the New World Translation for nailing a point that virtually all other Bible translations miss.

The Singer remark agrees with scholars at the Holocaust Museum that the "mountain" some Witness opposers try to make of a 1933 Judge Rutherford letter is actually a "molehill." From an Independent Lens forum, dealing with criticism of the film Knocking, we read:

Q: Are there historical documents that prove Jehovah's Witness leadership wrote anti-Semitic letters to Hitler trying to gain favor during the Nazi regime?

A: "A letter and legal petition written by the Jehovah's Witness leadership to Hitler in 1933, just as Hitler first came to power, do exist. These were an attempt by Witnesses to inform the German government that they were apolitical and not a threat to the Nazi regime, which in its infancy in 1933 was not the killing machine it would soon become. The _action_ of the Witnesses from 1934 onward was a complete reversal of the _language_ in their 1933 appeal to Hitler. Rabbi Michael Berenbaum (former director of the Research Institute at the U.S. Holocaust Museum) speaks at length on the Knocking DVD about this issue. The conclusion by Berenbaum and other notable Holocaust scholars that the 1933 letters are inconsequential when compared to what the Witnesses did from 1934 onward, gave the producers of Knocking the confidence that the letters need not be mentioned in the film. But because they are an historical footnote, they are mentioned and discussed at length in the DVD extras." [italics mine]

The early language is not nothing, but the scholars deem it "inconsequential" in the overall scheme of things. What is that "early language"—essentially that of Joseph Rutherford, Watchtower director from 1919 – 1942, who wrote many books and penned all major communication? It is fair to say that there are some phrases anti-Semitic—certainly so by today's standards. Don't go back trying to pretty them up. They are what they are.

That said, they come not remotely close to the charge of "Christ killers" that the major churches have hurled at Jews throughout history, triggering many a pogrom. Doubtless that consideration contributes towards Rabbi Singer's assessment of Jehovah's Witnesses; he doesn't say _no_ history of anti-Semitism—he says no _strong_ history of anti-Semitism—it is comparatively little. As late as 2004, those fearing that Mel Gibson's film The Passion would trigger a backlash against Jews, asked him whether he maintained that the Jews had killed Christ. "Well, it wasn't the Scandinavians," he replied. The New Testament is 'anti-Semitic' by this standard. Every single Gospel makes clear that the leaders of the Jews (not the common Jews themselves) delivered Christ up for execution. Every single Gospel reveals that Pilate worked rather hard to free him, knowing full well that he was being set up by his religious enemies, before finally caving in the face of their determination. Don't go carrying on about Rutherford's 'anti-Semitism'—the entire New Testament is 'anti-Semitic.'

Rutherford's statements are mild by the standards of the day, but he does accede to the common diatribe that 'Jews and their money are taking over the world,' posing the existence of a 'Jewish problem,' putting an unflattering spin on the astounding commercial success that some had and have attained. He doesn't scold Hitler for not being nicer to them, nor advise that we should all come together in appreciation of diversity. He even states in an early communique that the aims of the Bible Students and the aims of the new Nazi government were one and the same! What aims, one might reasonably ask? To benefit the citizens of the land—the professed aim of any government. Duh. There is hardly a smoking gun here. As soon as the Nazi regime tipped its hand to reveal the evil it would become, the tone completely changed, and this the Holocaust Museum scholars recognize. That's how you get to _be_ a scholar in the first place: for the ability to sort, evaluate, and prioritize facts that do not seamlessly dovetail.

On a post several years ago, I wrote:

"There are any number of serial gripers on the Internet who are alarmed at any favorable mention of Jehovah's Witnesses, and who immediately attempt to negate such praise. Some of these characters strive with all their might to denigrate Jehovah's Witnesses' stand during the Holocaust. Of course, this is not easy to do, because the stand is among the most courageous actions of the past century. But they try. Generally, they feign applause for the astounding courage and faith of individual Witnesses, but then take shots at their organization, as though it were entirely separate. Yes, those Witnesses were amazing, they say. Too bad they were sold out by an oppressive, self-serving, uncaring Watchtower central machine."

They were out in full force recently, when I dared to put another Twitter spin on their cherished narrative--whoa! did I have a hard time swatting them off! Are they not blinded by their hate? Did anyone say that the Rutherford could do no wrong? If you do naught but focus on personalities, there is nothing that cannot be trashed. Everyone today knows the journalism of the hit piece—there is no one without some vulnerabilities who cannot be made a target. Still, the people at the Museum without an ax to grind declare it inconsequential to the overall picture. Got that, you yo-yos? The Jews themselves say your characterization is nonsense, and they are people who know hate when they see it. I'd be surprised if they didn't see it here.

Thwarted in this attempt to malign the one taking the lead back then, or perhaps emboldened by it, they then attack Rutherford's "needless" provocation of Hitler, his "ordering" Witnesses in Axis lands into harm's way by continued, even intensified, preaching in the face of Nazi atrocities. What Shangri-La are these people living in? It's as though they imagine that one could just change the channel back then and watch something else! All you had to do was refuse military service to be sent to the camps. Just refusing a 'Heil Hitler!' was enough. The vast majority of the population back then said to Hitler: "Well, if you say so. I mean, you're the boss." Jehovah's Witnesses said "No!" And now these revisionists, blinded by their dislike of 'authoritarian' religion, furious that cannot instill in it an 'Anything Goes' spirit, would try to change history! It's enough to make your blood boil!

I can see how Jews themselves go livid when, the moment their backs are turned, slimy revisionists try to assert that the Holocaust never happened—taking advantage of fading collective memory. Or maybe the small-minded haters come along and frame it that the most important lesson to be taken away from the Holocaust is that some Jews sold out others to save their own skin! People know hate when they see it. They see it there, in desperate efforts to denigrate what is noble. They see it also in desperate efforts to denigrate the Witness's record.

Refusing to give up the scent, one such revisionist lectures me: "To describe Rutherford's message as a "molehill" [second paragraph] is just the kind of indifference that opens the doors for the kinds of atrocities that followed." He's joking! The man who led those who fell on the right side of history—90% were on the wrong side—is the head villain of the time?

"Rutherford's words are there for posterity," he cants. _Let_ them be there for posterity! Go back with your crew to collect all the bloopers of history and cluck at them all until your tongues fall out! Jehovah's Witnesses are fully people, absolutely capable of picking up on the biases of the time. The lecturer covering American history for the Great Courses educational series speaks of a low-level anti-Semitism which was well-nigh universal at the time. The fact remains that, under the leadership of Rutherford—seeing that the choice was thrust upon all—Jehovah's Witnesses went through history on the only side of that electrified fence that would avail them of good conscience afterwards, with no blood on their hands, whether by acts of commission or omission. No, it will not be negated because Rutherford said some things insensitive about the ones that his people would presently stand up with. He also said this: "In Germany the common people are peace-loving, ... The Devil has put his representative Hitler in control, a man who is of unsound mind, cruel, malicious, and ruthless . . . He cruelly persecutes the Jews because they were once Jehovah's covenant people and bore the name of Jehovah, and because Christ Jesus was a Jew." How anti-Semitic does _that_ sound?

Witnesses were virtually the only collective group that _did_ _not_ sell out the Jews. I have no doubt that the Jews would _wish_ that Hitler and the mainline religious groups back then would have told a Jewish joke or two and left it at that. I assure you that they would not be rounding such ones up as war criminals, as they still are with the real criminals, 70 years later!

_Plus_ , Jehovah's Witnesses were the only group interred in the camps who were given opportunity to write their ticket out. All that was necessary was to renounce their faith and pledge cooperation with Hitler. Only a handful complied, a fact that almost a century later, I still find staggering. And to bring things full around to where this post began—with an appeal to Engardio's film Knocking for the context of the day—let us note that the film features one Brother Kempler, a circuit overseer who was once an interned Jew. He was there. He testifies powerfully to Jewish sensibilities in the face of what is likely the greatest evil of all time.

***~~~***

Joel Engardio's documentary Knocking features two Jehovah's Witness families, the Knights and the Kemplers. Joseph Kempler gives the most compelling reason for serving Jehovah that I have ever heard. As a teenager, he was shuttled though six Nazi concentration camps and survived them all. He was interred as a Jew and freed as a Jew. While confined, he observed Jehovah's Witnesses. After the war he became one.

"It's difficult to speak to Jews," he says. "They say I became a traitor. Six million Jews died, and I joined the other side.

"I was among those survivors who felt that God was really responsible and guilty. He was the one who permitted the Holocaust. So we didn't fail him, we didn't do anything wrong. He failed us. And this is a very common belief.

"God is being maligned and misunderstood and, in many different ways, looked down upon as being uncaring or dead or whatever, and there are all kinds of distortions as to what God is and who he is. To be able to speak up in his defense—what a powerful turnaround from somebody where I was to become a defender of God—what a wonderful privilege this is."

It is a privilege. Mr. Kempler recognized that and grabbed hold of it, even in the aftermath of suffering that turned millions away from God, millions who could not fathom how God could possibly permit such a monstrous thing. Yet, accurate Bible knowledge conveys the reason for both suffering and persecution. It conveys how God will ultimately work matters out, as well as how his worshippers should respond in the meantime. Armed with such knowledge, Jehovah's Witnesses survived what was likely the greatest evil in history, with faith and dignity intact,

What is remarkable about the account is the contrast it reveals in that so many people today go the other way in the face of far less provocation. Mr. Kempler saw, in the holocaust aftermath, an opportunity to defend God. But people today, even some of our own people, sever all ties with God for reasons no more substantial than personal inconvenience, having somehow lost all ability to conceive of any life beyond the here and now. Such is the power of a materialistic age where self is the focus.

God being where he is and we being where we are—in distinctly flawed form, one might imagine God keeping us at arm's length. Instead, we are told that we can serve him shoulder to shoulder! _"For then I shall give to peoples the change to a pure language, in order for them all to call upon the name of Jehovah, in order to serve him shoulder to shoulder,"_ says Zephaniah 3:9

It is possible to be his friend: _"and the scripture was fulfilled which says: 'Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,' and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."_ (James 2:23)

Inherent in defending God, of course, is speaking about him. You cannot read the Gospels (literally "good news"—Mark is the easiest; it moves the quickest) or Acts (the early history of Christianity's spread—the Book's full title is also its description: The Acts of the Apostles—that is, the things they did) without recognizing that the ideas expressed therein were not to remain private, but were to be offered to others. So, speak Jehovah's Witnesses do.

The Bible consistently likens spiritual things to water. Water is healthy when it moves and unhealthy when it does not. If Christians take it in through reading, meditation & congregation meetings, then their public ministry serves to keep it flowing. People have many views today, and, as a way of proclaiming "truce," a popular notion is that religion is too "private" to discuss, at least, to discuss with strangers. Plainly, Jehovah's Witnesses do not feel that way. To be sure, to keep "pushing" something upon persons who have made it clear it is unwanted it is ill-mannered—though that doesn't necessarily preclude a later change of viewpoint. But the other extreme, labeling faith as too personal to even discuss, is not in keeping with the very nature of Jesus' message.

Despite their public visiting, Jehovah's Witnesses are a "live and let live" religion. Their "weapons" are ideas only. Sure, they try to be persuasive, but it's still only words. Tell them "no," and they go away. They don't afterward attempt to legislate their beliefs into law, so as to force people to live their way, much less resort to violence.

To be a defender of God is a rare privilege indeed.

# Updates of Post-Publication Events

# Chapter 48 – Russian Prison and Putin Ponders

At the Russian government press conference, journalists asked about the case of Dennis Christensen, who one day prior had been sentenced to over 6 years in prison for practicing his faith. Journalists asked whether Jehovah's Witnesses can really be considered an extremist organization from a common-sense point of view. The president's press secretary said: "We cannot rely on concepts of common sense for governmental purposes."1 Of course!

The knee-jerk response of any jaded person in nearly any country on earth is to chuckle and say "Yeah, it is just like that here." But there is much more to be seen here.

The Russian government is plainly befuddled. The press secretary goes on to explain that the greater issue is not whether Jehovah's Witnesses are extremist. The greater issue is that Dennis Christensen was found guilty of violating the law that says they are.2 Surely this is kicking the can down the road. Two months ago, at another meeting, President Putin stated that he really didn't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted, indicating that the law itself makes no sense to him as applied to Witnesses.3

To slightly misapply the words of Jesus, "something greater than Capernaum is here." What? Two scenarios can be advanced—one for all persons, and one for persons of biblical bent.

The purely human one is that a powerful and cunning anti-cult movement takes the Russian government unawares. It takes them unawares because it is a Western import, not Russian at all, finding roots in a humanist French NGO dedicated to freeing people from ideas considered socially destructive, and nothing is more destructive to them than religion that includes the concept of authority among its members. The anti-cult movement finds its counterpart in all developed lands, though its methods will differ.4

There are even divisions among them. The anti-cultists in the West consider the anti-cultists in Russia to be doing it all wrong. One of them says: "Jehovah's Witnesses need persecution for their beliefs to make sense. With their thuggish behavior that violates human rights, Russia is blowing a huge gust of wind into Watchtower's sails, fueling another generation's worth of propaganda."

Of course! They have a "persecution complex" over there—often the charge is made by Witness opposers. Why would their fellow anti-cultists—brothers in spirit if not in technique—be so stupid as to validate it by persecuting them? It is as though he says: "Look—we want what you want, the destruction of the Witness organization. But that is not the best way to do it."

