Posted by CPiolo [CPiolo] on November 12, 1999 at 16:53:22 {CkRQXOxAaIHljYPCrMsQfhe3reEu4M}:
Friend:
You said to AF:
"In the end if people have made an informed choice and their chosen community accommodates society at large then the community should be respected as well as the individuals making it… The problem is that I know not one single community on planet earth that does not have a (or some) tolerance or stipulation that is just as inexcusable. If I make the choice that I will tolerate no association that has any of what I deem inexcusable stipulations then I could tolerate no community on earth. I must leave planet earth or at least live on some mountain top away from any civilization."
While this is true, I don't believe it is a valid analogy. Most of us are born into certain communities -- family, local, national, racial, religious, etc. We have no choice about some of these associations, even if we do not actively participate in them. For example, all of us pertain to at least one race. We could not change that if we wanted. At the same time we are not required and do not have to actively participate in activities or community events within our particular racial community -- Black History Month, St. Patrick's Day, Hanukah, Día de la Raza and so forth -- or even associate with other members of the community.
On the other hand, we have the choice of pertaining to and participating in certain other communities. While this varies depending upon one's particular circumstances, for the world is a very large and very diverse place, most of us, at least as adults, have some choice in our particular associations. An example might be one's community of friends. Most of us choose our friends for whatever reasons, be it a common interest, common philosophy, interesting and provocative conversation or whatever. But the choice is ours. And I would agree that many times we tolerate, in our friends, things we would not tolerate in ourselves. This requires, of course, tolerance but also compassion, understanding and love.
Some communities accept newcomers, either actively and sometimes by aggression and force, or passively by welcoming or tolerating those who wish to join and participate. Others are xenophobic and do not allow anybody from the outside in. Some communities are large (society at large) and made up of smaller communities. Some of the smaller communities, while part of larger society, do not tolerate the larger (those living on mountain tops).
Jehovah's Witnesses are an unusual combination. All have the choice of participating or not. The choice is clearly not equal for all. Those born into or baptized with all or most family members and friends in the group would have an extremely more difficult time deciding not to participate or associate than someone newly recruited with few or no friends or family within the JW community. There is choice however.
JWs are a small community (when compared to society at large, comprising approximately one tenth of one percent of the world's population). They tolerate society at large only enough to survive within it, rejecting many or maybe even most of society at large's practices, and society at large would not tolerate many of their unique practices, finding some abhorrent, but still tolerates them as a group. Some JW's unique practices have even been outlawed in certain parts of society at large. JWs welcome newcomers, aggressively and, some would argue, forcefully seeking new members (i.e.: using coercive persuasion, a forceful and aggressive psychological tactic).
Here is where your analogy falls apart. JWs choose to participate in the JW community. To participate in the JW community it is required that you participate in all those practices that are uniquely theirs, even if you were to find them criminal, abhorrent, morally reprehensible and/or extremely offensive. Is this not part of their baptismal vows? Within the community there is no choice. You participate in most everything or you don't participate in the community at all.
In all societies, it is true, that there is something tolerated that most would find, at the very least, distasteful. But there are many communities where one's active participation in such distasteful or worse aspects is not required. You are allowed personal choice or have other options. For example, in many countries of the world, abortion is tolerated but found to be by many, at the very least, distasteful, ranging up to and including being considered murder. On the other hand one's active participation is not required. If you are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, you have other choices. The community does not say you have to have an abortion. Of course, each choice has its own and often times difficult ramifications. That's just life - making choices, some easy and some difficult.
On the other hand, JWs have no choice on many parts of their participation in the JW community. A JW in need of a blood transfusion must not accept one. There is no choice. There are no other options. Accept and die or don't be a part of the JW community. It's a black or white decision. There are no grays.
JWs are by no means unique in their requirement of absolute obedience. This can be found in all totalitarian groups. But again, there is often times a fundamental difference. Many have no choice as to their participation in these groups because they have been born in and/or live in a particular country with a totalitarian government from which there is no escape. JWs are different in that they choose their community and choose to participate in it. Their lives don't depend upon their choice of community.
CPiolo