***~~~***

The second scenario, for those of biblical bent, and it may not be of interest to those not, so they have permission to skip this and two succeeding paragraphs, involves the fact that the Witness organization has identified Russia as the biblical "king of the north," an entity found in the prophesy of Daniel (chapter 11). It is a complex prophesy which many students of the Bible have tackled, involving specific powers (kings) that pass their respective mantles to succeeding powers in often shifting geographical areas, commencing from Daniel's time down to the present. Does it complicate matters with the Russian government for someone to tell them that the Witness organization says that they are the northern king? Emily Baran, who wrote the book _Dissent on the Margins_ , about the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during Soviet times, said that it did. It genuinely confused the irreligious Soviets and enabled them in characterizing the Witnesses as a political movement masquerading as a religion.5

The Witness organization goes where it goes in furtherance of its mission to live by and advertise Bible principles, largely oblivious to ones who may think that their toes are stepped on—barely aware of it at all, because they 'don't do politics' at Witness HQ. There is a king of the south, too, these days associated with the United States, and neither king is overly friendly to the interests of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, because the concept of human rights finds soil more fertile in the West than in the East, Witnesses face few legal impediments to their work in such lands. In fact, the most frequent participant in U.S. Supreme Court proceedings has been the Witness organization itself—sometimes as plaintiff and sometimes as defendant. Of them, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once said: "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."6

The entire prophesy as seen through Jehovah's Witnesses eyes is most recently discussed in their 1999 publication _Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophesy_ ,7 which is a discussion of the entire Bible book, not just the chapters involving the two opposing kings. Regardless of who interprets the prophesy, and of what time interval is covered, the kings of the north and south are continually at loggerheads. What is remarkable about the present—and this is only this writer's perception—is that even when the "kings" declare that they would like to get along, outside forces intervene to keep them "on script."

"Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?" the current American president said during his campaign; President Putin has spoken similarly—at which point, the American press intervenes to virtually ensure that they will not.8 Today, it is widely recognized that east-west relations are subsequently more strained than in even Soviet times. This dovetails so well with certain biblical passages (Ezekiel 38:4, Revelation 17:17) to the effect that world powers will do things not of their own devising that the similarity is impossible to let pass without mention. One must wonder if former Witnesses, upon seeing unexpected world developments that violate even "common sense," yet are exactly in accord with long Witness expectations, do not think sometimes that they may have deboarded the train too soon and might look to re-board at the next station—for in the aftermath of the final contest between the kings of the north and south, a contest whose biblical role has been developing for 2500 years, the "people of the covenant" at last find deliverance.

It is to be noted that enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves, not as enemies of individual Witnesses, but of the organization that they have chosen, which they somehow portray as having "enslaved" them through various psychological techniques of "control."9 In Russia, Jehovah's Witnesses as people are not banned. Only their organization is. However, most persons are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference, because essentially there is no difference. The Witness enemy is befuddled by it and assaults members with impunity. The police stand by and do nothing because they, too, are befuddled by it. The government is befuddled by it, as noted above. The Witness him or herself is befuddled by it. Everyone is befuddled by it because it makes no sense. It is like this writer saying that he loves the Russian people—it is only the Kremlin that he seeks to destroy. It is like him saying that the Russian people are free to drive the roads—it is only the roads that are banned. It takes a while to get one's head around such a notion. Guileless ones are particularly disadvantaged because the presentation itself is steeped in guile.

It doesn't even matter the reason for opposition to the Witnesses. The anti-cultists of the West latch on to different reasons to destroy the Witness organization than do the anti-cultists of the East. A common trigger for denunciation in the West is that Jehovah's Witnesses are unsupportive of gay rights, and within their community, do not allow for gay sex. This makes them absolute heroes in Russia, which avidly persecutes gays. Just after the Russian ban was instituted, Angela Merkel even mentioned the two populations in the same breath to Putin—questioning him of his harassment of gays and Jehovah's Witnesses. (Many Western sources, such as the BBC, edited out Jehovah's Witnesses so as to focus on gays.)10 So Russia must scramble to find different reasons for persecution, since a prime Western reason is not a problem in its eyes. Some Russian sources commenting on recent Witness events mention as a specific objection only that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Even the most staunch advocate of blood transfusion will concede that the group refusing them are not to be equated with ISIS terrorists. No, on so many levels, Witness persecution defies common sense. Whenever things do that, people can be forgiven for wondering if something supernatural isn't at work as well.

***~~~***

Dennis Christensen "has spent the last 20 months in a cold cell with suspected drug dealers and only been allowed to meet his wife, separated by bars and a corridor, twice a month. If convicted, he could spend up to a decade in jail," writes Andrew Osborn for Reuters.11 How much do you want to bet that those drug dealers now know their Bibles quite well? Alas, that may make them more unwelcome in Russia than had they landed the area distribution franchise for Drugs-R-Us.

He must have his moments of despondency. He must. But you would never know it. He is serene in appearances, and sometimes even cheerful. Jehovah's Witnesses could not have wished for better examples to face the Russian bear than he and his wife Irene. See how he typifies the spirit of 1 Peter 2:23:

"Christ suffered...leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely... When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously."

Has he wavered in his love for his adopted homeland? He "does not regret that he moved to live in Russia. 'It is one of the best decisions that I have made in my life, and it brought me much happiness,'" he tells the Reuters reporter. This despite his being anything but starry eyed. "To call me or other peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses extremists is the greatest stupidity that I have ever heard!" he says. "Of course, I hope that he (the judge) will be just," he said. "But I also know which country I've been living in."12

Only a month ago, President Putin, when asked, stated that the equating of Jehovah's Witnesses with terrorists was "of course...complete nonsense," something "you need to carefully deal with," and later, "so this should be looked into" since "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too." We may soon learn just how carefully he means to deal with and look at it, as the time of Dennis's sentencing has arrived. As for Irena, "I'm not afraid of anything and Dennis is not afraid either," she told Reuters.

I have never seen a picture of him in which he is not mild, even well dressed. He actually broke into song at one hearing via Internet, before the guard told him to shut up. Could one ask for a better example? The symbolism is complete. His surname points to the one he follows. Even his carpenter profession lines up. Even his last project as a free man spotlights the idiocy of branding him an "extremist"—building a playground for the community children. Would members of the only other group in Russia officially designated "extremist," ISIS, also build a playground for the community children? Maybe, but it would be a long time gaining my trust to let my children play on it. On January 23, the prosecutor requested a sentence of 6 years and 6 months in prison. Why not add 6 days to the request to make it a nice, biblical 666?13

It's déjà vu for Jehovah's Witnesses in that country, whose period of freedom has lasted only 27 years. "The only difference is that at that time [of the Soviet Union] they were called 'enemies of the people'. Now they are called 'extremists'," says Irena.

Journalist Osborn does what all journalists must do. He probes for the actual reason that Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed. Usually all one must do in such cases is read the charges of the prosecution, but here in the Christensen case the charges are ridiculous, and the 'crimes' easily refuted. So, Osborn hits on one spot of contention after another, but presently puts his finger on the real trigger: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." He refers, perhaps unknowingly, to a burgeoning anti-cult movement which finds conditions fertile in Russia for a perfect storm, but which is active everywhere. "There have been many interviews with non-JW experts at court cases over the years, and these experts indicate that the source of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses most often comes from people with a personal agenda against Jehovah's Witnesses."14

The reason that Putin declares it complete nonsense to call Witnesses "extremist" is because it is. As such, he and his in government would never have dreamt of doing such a thing. However much any of them may dislike Jehovah's Witnesses, ISIS has taught them what extremism is. They are not so stupid as to confuse the two.

Likewise, the dominant Russian Orthodox Church did not originate the ban against the Witnesses. That is not to say that some of them did not squeal with delight like kids on Christmas morning, but it was not their idea. The thinkers there are not particularly happy about it, for the same set of laws that declare it a crime to proclaim the superiority of one's religion in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses might easily be turned against them.15

No, problems with the Church and the suspicious government merely make for excellent tinder. The spark that sets it off Osborn identifies with: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." It is a determined anti-cult movement that sets the match to the tinder. It is not even Russian originated, but like Bolshevism itself, is a Western import. Religion writer Joshua Gill has outlined how a French NGO dedicated to protecting people from ideas considered socially destructive—the manifest goal of anti-cultism—sent a well-known emissary to Russia who spread that view with missionary zeal, maximizing his existing status with the Russian Orthodox Church.16

The anti-cult movement ever seeks to extend its reach. Only in Russia does it find conditions ripe for the perfect storm, but its influence is afoot everywhere. The match was even literal in 2018 Washington State, where six attacks resulted in two Kingdom Halls burnt to the ground.17 Of course, that is not the intent—to incite violence. Anti-cultists speak against it, for the most part. But when you yell "CULT!" in a crowded theater, who can say what will happen? The correct term, non-incendiary and chosen by scholars for just that reason, is "new religious movement."

Assembling material in preparation for 'Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' I became more and more convinced that the anti-cult movement was behind it all, and it is a conviction that has only strengthened since. In the book's introduction, I wrote:

"Does Kuraev really mean to suggest that prosecution presented no intelligible arguments at the Supreme Court trial? An observer of the trial might well think it. He might well wonder just what does the government have against Jehovah's Witnesses? There must be something, but it is not stated. At one point the judge asked the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice) whether it had prepared for the case. A decision had been plainly made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it. Of course, he did, perhaps because he wanted to remain a judge. The actual reasons behind anti-Witness hostility were never presented. So I have presented them in Part II, along with how they might be defended."

I even went on to caution members of my own faith:

"Some Witnesses, truth be told, will be uncomfortable with Part II and might best be advised to skip over it. They will love the idea of defending the faith but may be unaware of the scope of the attacks made against it, some of which are truly malicious. Deciding to sit out this or that controversy will earn them taunts of 'sticking one's head in the sand' from detractors, but it is exactly what Jesus recommends, as will be seen. Not everyone must immerse themselves in every 'fact,' for many of them will turn out to be facts of Mark Twain's variety: facts that "ain't so." You can't do everything, and most persons choose to focus on matters most directly relevant to their lives."

That caution is repeated, with even greater applicability, in this book. The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses is: "Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?" The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.

In some respects, the Witness organization appears to this writer to be out of step with regard to the attacks it faces today. With a long history of persevering in the face of religious threats to stomp it out of existence, it seems slow to acknowledge that religion is mostly licking its wounds these days, and it is the irreligious world, with anti-cultists in the vanguard, that most vehemently presses for its downfall.

***~~~***

At a December 11, 2018 meeting with the Council on Civil Society Development and Human Rights, one council member, Ekaterina Shulman, addressed President Putin: "There is a list of organizations, for which there is information that they are involved in terrorism and extremism. There are 489 of them, and 404 of them are Jehovah's Witnesses."18

Pressing her luck, she continued: "Here I will take a sinister pause. There could be an abundance of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses—they don't allow blood transfusion, don't send children to hospitals, [ed: not a charge that I have heard before, nor one that is true] but they definitely are not calling for violence or committing it." Putin's response was: "We should treat the representatives of all religions in the same way – this is true, but still, it is also necessary to take into account the country and the society in which we live. True, this does not mean at all that we should include representatives of religious communities in some destructive, or even in terrorist organizations. Of course, this is complete nonsense, you need to carefully deal with it. Here I agree with you."

Later in the meeting, Putin returned to the topic and added: "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too. I don't quite understand why they are persecuted. So this should be looked into. This must be done." The Washington Post and Time Magazine picked up on the story the next day, the Post saying that he "has pledged to look into the reported persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Now, what to make of this?

Yaroslav Sivulsky, the press secretary for JWs in Russia, stated: "We have noted the president's reaction with surprise. If he knows about the whole situation, then probably his reaction could change something. We hope that he will give instructions to have the matter examined and something may happen. Though, knowing the realities of our country, there is not much optimism."19 Okay, so they're not breaking out the champagne just yet.

The online community of Jehovah's Witnesses was a cynical bunch, by and large, with many thinking Putin was just being slippery. In fact, since translating from Russian to English poses challenges, one Witness understood him to say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, for which I do not really understand how to persecute them," as though he was searching for more effective ways to do it. Hmm. Did he say: "I really do not understand how to persecute them" or "I really do not understand how they are persecuted"? It is the six-million-dollar question. It is a little like the Twilight Zone episode in which the earthlings were relieved to find the alien's handbook "To Serve Man." 'Ahh, it means their intentions are good,' and they breathed easily, but at the show's end they discovered to their discomfiture that it was a cookbook.

I tend to take President Putin's remarks at face value. There is no reason that he has to say what he does, even expanding it to 'Jehovah's Witness are also Christians,' contradicting prominent religious people who say they are not. When his Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, who was also among the officials that Witnesses contacted via a letter campaign launched in hopes of averting the 2017 ban, was asked a similar question last year, he could not have answered more harshly than he did. I think Putin is being genuine, at last waking up to something that he has barely paid attention to. Maybe it is like the hinge squeaking in the background somewhere that he has barely noticed but now it is driving him nuts. Perhaps he will even pick up his WD-40, go lubricate it himself, and subsequently vent his wrath upon whoever allowed such idiocy to take center stage in the first place, painting his country before all the world as a nation of goons—in the spirit of Ahasuerus avenging Haman.

A president is a busy man. It is popularly believed that anything that goes down in a country will have his fingerprints all over it, but this is seldom so for matters of 'low priority.' Of course, this is not low priority for Witnesses, but it can hardly be otherwise for him. At a subsequent news conference, he spoke to the danger of nuclear war, which he hopes the West does not get too cavalier about: "The danger of the situation escalating is being downplayed," he said, adding that the lowering of thresholds for nuclear capability "could really lead us to catastrophe." If he loses sleep at night, it is not over the travails of a small religion. It is over the thought of the world going up in flames.

Western media excoriates him, but it cannot be wise to let the propaganda of one king mold our view of the other. I was very careful, in writing the book, _Dear Mr_. _Putin_ – _Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia_ , not to do that. In the event it was ever read by anyone that mattered, I did not want to sabotage it by being disrespectful or accusing.

It wasn't that hard to do—for example, by spotlighting the two, likely three, times that Russia, not the United States, saved the world from certain nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov spotted an incoming missile from the U.S. on his screen, correctly judged it a malfunction, and against orders, did not relay the report to the excitable Kremlin.20 Second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov refused to sign-off with his two fellow officers to launch a nuclear attack during the Cuban missile crisis—thwarting an attack that had to have unanimous backing.21 Nikita Khrushchev arguably brought that crisis to a close with his last-minute telegram to President Kennedy.22

However, in refraining from criticizing Putin personally, I was not just being expedient. I honestly came to feel it not likely that he was one of the instigators. I admit that feeling has wavered in view of the abuses of the last few months, with Witnesses physically accosted by police, but now it intensifies. Promisingly, he is not cut from the same cloth as many in high government. He was not born to privilege in the ruling class. He started from the ground up, as a regular office worker, and lived with his parents during the early days of his working life.23 He thus probably retains a feel for the interests of the 'common man' that his co-rulers may not. In the end, it hardly matters, because 'the heart of a king is as streams of water' in Jehovah's hands. But it helps if it is neither ice cubes nor steam to begin with.

He didn't have to say it, is the point. He could have issued some boiler-plate beatitude of how 'the situation is serious and we continue to monitor it closely.' He certainly didn't have to say that Witnesses are Christian too, thus showing that he will not be shoved around by ones who insist they are not. His statement makes it much harder for Russia to thumb its nose at any upcoming ECHR verdict, indicating that he has no intention of doing that. How can his words not ease the pressure on Jehovah's Witnesses in that country? After all, if you were a Russian cop, would YOU violently accost one after what he just said? [edit: Unfortunately, it turned out that they would.]

Still, he is conscious of the majority. How much freedom of worship will be restored remains to be seen, since he observes that with 90% of the country being of a certain religious orientation, one cannot throw everything overboard so as to please the "sects." It is enough not to persecute them, which he seems inclined not to do. Maybe the brothers will have to tip-toe around for a while, and it will not necessarily be a bad thing for our people to focus on being discreet. That has long been the direction of theocratic training, anyhow. If Putin truly had evil intent, however, he would not have returned to the topic to say that he doesn't really understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Now let's see how well he holds up as the more devious ones labor to 'educate' him on the topic. We will see whose resolve prevails.24 Probably, JW representative Sivulsky has it just right: he is surprised and cautiously optimistic.

In some respects, it may prove a replay, with hopefully different outcome, of the situation with Pilate judging Jesus. Pilate knew that he was being set up. He knew Jesus was innocent. He worked rather hard to free him—that much is clear by reading any one of the gospel accounts, and the conclusion is inescapable upon reviewing all of them. But the scoundrels were so insistent, even hinting that to release Jesus would be treasonous, that he eventually caved. After all, it wasn't his prime concern. He had a province to run. He tried to do the right thing. That's how it is with many today. They try to do the right thing, but they only try so hard. When the going gets rough, they opt for expediency.25

The Russian Orthodox Church has insisted that it did not instigate the ban and I am inclined to believe them. That is not to say that prominent ones were not delighted at the outcome, or that some instigators did not have Church connections. But the villainy stems from an anti-cult movement, with French connections, that is active in many lands. Conditions in Russia were ripe, that's all, just like they were ripe for Communism 100 years ago, which was also imported from abroad.

Writing ' _Dear Mr_. _Putin_ \- _Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia'_ took the better part of a year. There were few publicly available online sources that I did not read during this time, save only for those that were repetitive. The most telling report was one by Joshua Gill, a religion writer, revealing from where most of the trouble came.26

"The Russian Supreme Court's July 17 ban on the Jehovah's Witnesses was the result of a decades long conspiracy funded by the French government, blessed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and sanctioned by the Putin administration...The latest phase of that plan first garnered international attention with Russian authorities' arrest of a Danish citizen." That would be Dennis Christensen, arrested May 25, 2017 for conducting a congregation meeting after the ban had gone into effect, and still in prison at this time of writing, (December 2018) his case only recently coming to trial.

Gill spotlights the role of Alexander Dvorkin, the Russian Ministry's Expert Council for Conducting State Religious-Studies. That Council exists so as "to investigate religions that deviate from Russian Orthodox teaching and to recommend actions against those religions to the state." They have recommended taking strong action on non-majority faiths. Mr. Dvorkin is also vice president of the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS), a French NGO dedicated to identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit." It is an organization fully funded by the French government, and it may be remembered that that government tried to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses by imposing a 60% tax on their activities in 1998. The tax was steadfastly appealed by Jehovah's Witnesses until it was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights fourteen years later.

The Daily Caller article reveals the depth of Dvokin's misinformation and dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. "Their adepts recruit failed university enrollees, and people on vacation as well; they have a wide range of psychological influence, especially on the unstable minds of adolescents and youths," he says of them and the Hare Krishnas. He has encouraged the public to "take part in the fight against sects, file complaints and collect raw data so that the local authorities can react quickly." In a 2009 documentary called 'Emergency Investigation: Jehovah's Witnesses,' he compared Witnesses to drug dealers. The Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews attributes instances of public violence against Russian Witness members to that documentary, just as the violence visiting Kingdom Halls in Washington State is similarly stoked by the inflammatory use of the C-word. Is the FECRIS mission of identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit" not exactly the battle cry of the anti-cultists worldwide?"

Mine was the minority view among the Witnesses I spoke with. "You are a better Christian than I am," one said. "You always expect the best from people. I don't believe a word a politician says." Note that his distrust is of "a politician," not of Putin specifically, though he hardly sings his praises. One could even say that it is a sign of being "insular"—they are all the same to him. Having said that, they are all the same to many persons today—it is hardly an attribute of him alone. Why, long ago Mark Twain even said that politicians must be changed as frequently as a diaper—and for the same reason.

It is true that I try to think the best of people. Am I a "better Christian" in this instance? Or just a dumber one? Time will tell. [edit April 5, 2019: so far, I seem to be a dumber one]

Endnotes

1. "The Kremlin announced the complexity of the situation with Jehovah's Witnesses," Interfax-Religia, February 7, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019, http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=71993

2. Doug Bandow, "Persecutors Pile on Jehovah's Witnesses, in Russia and Worldwide," nationalreview.com, March 1, 2019, assessed March 21, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/jehovahs-witnesses-persecuted-russia-worldwide, accessed April 4, 2019

3. Mark Bennetts, "Putin disavows crackdown on Jehovah's witnesses, giving hope to the detained," religionnews.com, January 9, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019

4. "Russia vs Jehovah's Witnesses and the influence by FECRIS," May 9, 2017, https://freedomofbelief.net/activities/russia-vs-jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-influence-by-fecris, accessed: April 4, 2019 [tell me if the accompanying photo of Dvorkin does not remind one of Rasputin himself]

5. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins \- How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 137

6. Harlan Fiske Stone to Charles Evans Hughes, 24 March 1941, quoted by Peters, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, 186.

7. _Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophesy_ , (Brooklyn, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1999)

8. Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig, "America Overrules Trump: No Peace with Russia," foreignpolicyjournal.com, July 19, 2018, accessed: April 4, 2019

9. "Russia vs Jehovah's Witnesses and the influence by FECRIS," May 9, 2017, https://freedomofbelief.net/activities/russia-vs-jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-influence-by-fecris, accessed: April 4, 2019

10. Andreas Rinke and Denis Pinchuk, "Putin, Merkel, Struggle to Move Past Differences in Tense Meeting," Reuters, May 2, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-germany-putin-syria/putin-merkel-struggle-to-move-past-differences-in-tense-meeting-idUSKBN17Y1JC

11. Osborn, Andrew (Reuters), Jehovah's Witness on Trial for 'Extremism' Likens Authorities to Stalin, The Moscow Times, January 22, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/01/22/cast-in-russia-as-enemy-within-jehovahs-witnesses-see-soviet-history-replay-a64238

12. Viktor Nekhezin, "Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: How Dennis Christensen Became an Extremist, Russian Service of the BBC, January 23, 2019, see https://credo.press/222376, English translation at: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/190123b.html

13. Maksim Kliagin, "A Very Convenient Victim": Rights Advocates See Dangerous Attack on Human Rights in Christensen Case, Orlevskie Novosti, 28 January 2019, https://newsorel.ru/fn_430772.html, see English translation: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/190128e.html, accessed April 4: 2019

14. Peter Coyer, "(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism," Forbes.com, May 21, 2015, accessed April 4, 2019, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56240/is-the-russian-orthodox-church-pressing-the-government-of-russia-to-ban-jehovah, see link within article to https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/russia/anti-extremism-law-interviews/

15. Andrei Kuraev, "Prohibition of Jehovah's Witnesses Undermines Trust in Court," _To Truth_ , a project of the Tomsk Information and Consulting Center on the problems of sects and occultism, April 25, 2017

16. Joshua Gill, "The French Conspiracy With The Russian Orthodox Church That Destroyed The Jehovah's Witnesses, DailyCaller.com, July 7, 2017, accessed April 4, 2019, https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

17. Tom Porter, "Jehovah's Witness Halls in Washington State Have Been Targeted in a Series of Arson Attacks," Newsweek, April 4, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witness-halls-washington-state-have-been-targeted-series-arson-1251731

18. Moscow Kremlin minutes: Session of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, December 11, 2018, Tuesday, accessed April 5, 2019: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59374, for English translation, see "fact-checked" version (with nothing corrected other than political interpretation) at: https://www.polygraph.info/a/putin-jehovahs-witnesses-in-russia-fact-check/29663600.html

19. "Putin Calls Ban of Jehovah's Witnesses Nonsense," BBC Russian Service, December 17, 2018, accessed April 5: 2019, https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-46598425

20. Simon Shuster, "Stanislav Petrov, the Russian Officer Who Averted a Nuclear War, Feared History Repeating Itself, Time, September 19, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/

21. Nicola Davis, "Soviet Submarine Officer Who Averted Nuclear War Honoured with Prize," October 27, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-soviet-submarine-captain-who-averted-nuclear-war-awarded-future-of-life-prize

22. At the John F Kennedy Presidential Library is the 2700-word telegram Premiere Khrushchev sent to JFK, dated October 26, 1962.

23. Steven Lee Myers, _The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin_ (New York: Knoph, 2014) 24

24. Pavel Skrylnikov, "Will Jehovah's Witnesses be Exempt From the Yarovaya Package? Vladimir Putin speaks for the first time about persecution of religious minorities," Nezavisimaia Gazeta, January 15, 2019, accessed April 5, 2019, http://www.ng.ru/problems/2019-01-15/12_457_tend2.html

25. See the final chapters, usually 2nd to the last, of each of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

26. Joshua Gill, "The French Conspiracy

back

# Chapter 49 – Russia: Mistreatment and Tactics Revealed

At 6:15 AM on February 15, 2019, Timofei Zhukov and his wife were awakened by furious pounding on the door, as though someone would break it down. They didn't answer and the pounding ceased. Half an hour later their balcony door was broken down. Several riot police stormed into the room. Zhukov was kicked, cuffed, and his head slammed against the wall— 'the blood is still on the wallpaper,' he later told Kommersant, the business magazine. His wife cried in alarm and was cursed in consequence.1

It was part of a sting operation that netted 40 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Surgut, Siberia—a major dark turn of events that nobody had anticipated. Twelve officers jumped from three vehicles pulled over to detain 2 Witnesses who were walking alongside the street.2

Mr. Zhukov was not tortured at the police station, but he did not escape hearing the screams of those seven Witnesses who were—music turned up loud to mask the sounds, but there was no masking them. He is a lawyer, as it turns out, who once served as assistant prosecutor in the city, and now is legal advisor to a construction firm. "Please register the exact time. Somebody is being beaten here," he shouted. An FSB agent entered the room and said, "Don't worry, they do not beat anyone here"—there was a drug addict within who was screaming his head off, he was told. And the former prosecutor believed it, only discovering the truth later from his brothers who had been on the other side of the door. He told the magazine that "until recently, he could not believe that law enforcement officers could torture believers."

Though cuffed for three hours while his home was searched and beaten on his legs whenever they were judged to be insufficiently far apart, the handcuffs were removed for his escort to the waiting vehicle. "We won't scare people," he was told. He answered back that he preferred to wear them, for the neighbors had known him his entire life and were in good position to know whether he was a criminal or not. But off they came, and he was placed into the van—not one that said Police but one that bore the markings 'Northern Roadway,' as though off for a friendly commiseration with his former colleagues in law, though his smashed-in apartment balcony must have suggested otherwise.

They must have hoped to have kept it under wraps. They must have hoped to cast a pall upon the Witness community, but otherwise not suffer their deeds to see the light of day. How else can one account for such a hurried and stupid explanation, shortly thereafter, that the Witnesses had beaten themselves up (as only a sect member could do) to thwart the police investigation? "After the arrest and searches, they, under the direction of the lawyers who arrived in Surgut, got together and during the meeting struck each other, which could then be presented as evidence of torture," one "insider" said, for ura.ru. "Well-known lawyers who specialize in representing the interests of the Jehovists throughout the country are involved in the case. Services each cost 5 million rubles. The main task is to ruin the criminal case, to attract public attention."3 Of course! They must have figured that they had to say something, and quickly, for the accounts of the victims along with undeniable photo evidence4 were promptly showcased throughout the world, and the European Court of Human Rights demanded independent investigation.5

Local hospitals told the released victims that they would be treated for their injuries, but that those injuries would not be documented.6 Plainly, they had been leaned upon by someone. Surgut, as determined by a rough atlas survey, is the 67th most populous city in Russia. Perhaps authorities hoped there wouldn't be much of any support, legal or otherwise, for Witnesses way out there, instead of one of the victims actually being a lawyer. Another victim said one agent had told him: "We had to specifically come from Moscow for this."7 Why couldn't he have just stayed in Moscow, where Jehovah's Witnesses surely are more numerous and are having just as great a challenge coping with the Orwellian law that says you can be a Jehovah's Witness just so long as you do not do any of the things Jehovah's Witnesses do, which apparently includes existing? No, to this writer, this episode has the earmarks of a deed meant to be done in a remote corner that unexpectedly turned out to be a world stage, necessitating a hasty (and clumsy) response.

Reported Znak.com: "The believers think that all of this was done with just one goal—to beat out "evidence necessary to the investigation" from those who had decided to exercise their right granted by the Russian constitution not to provide evidence against themselves and their associates." A committee spokesman in the Khanty-Mansi region, Oleg Menshikh, told TASS news agency on February 20 that no law had been violated during the interrogations. "Nobody tortured them," he said. "There was no physical or psychological pressure on them."5 But two days later there was an about face, with the same official declaring that the government had decided to probe the claim "given the agitation that has arisen after publication of this information in the media."8

That's not entirely promising, a cynic might reply, and many did. Was it not like saying: "Look, if they want an official document saying that we didn't do it, we can comply with that"? So be it. Whose version of truth will prevail? From within the Nazi death camps, Jehovah's Witnesses smuggled out detailed diagrams of their layout, and those were published in Watchtower magazines.9 They were disbelieved by other media outlets until post-liberation proved them all true. The Witnesses' veracity is well established, even by those who don't like them. On the other hand, stories of abuse, even torture, by Russian police are legion by groups of many different stripes.

Not everything pointed to a quick whitewash. Following an early meeting of the Investigative Committee, **Vladimir Ermolaev,** a department chief, told Znak.com: **"I admit to you that what these people described at the meeting, with these horrible details, all of this shocked me....I cannot describe for you in detail, since nobody has authorized me to do so. But what they said, I registered it all, documented it. I will send all of these materials to the Investigation Department of the S.K.R. for Yugra and to the prosecutor's office of the region."10** So, time will tell.*

When the young boy cries "The emperor has no clothes!" and the latter in response just keeps on strutting his stuff, there's not much one can do about it other than thoroughly documenting his nakedness and broadcasting it far and wide. This, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses have done, most notably through their website. No wonder the urgent need of those who oppose to deprive them of organization.

Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded by many as the canary in the coal mine. What happens to them may soon happen to others. Two American Mormon missionaries were deported in early March and there were reports that they might be next in line for wider persecution. However, Alexander Verkhovsky, one of the top Russian experts on extremism, xenophobia, nationalism, and human rights, wrote in March 2019, that Witnesses just might become a canary pointing in the other direction. "The growing campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses inspires horror, but it also gives a chance that this time someone will finally catch on and think. [The Witnesses] are too obviously not a threat to security and at the same time they are just as clearly impossible to "eradicate", since more than 100,000 people cannot be imprisoned or forced out of the country, and Jehovah's Witnesses have not given up on their faith during difficult times."11 The situation is too ludicrous, and too unambiguous. The popular mind confuses Muslim groups in a non-Muslim country, so that peaceful Muslim groups are mistaken for groups that have done very bad things. Even Mormons cannot be said to be apolitical—in the United States, they are the most politically polarized of all faiths.12 But Jehovah's Witnesses have claimed neutrality for their entire existence, and their "pacifist" stance is attested to by all. Just how dangerous can they be? Maybe the recent shocker of torture for a Christian group (Russians are used to it for Muslim activists suspected of "excessive radicalism," Verkhovsky speculates) will cause the government to recalibrate.

Russian Jehovah's Witnesses will hope for the best and ever be respectful of government, but they can be forgiven if they become jaded at the speculations of a quick turnaround. They have seen their country sail blithely past many buoys of ludicrousness. Did not Dennis Christensen say that he hoped the judge would be fair, "but he also [knew] what country he lived in?" Did not the country ban a Bible on the basis that it is not a Bible and the entire educated world knows that it is? Did not every interested person in the world see, via the Witness website, video evidence of Russian police in riot gear scaling fences to break down the door of a Kingdom Hall en route to arresting those inside, and the only ones refusing to see it were the ones that had a moral obligation to do so—the Russian Supreme Court? Maybe this buoy will be yet one more left in the wake of the unshamable ship.

Can the Russian authorities be shamed? Possibly not. The ban itself shames them, and they could see it come from miles away but embraced it anyway. The present reality harkens back to what columnist Andrew Sorokowski wrote prior to the ban: "Why would a nation of some 144,000,000 risk its international reputation to persecute a religious sect numbering no more than 175,000 followers?" Nonetheless, trash it they did, and it is not so clear when or even if that course will reverse.13

Mr. Verkhovsky takes for granted that Jehovah's Witnesses will not give up on their faith. How can they? They will recall the verse about paying Caesar's things to Caesar but God's things to God. They will think of the verse that says you do not fear the one who can kill the body and afterwards do no more. The one to fear is the one who can take away the soul.14

Though ever a small minority, many have protested the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses over the past two years. Atheists have held up banners in support of them. An activist from Kaliningradian scaled a lamppost to hang a sign proclaiming: "Jehovah's Witnesses are banned--they will also ban God."15 Perhaps he is more accurate than he knows. Nikolai Gordienko, of the Herzen Russian State University in St. Petersburg, once stated "When the experts accuse Jehovah's Witnesses for their teachings, they do not realize that they are actually making accusations against the Bible."16 "Of course they are scared," Yaroslav Sivulskiy tells a source. "But it does not mean that they will cease to be Jehovah's witnesses and do what is important to them...Jehovah's witnesses are good people, but they cannot abandon their faith when the state expects this refusal from them."17

Just to keep things in perspective, for anyone can be too close to the forest to see the trees. Virtually all of Jehovah's Witnesses were exiled to Siberia during the late 1940s and early 50s. Today, about 200 of them are detained out of a population of 170,000. It is outrageous, of course, and for many there is a sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Still, terrible though it may be for those affected individuals, life goes on and most of the Russian Witnesses are not suffering. They are cautious, yes, but they have always been cautious. They know their country. They know their government. They know their police. They've had the potential for trouble for many years and have adjusted. For the vast majority, life goes on as usual: they work, they go to school, they marry, some have children, they visit family both Witnesses and non-Witnesses, they buy groceries, they play in the park.

They know they must be careful, but they have always known it. They note with approval the heightened world and national attention to their faith, even if some individuals endure more than their share of injustice. They strengthen their weak ones. A few have actually stated that the last two years have been good for them because it has strengthened their relationships with each other and with their God.

Russia is a huge country and not everyone plugs into the news. Many only vaguely know of the ban, many don't care about it, and some, as seen above, actively don't support it. Nor do they treat their JW acquaintances any differently because of it. This writer is told of one case where a school boss refused to dismiss a Witness employee, telling his superior that she is the best teacher he has, and he would hope for more like her. At a certain meeting location held in a private home, a Witness's unbelieving husbands says: "Everybody knows that you are not extremists." That's good to hear, for another aftermath of the Surgut episode is that one father of three, a firefighter, was thereafter fired from his job despite triggering no complaints over 20 years, joining many others of similar experience. "My three kids have been crying ever since the operatives barged down the door," he said. "Now I have no job, but I am certain my God will show me a way through."18

Says Sivulskiy: "law enforcement is making monstrous efforts to find clusters of Jehovah's Witnesses in their small gatherings"—large assemblies are out of the question.19 But Russia is a monstrous country, and efforts have been sporadic. Will they diminish, level off, or intensify? Witnesses recently reconsidered Revelation 2:10: "Do not be afraid of anything that you are going to suffer. Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days." "Some" does not mean "all," it was observed, as the Witnesses continue to show resolve amidst adversity. They don't like what is happening, but they always knew that it might.

***~~~***

Every religion has its apostates. The trend now is that their activism is in direct proportion to the degree of firmness exercised within their former faith so as to encourage members to stay on the path that they have chosen. Apostates of the world have even united to wage common war against faiths they perceive as having similar attributes. And nobody has apostates more voracious than those of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Some members of this avid JW-opposer community gloated over this new development. By far, however, the tactics of torture were condemned by that group. Make no mistake, such condemnation is noted and appreciated, however it is also substantially watered down by the recognition that their goals are the same: that Jehovah's Witnesses cease being Jehovah's Witnesses. It is only in methods that they differ.

Spiritually speaking, is it not a situation of good cop/bad cop? Both cops work toward the same outcome. The good cop is likely sincere that he does not want you to fall into the clutches of the bad cop, for he knows how bad that bad cop can be. But they both have the same goal. Physically, of course, Jehovah's Witnesses will far prefer the good cop. They are not superhuman and nobody wants to be mistreated. Spiritually, however, the good and the bad cop is the same. In fact, the good cop may even be worse. A thug is a thug is a thug. His malice is unmistakable and is on plain display. He doesn't masquerade as a friend whose only aim is to help you. He doesn't patronize you with a concocted "us versus them" scenario from which he is trying to free you.

The mutual goal of the cops is that Jehovah's Witnesses should no longer be Jehovah's Witnesses. The mutual goal is that talk about the hope of God's kingdom should stop, and the grapes already on the vine should wither, and to that end there is an effort to strangle the support organization. To be sure, their methods differ. It is as though one faction says to another, "You're going about it all wrong!" Yet the two factions are working in tandem, pressing for the same end.

Despite the saying that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," sometimes you can get pretty close. The majority can be fooled for the longest time. If it were not so, then the prophets of old would not have had the time that they did—a time which was revisited upon Christians of the first century, and a time which is being revisited on Christians in Russia today:

"What more shall I say?" the Bible writer asks. "I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions, put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle....Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword's point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented. The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth."20 Jehovah's Witnesses will put the experience off as long as they can, thank you very much, but they do not imagine themselves outsmarting the scripture, nor Jesus words that his followers would be hated.

Anton Chivchalov, the individual who covered court proceedings via tweet at five-minute intervals, per personal email to this writer, offers a gloomy assessment of how Russians view Jehovah's Witnesses, notwithstanding that there are some who see right through it. "In Russia there are many myths about Jehovah's Witnesses that 99% people believe," he writes. "They break up families, take people's property, kill their own children by refusing blood transfusion, American spies, want to overturn the government, etc. This is mostly the cause of the hate."

"Can it really be that high? what with Putin's recent statement of seeming support and at least a certain amount of favorable press? Are the human rights people, supportive journalists, and religious scholars all viewed as rabble-rousers?" I asked.

"Yes," Chivchalov answered. "They are too few. General public still hates Witnesses and approves of the repressions.21 And many people hate human rights movements too (thinking they work for the US)." Jehovah's people are not wildly popular anywhere, but it appears that in Russia they face the most unhinged opposition, against which they are standing strong. They have this writer's undying respect.

Timofei Zhukov, the Jehovah's Witness hauled down to the police station where fellow congregation members were tortured, had this to say to Kommersant: "I will tell you, not as a believer, but as a lawyer—these investigators and [F.S.B agents] esfesbeshniki simply do not know what they are doing. They did not understand anything—whom they are coming to search. what kind of people these are, what they are accused of. It seems that the authorities told them: "There are bad people live there and they are corrupting the state system. Go and do what you want with them." Where did they get the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses were bad people?

After the ordeal, Mr. Zhukov spoke with some of his former colleagues, who encouraged him to desist from "such nonsense." He told them that Witnesses were doing their work for them to a great extent. "You are investigating crime, but you have a problem with prevention. And I come to people and I say: 'It is bad to steal. It is bad to lie. It is bad to smoke.'" They are not bad people. They are good people. Jerod Kushner, the U.S. President's son-in-law, well prior to his political days, said of the Jehovah's Witnesses from whom he would buy property that they were persons of "high integrity" with whom "a handshake deal meant something." The journalists of Present Time comment to the director of the Sova Center Alexander Verkhovsky, after hearing his description: "Then they look like perfect citizens." "You see, they would be ideal citizens in some other country," is the latter's reply.22 They are not bad people. They are good people. So from where comes the perception that they are bad people?

It is a question that might well have been asked in the first century. The historian Tacitus writes the following about the persecution of Christians after Nero pinned the blame upon them for burning down Rome: "Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly, first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race." In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."23

Note how poorly the populace regarded Christians, an opinion fully shared by Tacitus. They were "hated for their enormities." They were readily thought to be persons "hating the human race." They were the deluded followers of a "pernicious superstition." The cruel wrath of Nero unleashed genuine compassion, however they were regarded "guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment." How could this have been perceived of Christ's followers only 35 years after his death?

Professor G. A. Wells, author of The Jesus Myth, writes that "the context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."24 Who could possibly have been their "informants?" They could not have been faithful members, for these would not "inform." They could not have been non-members, for these would not have anything to "inform" about. There is little left to choose from other than former disgruntled members—today (and then) we would call them "apostates." These came to wish their former faith ill. Perhaps some of them even posed as reformers of that faith, whistleblowers to whatever upset them—particularly if they had been ousted for conduct contrary to tenets of the faith.

The parallels are too blatant to ignore: if it was they in former times, how can it not be they in present times? How else can such a manifestly good people—in the first century and in the present—be so widely portrayed as bad? It is the "apostates" that present the picture that what seems good is really bad. It is the apostates that spark the conflagration, with unrelenting and incendiary charges. Any student of human nature knows that if you repeat a charge often enough, no matter how unlikely, it impresses itself on the general populace. Surely, that lesson is taught by advertising. The match doesn't catch fire everywhere, but in Russia it finds the kindling just right—a government hostile for 100 years to the land in which Witness headquarters is located, at the same time in close union with the dominant house church, hostile to even traditional Christian faiths. It doesn't happen everywhere. But the apostates ever light the match to encourage conflagration and sometime the planets align.

The religious enemies of the Jesus' day had to be careful: "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled...and they consulted together to arrest Jesus by treachery and put him to death. But they said: 'Not during the festival, that there may not be a riot among the people.'"25 They could have done it at the festival had the festival been held in Russia. There wouldn't have been a riot. There would have been widespread approval. They could have done it at the festival had the festival been held in Rome, too. There was widespread approval back then—such is the change in popular perception wrought by then and now apostates.

Kommersant asked Mr. Zhukov why the government persecutes his people, and he told them that he didn't really know—he could speculate, but he didn't really know.26 It was the same answer as President Putin himself offered just two months ago—he didn't really know why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Mr. Zhukov did note however, that early Christians, too, were called "sectarians" and that they, too, had been persecuted.

Even the Russian president can't figure it out! Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes that his "comments are hard to explain other than as an expression of genuine puzzlement over so much effort being expended to eliminate an evidently nonexistent threat."27 How can it not be the machinations of someone devious? What arguments does that international community of apostates/opposers to the faith make? They are settling the score, largely, in the cases of those who were disfellowshipped, spinning for an irreligious world the myth that Jehovah's Witnesses break up families, a point of view that was not accepted by the European Court of Human Rights. "It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative's freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict," it wrote.28 Many, even most today, will look askance at any scenario in which spiritual considerations can trigger a family divide—no matter from which side it arises, but they will not think it an evil that compares with global terrorism. Families have divided since the beginning of time, often for matters far more fleeting than religion. In the West, it is not uncommon for the elderly to be abandoned in nursing homes, never to be contacted again, for no greater reason that they have become inconvenient. It is not something in which governments typically wish to meddle.

No, it makes no sense, the mass portrayal of Jehovah's Witnesses as "bad people." If they refuse blood transfusions, surely it must be acknowledged somewhere along the line that progressive doctors have learned to accommodate their point of view, and in so doing, they have devised medicine that is both safer and more cost-effective.29 And, though it has played no part in Russia, a widespread war against child sexual abuse finds Jehovah's Witness "clergy" accused of covering up pedophilia. This is an unsavory thing, yet they come off almost as knights in shining armor when compared to religious denominations in general in which the leaders themselves have been the pedophile abusers.30 The "us versus them" scenario avidly advanced by apostates has caught on. Roman Silantyev of Moscow State Linguistic University complains that "this sect promotes external and inner extremism, inciting hatred to those who think and believe in a different way and bullying their own members," and even hopes that "recognizing this sect as extremist [will give] a possibility to dozens of our citizens to leave this concentration camp." He has been conditioned to misunderstand everything. Jehovah's Witnesses will continue to carry out the tenets of their religious beliefs "because they are operating out of faith rather than compulsion."31

Silantyev is "crazy," and yet his craziness has spread to influence those whom you would think would not be crazy to act in crazy ways. Writes Bandow: "Moscow denies that it is persecuting JWs for their beliefs. Rather, explained Vyacheslav Lebedev, chief justice of the Russian Supreme Court, 'the situation is actually being presented as if these people are being persecuted for their belief and religious activity. Yet the decision, which was made by the Supreme Court amongst others, is unrelated to religion. It is about a violation of the law, which religious organizations have no right to breach.' The law bans the faith, so punishing them for exercising their faith is merely punishing a violation of the law. This argument is perfectly Orwellian. Translating Lebedev: We declared your religious faith to be extremist, and you are not allowed to be extremists. So we are arresting you for being extremists. But feel free to practice your faith and have a good day."

This writer would be a wealthy individual indeed if he had a few dollars for every disgruntled ex-Witness who, upon failing to turn the JW ship in the direction of his choosing, went on scorch their earth with terminology from George Orwell's 1984. Witnesses practice "doublethink" and have "thought police" who sniff out ones committing "thoughtcrime," or even ones who fail to do "goodthink" (thought approved by the party). It is an intensification of a trend seen everywhere: failing to sway the other side and consequently declaring them "arrogant." Yet the first actual instance of 1984 comes, not from Jehovah's Witnesses, but from those who oppose them. If memory serves, was not Mr. O'Brien a pleasant and refined man on the surface, posing as Winston's friend, before revealing his true nature—and thus combining both good cop and bad cop into a single character?

***~~~***

*In fact, the Russian investigation into torture found, in a very short time, that there was nothing to it at all. Their finding was that the Witnesses had inflicted the burn marks upon themselves.32

Endnotes:

1. Alexander Chernykh, "We are the same people as you, but now we are called criminals and extremists," Kommersant, March 1, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://kommersant.ru/doc/3899000

2. Oliver Carroll, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Allege '21'st Century Inquistion' Amid Claims of Torture," Independent, February 21, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witness-crackdown-surgut-religion-discrimination-a8790761.html

3. Dmity Zayayov, "Source: Jehovah's Witnesses, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, are trying to ruin a criminal case with accusations against security officials," Ura.News, February 28, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://ura.news/news/1052374340

4. Lev Pomomarev, "Read and Watch," blog post for echo.msk.ru, February 26, 2019, assessed March 15, 2019, https://echo.msk.ru/blog/lev_ponomarev/2378667-echo/

5. "ECHR Imposes Interim Measures in Response to Torture Complaint From Surgut," jw-russia.org, February 27, 2019

6. Matthew Luxmoore, "'Time Becomes a Blur When You're Experiencing Great Pain': Russian Jehovah's Witness Alleges Police Torture," RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, February 22, 2019

7. Jason Lemon, "Jehovah's Witnesses Tortured With Electric Shocks and Suffocation in Russia, Church Says" Newsweek, February 23, 2019

8. "Russia Says it Will Probe Jehovah's Witnesses Torture Claim," apnews.com, February 23, 2019, accessed March 19, 2019, https://apnews.com/f43f396dac9c4159987493f92123a3f9

9. Also, see Crusade Against Christianity, (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1938) . Regarding this book, the 1965 Watchtower volume, December 1, 1965 issue, recalls on page 733: "Meantime in Germany, the Nazi fury rages and our brothers are exposed to frightful, inhuman persecution, which they withstand even at the cost of their lives. Documented material that reaches our office about such persecution is carefully preserved. Then Brother Rutherford approves publishing a book giving the evidence of the sufferings of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany. It appears under the title "Kreuzzug gegen das Christentum in the German language. It is also published in French and Polish." See some of diagrams at "The Evils of Nazism Exposed," Awake!, August 22, 1995, 11.

10. "Stories of Surgut "Jehovah's Witnesses" about torture in the TFR shocked the Ugra Ombudsman," Znak.com, February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, https://www.znak.com/2019-02-25/rasskazy_surgutskih_svideteley_iegovy_o_pytkah_v_skr_shokirovali_yugorskogo_ombudsmena

11. Alexander Verkhovsky, "The Fight Against Religious Extremism' all Widers, Need to be Narrowed Down," ng.ru, March 5, 2019

12. Michael Lipka, "U.S. Religious Groups and Their Political Leanings," Pew Research Center, February 23, 2016, accessed March 9, 2019

13. Andrew Sorokowski, "Witnesses to Persecution," Religious Information Service of Ukraine, May 5, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://risu.org.ua/article_print.php?id=66964&name=asorokowski_column&_lang=en&

14. Matthew 10:28

15. "They Will Also Ban God," klops.ru, Mrch 9, 2019, accessed March 11, 2019, https://news.rambler.ru/other/41842016

16. Emily P. Baran, Dissent on the Margins - How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 240

17. Anna Ryzhova, "Get Rid of Witnesses," Russian-reporter, February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/03/izbavitsya-ot-svidetelej/

18. Oliver Carroll, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Allege '21'st Century Inquistion' Amid Claims of Torture," Independent, February 21, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witness-crackdown-surgut-religion-discrimination-a8790761.html

19. Anna Ryzhova, "Get Rid of Witnesses," Russian-reporter, February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/03/izbavitsya-ot-svidetelej/

20. Hebrews 11:32-38

21. Chivchalov's comment does not entirely square with remarks I made above (based upon the visits of a personal acquaintance who has traveled in Russia) but I believe it is a case of no one person seeing the entire picture. Plainly the '99%' is hyperbole. The title says it all in this Moscow Times article: "Many Russians Don't Know the Jehovah's Witnesses, But They Still Want Them Banned" (themoscowtimes.com, July 13, 2017). Chivchalov himself said at the time that it depends upon how the subject is breached. If it is just a matter of shooing away uninvited callers, most Russians will say yes. But if it is a matter of sending those ones to jail, they will not go that far.

22. www.currenttime.tv/a/Jehovah-witnesses-Russia/29785245.html

23. Tacitus, Annals, 117 c.e.

24. G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982) 17

25. Mathew 26: 3-5

26. Alexander Chernykh, "We Are the Same"

27. Bandow, Doug, "Persecutors Pile on Jehovah's Witnesses, in Russia and Worldwide," nationalreview.com, March 1, 2019, assessed March 21, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/jehovahs-witnesses-persecuted-russia-worldwide

28. Willie Fautre, "Cults and Religious Freedom Around the World," address to the ICSA Annual International Conference, Montreal Canada, July 5-7, 2012, accessed March 21, 2019, https://www.academia.edu/5201173/Cult_Issues_and_Religous_Freedom

29. "An Act of Faith in the Operating Room," New Scientist, April 26, 2008

30. See the category https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/pedophiles (by this author)

31. Doug Bandow, "Persecutors Pile"

32. "The Examination Found No Signs of Torture in the Follower of "Jehovah's Witnesses," RIA Novosti, Moscow, March 21, 2019

back

# Chapter 50 – The Reproach of Child Sexual Abuse Falls on the Abuser

In Jehovah's Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The reality troubling to many is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by going beyond that, they might be bringing reproach on God's name and the Christian congregation.

That situation has been resolved. The May 2019 study edition of the Watchtower, reviewed via Q & A participation at all congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses—it will escape nobody—addressed it specifically:

" _But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God's name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God's name,"_ states the magazine _*_

The problem is solved. Can one bring reproach on God or the Christian congregation by reporting child sexual abuse to police? No. The abuser has already brought the reproach. There will be many who had long ago come to that conclusion, but now, unambiguously, in writing, for elders and members alike, here it is spelled out.

From the beginning, child sexual abuse controversies as related to Jehovah's Witnesses have been markedly different from those of nearly anywhere else. Incidents have mostly been within the ranks of the general membership, come to light because the Witness organization takes seriously passages as Romans 2:21-22, and investigates wrongdoing within its midst so as to "keep the congregation clean" in God's eyes, something that they think He demands:

" _Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching "Do not steal," do you steal? You, the one saying "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery?"_ (Romans 2:21-22)

Elsewhere, it is the leaders being looked at exclusively. Usually, no mechanism at all exists that the wrongdoing of religious _members_ comes to light. When the police nab John Q. Parishioner, it is as much news to the church minister as it is to the public. When was the last time you read of an abuser identified by religious affiliation unless it was a person in position of leadership?

As I write this, it now appears that the time has come for Southern Baptists to take their turn in the hot seat. Just eight days prior to this writing, a Houston Chronicle headline (February 10, 2019) announces: "Abuse of Faith - 20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms."

Who are the victims? Entirely those who were abused by leaders. The latter "were pastors. ministers. youth pastors. Sunday school teachers. deacons. And church volunteers." Were any of them just regular church members abused by other regular church members? No. There is no apparatus for that to ever come to light. The church preaches to them on Sunday but otherwise takes no interest in whether they actually _apply_ the faith or not. Doubtless they hope for the best, but it is no more than hope. Only a handful of faiths make any effort to ensure that members live up to what they profess.

It has always been apples vs oranges. That is what has long frustrated Jehovah's Witnesses. With most groups, if you want to find a bumper crop of pedophile abusers, you need look no farther than the leaders. With Jehovah's Witnesses, if you "hope" for the same catch, you must broaden your nets to include, not just leaders, but _everybody_. It is rare for a Witness leader to be an abuser—the rotter in San Diego being a notable exception. It is the rule elsewhere. The most recent Witness legal case, involving a lawsuit in Montana, involves abuse entirely within a member's step-family that did not reach the ears of the police, which the court decided was through leadership culpability.

To account for this marked difference in leadership personal conduct, this writer submits a reason. Those who lead among Jehovah's Witnesses are selected from rank and file members on the basis of moral qualifications highlighted in the Bible itself, for example, at Titus 1:6-9. In short, they are those who have distinguished themselves in _living_ their religion. Leaders of most denominations have distinguished themselves in _knowing_ their religion, having graduated from divinity schools of higher education. They _may_ live the religion—ideally, they do, but this is by no means assured—the emphasis is on academic knowledge.

Add to the mix that Jehovah's Witness elders preside without pay, and thus their true motive is revealed. Most religious leaders do it for pay, and thus present conflicting motives. One could even call them "mercenary ministers." Are they untainted in their desire to do the Lord's work or not? One hopes for the best but can never be sure.

Confounding irreligious humanists who would frame the child sexual abuse issue as one of religious institutions, two days after the Southern Baptist exposé, there appeared one of the United Nations. On February 12, the Sun (thesun.co.uk) reported that "thousands more 'predatory' sex abusers specifically target aid charity jobs to get close to vulnerable women and children."

"There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a UNICEF T-shirt nobody will ask what you're up to. You have the impunity to do whatever you want," Andrew Macleod, a former U.N. high official stated, adding that "there has been an 'endemic' cover-up of the sickening crimes for two decades, with those who attempt to blow the whistle just getting fired." Sharing his data with The Sun, Mr. Macleod "warned that the spiralling abuse scandal was on the same scale as the Catholic Church's."

All things must be put into perspective. Child sexual abuse is not an issue of any single religion, much less a tiny one where otherwise blameless leaders are perceived to have bungled reporting to police. It occurs in any setting in which people interact with one another. The legal system being what it is, one can prosecute child sexual abuse wherever it is encountered. The tort system being what it is, one prosecutes primarily where there are deep pockets. Arguably, the child sexual abuse issues of the Southern Baptists have taken so long coming to light because that denomination is decentralized in organization, presenting no deep pockets.

With the May 2019 Watchtower mentioned above, finally the reporting issues of Jehovah's Witnesses are fixed. Anyone who knows of abuse allegations may bring those to the attention of the police, and regardless of how "insular" or "no part of the world" Witnesses may be, they need not have the slightest misgivings about bringing reproach on the congregation. Both goals can proceed—that of societal justice and that of congregation justice—and neither interferes with the other.

Witness opposers were not at all gracious about this change, as their online participation revealed. Many continued to harp on the "two witness" rule of verifying abuse, for example. It becomes entirely irrelevant now. Were it a "40-witness" or a "half-witness" rule, it wouldn't matter. It is a standard that guides congregation judicial proceedings and has absolutely no bearing on secular justice.

"Well, it only took a landslide of legal threats around the world to force their hand on this," opposers grumbled, as they went on to claim credit. Why not give them the credit? Likely it is true. Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this. Once ones leave the faith, people within lose track of them. It is easy to say: "Out of sight, out of mind," and opponents did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves. Many have publicly stated that their opposition is only so that Jehovah's Witnesses will fix their "broken policies." Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop.

Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few journalists will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if their most determined opposers will settle for no less. There are some experiences that seem to preclude one's ever looking at life rationally again, and perhaps child sexual abuse is one of them. The only people not knowing that the situation is fixed are those who are convinced that Jehovah's Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.

With a major "reform" making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of Witness critics lose something huge to them, and the question some of them must face is a little like that of Tom Brady—what on earth is he ever going to do with himself after he retires? A few face withering away like old Roger Chillingsworth of the Scarlet Letter, who, when Arthur Dimmesdale finally "changed his policy," "knelt down beside him, with a blank, dull countenance, out of which life seemed to have departed. 'Thou hast escaped me!' he repeated more than once. 'Thou hast escaped me!'"

This will not be the journalists, of course. Nor will it be the legal people. Nor will it even be Witness critics in the main. But for some of the latter, former members who are vested in tearing down what they once embraced, it will not be an easy transition. They almost have no choice but to find some far-fetched scenario involving "rogue elders" that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that till the cows come home. There are always going to be 'What ifs.' At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children, and for community to handle occasional lapses, particularly since governmental solutions have hardly proven immune to abuse and miscarriages of justice themselves. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub.

All told, it would appear that even if the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses practiced child sexual abuse themselves, their "contribution" would be the tiniest part of an overall endemic. But since they do not—since their alleged sins are failing to report on what some members have done, the efforts of their apostates to paint them as a prime source of the degradation is but vengeful. They deliberately construct a damning and inaccurate picture of the faith that others in lands less enamored with human rights act upon.

*This point is not absolutely new, but it has been made more prominent by being included in the weekly Watchtower Study meeting. A similar point is made in the Appendix of 'Keep Yourselves in God's Love,' a 2008 book, which formed the basis of study in the Congregation Book Study format, and is presently one of two books studies by each person in the course of presenting themselves for baptism:

On page 223, the book reads: "In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another--such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might resort in a court case or a similar trial."

***~~~***

Q: "I do believe that Elders are using this 'excuse' [clergy-penitent privilege] to refuse to give evidence in court cases. Am I right in this thinking?"

No more so than a motorist uses the posted speed limit sign as an "excuse" to explain why he was driving that fast.

Clergy-penitent privilege, like doctor-patient and lawyer-client privilege, has long been part of law, on the supposition that these three relationships cannot work without the expectation of confidentiality. Elders of Jehovah's Witnesses, who for legal purposes correspond to clergy, use this law where appropriate, as do clergy, doctors, and lawyers everywhere. Ironically, barristers have managed to whittle down two of the three applications. The only one still standing is their own.

Sometimes I wonder why that should be. Strip them of it. Why should they be allowed to "enable" child sexual abuse? Make them report to police anything they learn from a client as soon as they learn it. Of course, they would scream to high heaven that they have noble reasons not to do this. I would agree with them. It makes their job (specifically, that of the defense attorney) all but impossible.

The point is that there are noble reasons for the other two relationships to exist, as well. Exercising them does not automatically make you a lover of child abuse. And I keep coming back to that November 20th, 2011 Democratic and Chronicle article that two thirds of all professionals who ARE mandated by law to report child sexual abuse fail to do it: "Studies across the country over the past two decades have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so," it said.

I know of no other scenario on earth where, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, consulting with one's attorney first would be spun as an evil, as it is when Witness bodies of elders speak with Watchtower Legal first. This is done, not to evade law, but to ensure compliance with it.

Unless there has been human error, JWs always act in compliance with law, but the outrage over CSA (and the disillusionment with religion) triggers reinterpretation of law to present it that they did not. In some instances, the plain equivalence of Witness elders to clergy has been denied, partly on the basis that they are "not paid." An irreligious world can relate to spiritual things only if they can be reduced to what is easily understood—money. The concept of serving out of love for God and humanity is completely beyond them and they are sometimes given to spin it as a matter of wanting power or control.

back

# Chapter 51 – Storm off the 'Atlantic'

" _Tom, you're on here quite often justifying or defending some pretty horrible doctrine. I get it, it's your faith and you're probably a decent guy IRL so I hope one day you'll find a religion that won't require you to perform logical contortions to rationalize your adherence to it."_ charged one nemesis

Actually, he doesn't get it. Of course I see the point his community makes. But he makes it so persistently, and to the exclusion of all else, that I say "Okay, those bases are covered" and I focus on the "all else." His is a community that plays and perseverates over the movie bloopers and in time imagines that the bloopers were the movie itself. I am struck by the exuberance displayed in re-embracing the life they once left. Most long-standing residents of that life will not share that exuberance, I think. It is as though they sing the Vioxx 'It's a Beautiful Morning!' song, forgetting that the FDA ultimately pulled the plug on that product because it kills people.

I have no problem with saying the Jehovah's Witnesses governing arrangement makes mistakes. But (we have many trees on our property) it is like when we contracted the tree trimmer and my wife kept pointing out more and more flaws. "Don't look so hard," the fellow told her. "You'll cut them all down." It is like that with people anywhere. Taken to extremes, one will dismantle any organization of any sort.

Everyone today describes the other side as delusional, and even hate-filled. It is just the way people are. I don't take it personally. We are spiritual enemies not because of child sexual abuse.. He has probably done Witnesses a favor in that, by triggering such May 2019 Watchtower statements (see chapter 50) as "the reproach falls upon the abuser," he effectively solves the problem. No—we are spiritual enemies because he has reversed course on the "everything else," trading in the diamonds for the turds. The child sexual abuse stuff was turds all along, but every group is pulling out its hair trying to cope with it, most less effectively than Witnesses—and at any rate, it is not the big picture. It is but a component of the big picture, overall a rather small component. If you focus on any tree of the forest long enough, it _becomes_ the forest. His points I see all the time. Many of my points I have never seen anyone make but me. Even the Watchtower organization itself, which has a "penchant for privacy," as one reporter put it, does not make them. I take for granted going into his community that I will lose. I just want to get another view on the table. Any group with a narrow focus becomes myopic over time. I have simply sought to counter that.

***~~~***

It was a solid base hit—even a double or a triple—with the publication of the Atlantic article, and opposers are crowing as they seldom crow. Other sources have picked up on it, such as the New York Daily News. As for me, I would just as soon not see such articles. Given that they exist, however, this one I liked. It helped me with the listings. I have many times interacted with some of these characters, mostly through Twitter, without knowing exactly who they were, where they came from, and what were the relationships between them. Now I know.

I find myself, much to my surprise and even shock, trading tweets with some of the most celebrated ex-Witness opponents on the planet (and seriously getting under their skin, in some cases). I don't hang out there. I don't engage overmuch—though I guess I can hardly say that I don't engage at all. After I learned that one reporter used an anti-Witness forum as his practically sole source, I went there to see if I could leave material that contrasts with what he otherwise finds monolithically. I post long articles there. Each one produces a flurry of protests and I briefly answer a few of them before disappearing. It is the same way on Twitter. Once in a while there is a mighty storm, but most of the time there is nothing at all, and I am chatting about the local weather and relaying cat and dog gifs like everyone else.

Crossing swords with these folks is not exactly what a Witness is expected to do. I approach it, like Paul approached the Corinthians, with fear and trembling. One misstep and your head is handed to you on a platter. I wouldn't dare do it if I didn't have 15 years of communicating in writing under my belt, not specializing in, but also not avoiding controversial topics. Some of these characters goad and taunt, I think in hopes of provoking an intemperate response. You'd better not give them one or you and what you represent are toast. To be sure, I have blundered a few times, but not beyond recovery. You must not respond in anger even if your blood boils. Neither be too sympathetic, because that is inevitably thrown back in your face as hypocritical. It is the mark of zealotry that you cannot agree with part of a position. You must endorse _all_ of it, otherwise you are said to _hate_ that position and even whoever makes it. The trick is for your blood not to boil—to regard these ones as opponents, but not enemies—even as some of them express the most virulent hostility to you. You answer them evenly and dispassionately.

"Yeah, well if you could see things though their eyes, you would be hostile, too!" someone will retort. Who can say? Never expound on what you do not know. Refrain from assigning motives even if they seem crystal clear to you. You may be wrong. Indeed, some of them describe themselves as whistleblowers. Why deny them the status? Having blown the whistle and effecting some change with it, they could return to the fold if they wanted to, even if disfellowshipped. What! Even some of pedophiles disfellowshipped have been allowed to return—for one cannot read hearts—and the elders forever more have to watch them, so these "whistleblowers" could not? All one must to is "repent" and "turn around" and "produce fruits that befit repentance"—manifested by doing and saying the right thing, giving no further evidence of causing trouble, and enduring months or even years of sitting through meetings and afterwards in silence. The "whistleblowers" are not going to "make trouble," because they already made it and it turned out to be just the ticket for solving a vexing problem. It could happen.

Of course, why it may not happen is that these ones might insist upon a heroes' welcome. They might insist upon thereafter being a "power broker" in the congregation. What they also would "repent" over would be "pushing ahead," and "speaking injuriously" of the congregation shepherds. But they could say that there were driven to distraction by what they had heard or experienced and will from this point on "behave" and it would all be smoothed over in time. Time heals most everything that wants to be healed.

The reasons they become "enemies" is not simply due to any whistleblowing, but because they quickly progress to the following, as illustrated by a remark from Nemo:

" _And there's Tom's approach in a nutshell: join a religion, even if it doesn't make sense, and just hope eventually your questions will be answered & everything will fall neatly into place. Never mind that people of other religions do the same, wasting their lives on nonsense."_

There it is. He threw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact, it _does_ make sense and is _not_ "nonsense." He once thought so, too. It is one of the few things in the world today that does make sense—that is the reason that Witnesses were attracted to Bible teachings in the first place. It is the reason that they stick to it despite trials and even blunders. Current blunders, if they be that, and some courts have said they are, present the framework that Jehovah's Witnesses often call 'the Truth' through its least flattering light. But it is still the same framework.

Professor David Bromley, author of _The Politics of Religious Apostasy_ , wrote that "individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure... Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group."

If a court case goes against you, you are duly chastened. But that does not mean that the entire picture has been seen, nor that another court might see things another way. It frequently happens—so many times that one could even stretch matters a little and say that it tacks in the light of ever-brightening approximations of truth, using verbiage that the Watchtower itself is fond of. What about the classic Supreme Court case that went against Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1940s, after which those of the faith were accosted and beaten up, so that even Eleanor Roosevelt had to speak up in their behalf—and then three years later, that same Court, with a few new members and a few others chastened at the brutality they had unleashed, reversed itself in the Gobitis decision regarding flag salute? Courts are the best humans can do, but they are not impartial. Everyone knows it. If they were impartial, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice could be done in an afternoon. Justices are swayed by interpretation of the law which is, in turn, swayed by pre-existing ideology. And no ideology is so white-hot as that which accompanies the subject of child sexual abuse, the plague of the planet.

The civil court is not so much a forum to establish truth but one to assign blame. The two goals overlap, but they are not the same. A conciliatory tone, for example, would seem to be a prerequisite in a forum seeking truth, but in an adversarial court forum, one must eschew it, for it will only result in getting beaten over the head with it by the other party. It is the nature of an adversarial legal system.

Yes, one is chastened upon losing a court case. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia did not need the Supreme Court declaring it extremist and the equivalent of ISIS (the only other officially designated extremist group) to know whether they were extremist or not. They did not need the Russian cops being told: 'There are bad people inside. Do with them what you like,' to determine whether they were bad people or not. It is the same when a Western civil court rules against them in a child abuse matter. They know the original intent of whatever record-keeping exists—to monitor some abhorrent conduct. They know that the intention was to protect their general faith community, so that molesters could not slip quietly out of one congregation and into another (as they could anywhere else). They know these things—even if they are misrepresented, sometimes deliberately, as attempts to protect pedophiles.

As Jehovah's Witnesses experienced Bible teachings come together to convincingly answer deep questions of life—questions answered nowhere else—to them it was like a jigsaw puzzle assembled. They thereafter look at the mountain vista from the box cover replicated before them and are not quickly swayed by opponents saying they put it together wrong—even if there are some frayed pieces. This is especially true if that opponent's own puzzle lies unassembled in the box on the upper shelf of his closet.

The above consideration will be the predominant factor for most Jehovah's Witnesses as they respond to what is here undeniably sordid. Child sexual abuse is the growth industry of the planet. Nearly all groups of size have suffered ship damage attempting to navigate those shoals. The common view now for any organization in which it has not been revealed is that it is only a matter of time. See how the United Nations, for example, is a pedophile haven—wear a blue helmet and nobody questions your authority or intention. (see chapter 50)

Nemo will not return to the fold, not because he has spotlighted something unsavory, but because he has responded to the JW ship running into the shoals by burning every part of it. Is it really so that the Witness world is the one that "makes no sense?" One glance at the news will reveal that it is his world that makes no sense. Is it really so that religion is a crutch of which we have no need? The premise of the question is wrong. It is indeed a crutch. The flawed premise is that we have no need of one. In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the most influential person on earth. Ten years later, in the throes of Alzheimer's, he didn't know who he was. Will anyone maintain that they need no crutch in the face of a pathetic reality as that?

I approach online "in fear and trembling," not just because these characters will rip you to shreds if you say something dumb, or because you are invariably battling a dozen of them at once, or because everything you say they think is dumb, but also because I do not know the reaction of my own people. Many of them, if not most, will think a Witness should not be doing what I am doing, and they will give me the fisheye.

Will I one day hear from the Witness organization: "What are you doing, TrueTom?! You're messing everything up!?" If so, I will recalibrate, for I do not think that I am above them. It is no more than acceding to the authority of the coach, the teacher, the boss, the mentor, the union steward—something that used to be the most unremarkable thing in the world, and is now portrayed as "manipulation." You can over-play the "victimization" card.

I am very glad—and did not plan it this way at all—that I wrote two timely books (four altogether) and put portions online so that, should I choose to respond to a tweet, I can also link to something relevant, effectively answering someone's 50 words with my 1000. Let me tell you that gets rid of trolls in a hurry.

It started out as such a small project. As our people experienced problems in Russia, I wrote a few posts about it in my blog. In time, it occurred to me to assemble them for the record. Emily Baran, a non-Witness, wrote the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia from their beginning up till 2007. Nobody has written an account of the present happenings, so I figured that I would do it.

All I had in mind was something on the order of a brochure. However, as opposition in Russia intensified, the precise reasons for opposition were never stated, leaving reporters to venture educated guesses as to just what Russia has against them. Putin himself doesn't seem to understand it, stating that he doesn't know why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted since "they are Christians, too." So, I decided to state them myself, along with how each might be defended in Parts 2 and 3 of what became a book—with references endnoted because that is what one does with history.

Thus, the book is not only a chronicle of history (Part 1). It is also a witness to persons who might not know much about the Jehovah's Witness faith. It is what I would say were I on a return visit with someone. It is _literally_ what I would say, in many cases. One personal friend said about my first ebook, _Tom Irregardless and Me_ , that he was having a hard time following along until a light went off in his head: "Oh. It's Tom. He writes like he talks," after which he had no trouble.

The defense portion of Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia grew and grew and is as large as the history portion. Moreover, everything is interwoven. When I put it out there, I thought my book-writing days were done. However, opposition that had taken a pause in the West kicked up again—I found myself responding to that in other posts—and presently I thought to package them into another book—this one.

The two were always meant to stand separately. I didn't think of Dear Mr. Putin while I was writing TrueTom. However, they will end up sharing a few common chapters, even though both have already been released—you can do that with ebooks—they will share common material because, in a spiritual sense, the situation in Russia and the situation in the West are the same. It is a good cop/ bad cop situation. The good cop may really not want you to fall into the hands of the bad cop, because he knows how bad that bad cop can be. But both cops have the same goal—that Jehovah's Witnesses cease being Jehovah's Witnesses and that kingdom message that they alone preach should stop.

Will my own people upbraid me? Their preference, sometimes stated strongly, is for Witnesses to not go cavorting about online, even if as self-proclaimed sheriffs determined to drain the internet swamp—perhaps especially so, because they always look foolish in so doing. The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. But for me, it will be sort of like what Brother Sivulsky in Russia, from a far more secure perch organizationally, but from a far more dangerous one physically, said. Just after the Russian ban went into effect, he was interviewed from afar by American media: "Are you putting yourself in danger just by speaking with me?" the reporter asked. His answer:

" _I don't know—to be frank, I have no fear. If something will happen—okay it will happen—what I can do? What I am telling only the truth—then why I should fear? If something happens, okay, we will face this problem. For me it is easier because my family was exiled to Siberia. My father spent seven years in prison. My mother spent four years in prison. And I also myself spent one and a half years in prison for military service objection. That's why I know what does it mean to be persecuted and I have no fear."_

I should be at least as courageous (even though my father did not spend seven years in prison), because my brothers in Russia are showing that quality in spades, and everyone else wonders if, when it comes to them, they will handle it as well. "You can't do it on your own strength," comes the scriptural answer. "Nor could they. They lean upon God for strength."

Upbraiding from my own folks may not happen. When a widow asked me to give the funeral talk of a close friend at the Kingdom Hall, I said that I would if it were allowed—there would be no problem at a funeral home but, neither being a current elder or servant, it might not be allowed at the Kingdom Hall. It was. I've been around for a while and people like me. The day I arrived to give it, however, one elder known for crossing 't's and dotting 'i's asked me if I was speaking from the supplied funeral talk outline that most speak from. I said I was not. He was not real pleased about that, but after the talk he reversed his position. Another elder present, a former Bethel member, told me afterwards that Bethel has no problem departing from customary practice whenever it can be improved upon. An older man can chance it more readily than a young man, for whom it would likely come off as immodest. You don't have to speak the healthful words verbatim. You have to speak the pattern of the healthful words, as Paul told Timothy.

***~~~***

The Old Testament tells some very strange tales and one of them is told at 2 Samuel. David, the Israelite king, under the pressure of facing an armed insurrection led by his own son, enters a town where loyalty is not assured. As it turns out, he and his men are received hospitably, but there is one man decidedly not hospitable.

The account reads: _"...a man...came out shouting curses as he approached. He was throwing stones at David and at all the servants of King David, as well as at all the people and the mighty men on his right and on his left. Shimei said as he cursed: "Get out, get out, you bloodguilty man! You worthless man!" "...Then Abishai the son of Zeruiahm said to the king: "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, please, and take off his head." But the king said: "...Let him curse me, for Jehovah has said to him, 'Curse David!'...Here my own son, who came from my own body, is seeking my life... Leave him alone so that he may curse me, for Jehovah told him to!...With that David and his men kept going down the road while Shimei was walking alongside the mountain abreast of him, shouting curses and throwing stones and a lot of dust."_ (16:5-19)

It's remarkable. The fellow curses him, throws stones at him, shouting he is bloodguilty and worthless. And David as much as says: "Well, maybe he has a point. I mean, if God is letting it happen, who am I to kick in his head?"

This obscure passage was included twice in recent meeting programming, though it was the focus of neither. I think that the Governing Body inserts it and applies it to itself. Do not think that they throw Bible verses at everyone else while they crest above it all themselves. No. They themselves are chastened by it. Even as the Witness who first dreamed up keeping track of pedophiles, whoever he may be, is probably on potato-peeling duty in the Bethel kitchen and will be till the day he dies—do not think that they are not reflecting upon how they got into this situation so easily spun negatively, even as David must have reflected upon how he got into the mess he was into, with stones bouncing off his helmet.

There is a verse in Ecclesiastes about being "righteous overmuch:" "Do not become righteous overmuch, nor show yourself excessively wise. Why should you cause desolation to yourself?" How might either course cause "desolation to yourself?" Might it not be that both courses are guaranteed to trigger backlash? "Wise" is okay, even good, for who wants to suffer stupid people? But if one shows oneself "excessively wise," it too readily slides into becoming "full of oneself." "Righteous" is okay, even good, for who wants to associate with lowlifes? But "righteous overmuch" too readily slides into becoming "full of oneself."

Jehovah's Witnesses did not consciously cover up child sexual abuse. They handle it internally with punishments as severe as excommunication—you can't execute them, after all—and it has always been written policy—from the moment it occurred to anyone to write about it—that any member is free to report to outside authorities any abuse of which he or she becomes aware. But could it be argued that they inadvertently covered up child sexual abuse? Here one must pause and consider.

Almost any setting in which human beings interact is being revealed these days as steeped in child sexual abuse. It is endemic to human society. If Jehovah's Witnesses had said: "Oh, man, we're having a struggle with this bunch, too!" all would have been well. Not with their most virulent detractors, of course, who principally zero in child sexual abuse within the ranks of their former faith. But everyone else would have understood. Most would even have given Witnesses high marks for attempting to _do_ something about the problem, creating an internal sex offender registry long before anyone else thought to do it. They would have understood that the program is not to protect child molesters but to mete out strong discipline and protect congregation members from them.

Unfortunately, those of the "righteous overmuch" mindset were loath to communicate the notion that child sexual abuse could ever occur among those guided by Bible standards. To that end, a culture emerged in which ones suffering it were loath to communicate it outside so as not to "sully God's name." It is hardly just Jehovah's Witnesses. The very reason that there is an expression "skeletons in the closet" is that people once succeeded in keeping them there. No organization has proved eager to reveal whatever child sexual abuse has been found in its midst. That is usually because whatever organization it is believes that overall it is doing much good and does not want to tarnish its image and thereby cripple itself. Yes, "they are commendably proactive over there," they know will be the reaction of some, but they fear "they are all a bunch of perverts over there!" will be the reaction of many others.

This understandable, if not laudable, misgiving is common to all. With Jehovah's Witnesses there is an added factor. They have attempted to do something about child sexual abuse within their midst, and thereby they become linked to it in the popular mind. Others have circled the wagons when it comes to child sexual abuse among their leaders, but the prospect of being shamed by having it uncovered among their membership does not worry them—there is no mechanism to uncover it; when a pedophile abuser is nabbed by the police, the church minister is as surprised as anyone.

Jehovah's Witnesses thereby have greater 'exposurability' than most; hence the temptation not to advertise it will also be greater than most. The ones "righteous overmuch" have caused tremendous trouble in this regard, it seems to this writer, in presiding over a culture in which persons will be reluctant to go to outside authorities even though they know they have every right to do it. Reputation of their faith becomes the overriding concern for them. It does not affect all Witnesses, of course, but it does affect a high proportion.

The underlying attitude is not easy to root out, for several reasons. First, it is a common circumstance with anyone having a goal to "do what is right," and certainly the doing of what is right is not to be discouraged. Secondly, it is not as though there are two factions among Jehovah's Witnesses, as though rivaling street gangs. Rather, as with people anywhere, there is a spectrum. Separating the wheat from the chaff is not so easy, for there is a mixture of both in everyone—which leads to the third consideration: an actual application of scripture by a group of persons will almost inevitably lead to the present situation, because Christians who are Bible-based are by definition "no part of the world" (John 17:14, for example: "I [Jesus in prayer to his Father] have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world.") The "insularity" that critics of Jehovah's Witnesses complain of is virtually mandated by the Bible they try to follow. That's what insulation is—a device to keep something away from what is harmful. The house insulation keeps the harmful cold out. The wire insulation keeps the harmful electricity in. In many cases, good things will not work if they cannot be insulated, and it is the same with Christianity true to the Book.

That said, looking at the overall situation of child sexual abuse, one would easily surmise that something must have gone wrong. Jesus' words to his followers may be true that they will "lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you," (Mathew 5:11) but in this case some will not be so sure about the "lyingly." Even if it is misrepresented, there must be something to it at root—and in this case it involves hurt children.

Legal accountability is argued over in court each day, and this writer does not comment on individual court cases. He did not comment on OJ or Michael Jackson or Paul Manifort or any of them. They involve persons that he doesn't know and 99% percent testimony that he doesn't hear. Cancel trials altogether and determine outcomes based upon Facebook likes if we are all expected to weigh in with such minimal input.

Everyone sues everybody these days over everything. Lawyers have assumed the place as premiere sponsors of television news. Only vaccine makers operate liability free. Legal chips will fall where they will—everyone understands that. But it is the "righteous overmuch" ones who somehow missed the fact that those outside of the congregation also cared about children. They were so insulated that they barely knew another world existed, and that is what most rankles. That is the soul-searching that must remain as a lesson. That is what David will most likely take away from the stones pounding his helmet. They look like deer caught in the headlights sometimes—aghast and dumbfounded at how what started with such good intentions some now portray as so deliberately evil.

The Witness website contains not a mention of the child sexual abuse court litigation, though there is abundant material on Russian persecution. Perhaps it is simply due to the same reason that one does not expect to find a citation from the Building Department on the restaurant menu. At any rate, it certainly is the case that once one starts addressing the critics one never stops, so the Witness Governing Body overall heeds the recommendation of Jesus expressed at Mathew 11 to not go there—they criticize you no matter what you do, so it is best to ignore it all, press on ahead, and maybe someone else will come to your defense as you trust that "wisdom [will be] proved righteous by its works."

In the final analysis, anyone visiting jw.org and perusing the abundant material geared to help children, teens, and family must work very hard to leave with the impression that here is an organization that abuses children. It is not that it cannot be done, but only if one has that notion locked-in previously, as (an old friend used to say, about Witness beliefs in general, and not this specifically) one who has a mind of concrete: "all mixed up and firmly set." The experience is not all that different from Russia declaring Jehovah's Witnesses extremists. Curiosity piqued, some visit the website to investigate, where they very quickly discover that they are not.

As the divide between what is Bible-based living widens from that of general society, the temptation to allow harmful aftereffects from "insulation" must be resisted, even as the insulation itself must continue. The inevitable divide of lifestyle itself is easily seen in scripture. "In my letter I wrote you to keep mixing in company with fornicators," the apostle writes at 1 Corinthians 5:9, "not meaning entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners and idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

Thus, it is seen that the direction to separate and stay separate is very strong. It also flies in the face of current philosophy that we are to "come together" and overlook such differences. Differences that are not ones of conduct Jehovah's Witnesses from their beginning came together on—those of race and nationality and social class—but differences in conduct the Word says is to be put into another category.

1 Peter 4:3 tells of the rising tensions that are inevitable with regard to two different ways of life: "For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries," says the writer, but not all will agree. Not everyone will consider what he has listed as so terrible. Some will even think that a little of all of them adds spice to life. Peter goes on to say: "Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you." So—they are puzzled about it at first but soon enough figure out what to do about it. "Water's fine in the low sink!" they cry. "Who are you to judge?"

Separation of Christians from the overall world is scripturally mandated. Any attempt to chastise the Witness organization for being that way is actually an attempt to chastise Christianity itself and the Book that it stems from. Still, one must take care not to inadvertently aggravate this situation by being "righteous overmuch."

Hopefully, somewhere along the line it will be seen that failure to report child sexual abuse is not to be equated to committing it. Court matters will resolve as they will, and matters will eventually settle. The most virulent of ex-Witness opposers were barely placated at all by the recent May 2019 study edition Watchtower that essentially solved the problem—the one that removed all doubt that reporting child sexual abuse to outside authorities brings no reproach upon the congregation. They will continue to rail about the "two-witness" rule, which now becomes irrelevant. Report the perpetrator to the cops and, if guilty, off to the hoosegow he goes. The reason they are not too quick in the Witness world to throw out the "two witness rule" for internal use emerges each time someone falsely imprisoned is exonerated and released from prison over new DNA evidence, after having served years convicted by less strenuous proof.

***~~~***

Meanwhile in Russia, where any connection of Jehovah's Witnesses to child sexual abuse is completely unheard of and the charge has never been made, we read:

On March 26, 2019, in the town of Yemanzhelinsk (Chelyabinsk Region) at about 7 a.m., there was a soft knock at the door of the apartment where the couple Pavel and Elena Popov live. When they opened the door, they saw about 10 people in masks with assault weapons and a sledge hammer for breaking the door out.

The Popovs were informed that a search would be conducted in their home due to the fact that they profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their computer, phones, tablets, family photos, books and international passports were confiscated. After the search, the pair was taken away for questioning in another city. According to law enforcement officers, whether they will be detained, "depends on how they will cooperate." Law enforcers across the country threaten believers to intimidate them into incriminating themselves or others by "confessing" that they are carrying out extremist activities.

This sort of story from Russia is becoming quite common. The game of good cop/ bad cop continues. Both cops want for the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses to stop. Both cops cloak their attacks in misrepresented threats posed by this decidedly peaceful group—Jehovah's Witnesses are among the very few peoples who swear off violence in all circumstnaces.

Recent meeting congregation material considered Hebrews 12:3: "Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such hostile speech from sinners against their own interests, so that you may not get tired and give up."

Why ought one "consider closely" the fact that Jesus "endured such hostile speech" from those who opposed him? "So that one may not get tired and give up."

Unless persons are completely insensitive, hostile speech will always paste one's ears back. Few today ever really hear about Jesus that he endured "hostile speech" as a matter of course. The reason is plain. If Jesus was the subject of hostile speech—and we all know that Jesus was good—then it follows that anyone venting on him is not-so-good. Since the bulk of people today are pretty much where they were then, to highlight the hostile talk he endured amounts to little more than condemnation of the present world. Let the chips fall where they may. Mark Twain was not so far off when he wrote that there has only been one Christian and "they caught and crucified him—early." It is easy to see why he puts it in such short supply. Try sincerely to follow the Christ and they come after you as well.

"Nevertheless, I have told you these things [again, these things about the hostile talk and opposition Christians would face] so that when the hour for them to happen arrives, you will remember that I told them to you," Jesus counsels disciples at John 16:4. The hour pretty much has arrived for Jehovah's Witnesses. They are enduring just that hostile talk, not only in Russia, but in the West. Ostensibly it is for different reasons. The most virulent hostile talk in the West has never been heard in Russia. The meeting material is increasingly geared to reinforcing faithfulness in the face of hostile talk—not only talk, but even action—and that is the enemies' motivation to deprive Witnesses of it.

When Jehovah's Witnesses are declared extremists in Russia and then, with that label affixed, can hardly be detained as one might arrest a speeder, but must be violently arrested with SWAT teams, then you know that the "bad cop" is alive and well. But the overall scenario—Russian and Western—is that of good cop/bad cop, for the goals of the good cop are the same as the bad cop: that Jehovah's Witnesses cease being Jehovah's Witnesses and that the kingdom message that they alone preach should cease. To that end differently tactics are used—in the West it is something so scurrilous as child sexual abuse—but the overall goal is the same.

A brief moment of levity was provided by Sergey Skrynnikov, who told the Russian court as part of his closing statement before sentencing: _"Let us take a look into the future. If for another ten years or so the government keeps putting Jehovah's Witnesses in prisons and correctional colonies, there will be about 200 of them in each penal facility. Imagine four congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in one prison! The prison administrators will be begging the Ministry of Justice to set Jehovah's Witnesses free. What do you imagine the majority of Witnesses would pray for? "Lord, don't soften the heart of the administrator; don't let him set me free. I have so many Bible students and sincere people to talk to in here."_

He sort of has a way with words, doesn't he? And math.

The End

back

# Other Works by the Author

Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia

In early 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses were invited just once to write Vladimir Putin. Within two months, up to 49 million letters had been sent. They weren't all to Putin – other officials were identified – but his was the most visible name. Trouble was not averted, yet Russia came to know of one nation on earth where every citizen cares deeply about every other.

On the surface, the letter-writing campaign was a failure. Opposition which would ultimately lead to a Supreme Court ban of the religious organization continued unabated. It has only intensified since. Two and only two groups of children have been recognized by authorities as at risk of "destructive psychological influence" - children of ISIS members and children of Jehovah's Witnesses. At present, the stripping of parental rights for members of the two groups is an unused tool, but it is a tool that has been approved for use.

Witnesses around the world felt and feel the heat on their Russian brothers and sisters as though it were on them. They longed to do something and here was something tangible they could do. By taking part in letter-writing, they fortified their Russian counterparts, who are now in the eye of the storm.

Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned in Russia from czarist times. Their survival and growth throughout is the stuff of Soviet legend. With the coming of 'Perestroika' and 'Glasnost,' they were granted religious freedom, but their time of freedom lasted only until 2017, and the present laws are more harsh than the Soviet's former. They are not the only minority faith to experience persecution in Russia. All of them do to some extent. Witnesses are in the vanguard – the first to have their organization outlawed, but many are shaking in their boots that they will be next.

Books about Jehovah's Witnesses authored by Jehovah's Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can an insider - they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people, who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established. Why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say?

What books Witnesses do author are usually of specialized concerns – standing firm during the Holocaust, clarification of civil rights through the High Courts, or even the topic of blood transfusion. What this writer attempts here he has seen no one do before.

Russian courts gave every appearance that the decision they reached had already been made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it which, of course, he did. The specific reasons for opposition were mostly absent from court proceedings. So I have supplied them, along with a defense for each one – in areas as diverse as 'cult' charges, shunning, donation practices, and the white-hot topic of pedophilia. The latter accusation played no role in Russian events, but it has elsewhere.

Non-Witnesses can write of the nuts and bolts of the movement to destroy the faith's infrastructure in Russia. But they will miss the subtleties of the motive for doing so. They will miss totally the atmosphere impelling every Witness in the world to write relevant Russian officials. They will miss what the rank and file felt as they followed the ups and downs of breaking events. This book is written to supply those missing pieces.

***~~~***

What Others Have Said About Tom Irregardless and Me:

To the outsider, Jehovah's Witnesses may seem deadly serious and preoccupied exclusively with their religion and the Society's own publications. Harley dispels this stereotype. The book is about real people and issues, although the author has changed the names of rank-and-file members to preserve name anonymity. Tom Irregardless is an elder who uses the spurious word "irregardless" liberally in his Bible talks. Other characters include John Wheatnweeds, who hinders members from their house-to-house ministry by spending inordinate amounts of time expounding the text of the day before they set out. Then there is posh brandy-sipping Bernard Strawman, who receives frequent visits from the publishers, but continues to raise facile objections to their faith. Vic Vomodog, an apostate, repeatedly seeks to hamper their work. Other chapters are about real JW celebrities such as Prince, who is the subject of an entire chapter.

Despite being light-hearted throughout, Tom Harley raises serious issues such as flag salutes, Darwinism and creationism, theocratic government, the paedophile scandals and the dangers of online grooming of minors, and the accuracy of the New World Translation of the Bible. Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.

My favourite part of the book was the parody of Mickey Spillane near the end, where Tom Harley envisages a house-to-house publisher acting like one of Spillane's macho characters. For those who don't know, Spillane was a novelist whose books were renowned for their sex and violence, until Spillane converted to become a Jehovah's Witness in 1951 – a decision that drastically changed his writing style. - I.T.

Thought provoking and very well written. Tom has a firm grasp on the written word and how to weave a narrative in a way that makes you think, laugh, and meditate on the big picture in a thoroughly entertaining fashion. Which is something we all need to do. – S.B.

Had me laughing out loud one minute and thinking deeply the next. Tom Harley has a great sense of humour and says a lot of things that many JW's think but don't often say. Despite writing a number of things that only witnesses would 'get', those who malign without knowing the facts would benefit by reading this light-hearted, yet serious, book.- G.G.

Tom Harley has a fantastic sense of humor, he says a lot of things that need to be said and a lot of things that only witnesses would truly appreciate. I haven't met any of the people in the book, yet I feel that I have. – R.K.

Chapter 1 - Prince

Chapter 2 – Sam Herd

Chapter 3 – Tom Irregardless

Chapter 4 – The Regional Convention

Chapter 5 – Enemies

Chapter 6 – Suffering

Chapter 7 – The God of Football

Chapter 8 – Plato

Chapter 9 – Pipe Dreams

Chapter 10 – Blogging

Chapter 11 – The Pew Report

Chapter 12 – John Wheatnweeds
Chapter 13 – Joel Engardio
Chapter 14 - Joe Paterno

Chapter 15 – Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor

Chapter 16 – The New World Translation

Chapter 17 – Me

Chapter 18 – Sam Herd

Afterword – Black Mack, Slow Joe and Davey the Kid

***~~~***

No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash:

If one has been an active Witness of Jehovah long enough, there are no end of people-watching stories to tell, and herein are many of them. Alternately zany and gentle—and deeply moving. Some themes timely. Others timeless. Essays, snippets, short stories and shorter stories clustered around central themes. A few delicious rants but not a single harangue. From screamingly funny to heart-wrenchingly poignant, and sometimes both at once. Like the weather of most towns – 'Don't like the narrative just now? Stick around; it will change.

Also containing an unanticipated tribute to dear old Dad, who dominates at end-of-book. It is as the apocryphal quote of Mark Twain realized: 'When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.'

Sure to delight the preacher of the good news and the non-preacher alike. Sure to delight the scientist that can pull off the self-deprecatory humor of the author. Scientist-philosopher-atheist-cheerleaders may not like it, though. Critiques within of today's evangelistic atheists, who are not the ones of yesteryear. Sigh—if they believe it, they believe it. But it is hardly something to celebrate. Is it not a little like the fellow who loses millions in the stock market? Undeterred, he celebrates the thousand dollars he still has left and says 'Well, they were only paper gains anyway.'

The book was originally written hastily—too hastily—as an on-ramp leading into my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me. Revised, it now stands on its own. In some ways it is the better of the two, as it breaks bolder ground and it is more personal. Released at the halftime show of the 2017 Super Bowl, by Lady Gaga, while you were up getting pretzels. We worked on it for months – her people and mine. She put everything on the line, catching the football at concert's end. Had she dropped it, her career would have been toast.

Introduction

Chapter 1 – Tales of the Holiday

Chapter 2 – Tales of the Supermarket

Chapter 3 – Tales of Music

Chapter 4 – Tales of Technology

Chapter 5 – Tales of Media

Chapter 6 – Tales of Medicine

Chapter 7 – Tales of Authors

Chapter 8 – Tales of Lowlifes

Chapter 9 – Tales of Science

Chapter 10 – More Tales of Science

Chapter 11 – Tales of Family
Chapter 12 – Tales from the Group Home
Chapter 13 – Tales of Loyalty

Chapter 14 – Tales of Love

Chapter 15 – Tales from the Funeral Home

Chapter 16 – Final Tales

***~~~***

# Contact the Author

Follow Tom Harley at Twitter: http://twitter.com/truetomharley

Friend him on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011735529077

Favorite him at Smashwords: https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Tomsheepandgoats

Keep an eye on the rascal at Tomsheepandgoats.com

Contact Tom at truetomharley@gmail.com

He'll try to get back but can't guarantee. He's not a debater. Sometimes people disagree. He can live with that.

back

