Posted by CPiolo [CPiolo] on November 17, 1999 at 15:41:42 {xx2d.1sWpQHljYPCrMsQfhe3reEu4M}:
Friend,
This is in reply to your last post.
Friend 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."
CPiolo comments and Friend responds and CPiolo responds to Friend:
CPiolo
: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….
On the other hand, we have the choice of pertaining to and participating in certain other communities.
Friend
:It's the latter of your examples that I was referring to mostly, though even your first example does illustrate the idea of tolerance to some degree if we willfully support such a community.
Friend, I don't understand how being born into a community can illustrate tolerance of that community, except maybe, a forced acceptance. Of course, if we willingly support such a community, it then falls into the second category.
CPiolo
: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.
Friend
:I would argue that accepting the group as they are is also accepting their practices. Otherwise the at large community would be intolerant of particular beliefs, seeking to ban them to some extent. In some cases this has happened and in some of those instances the at large community has prevailed. Still, as long as the at large community is tolerant of the group as they practice their beliefs then they are tolerating their practices.
Allowing a group to exist and tolerated their existence is not necessarily acceptance of their beliefs nor of their practices. Again, we can use abortion as an example. It is tolerated many places where large numbers of people, maybe even a majority, find the practice unacceptable.
Society at large is also largely unaware of many practices of the JW community and, if fully aware, they might not gain the tolerance they have now. If many were more aware, they might not also find the numbers willing to join their ranks that they find presently. As you stated, the at large community has prevailed in banning some of their practices. I may be mistaken but I think there is something now occurring in Colombia to ban and make criminal (murder) the refusal of life saving blood transfusions to children. I know it is illegal to do so in Argentina or at least I've been told so by a reliable Argentine friend. Didn't something along those lines also happen in Bulgaria?
CPiolo
: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.
Friend
:It is not true that participation in the JW community requires that each JW participate in every unique practice unique to JWs. Following are some unique practices that some JWs do not participate in: Door-to-door witnessing, giving "talks" at JW meetings, conducting Bible studies using Society literature, defending each and every JW teaching (or willingness thereto).
I never stated they were required to participate in every unique practice but rather, most. And no they don't have to defend every JW teaching, but don't they do have to accept every teaching. I believe I've seen this stated in their literature.
:Agreement with baptismal questions affirms your dedication to God and your decision to become a member of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. Nothing in those questions requires participation in every practice unique to JWs.
Not being a JW, I am certainly not as familiar as you with the baptismal vows, but it can be argued, and has been, that some of those questions have been added, not as an affirmation, but instead as a legal maneuver by the society to protect themselves from lawsuits. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention affirming your dedication to an organization as part of baptism and your dedication to God. This is significant for an organization that claims to adhere strictly to biblical teaching.
:You say there is no choice within the community of JWs. I suspect that you mean no choice amidst issues JWs accept and support as intolerable. For example, JWs do not consider adultery as a tolerable practice. So, if someone chooses to practice adultery then they are choosing to leave our association whether that is by falling away, disassociation or disfellowshipping. In such areas, by virtue of becoming a JW individuals have already made that choice. Your assertion that "within the community there is no choice" says that there is no choice because a choice was made.
I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been when I said there was no choice. Admittedly, I was too general in that statement. Of course, the choice was made to participate in the first place. But once part of the community, many (not all) of your choices are limited, often times at the often changing whims of the WT organization which has a documented history of doctrinal changes and flip-flops. So what you agreed to when deciding to participate may well be replaced with its opposite. The agreement has been changed without your consultation or participation. The new requirement may be something totally alien to your personal ethics and morals.
One is then left with a difficult decision or choice to make. (I do agree there is choice, just not much as to how one participates. We all have personal choice as to what we decide to participate in. As I stated in my first post, this choice is not equal for all - some having to sacrifice more for following their conscience.) Does one stay and participate in practices they believe to be wrong, immoral, intolerable, unethical or unjust, or do they leave and no longer participate, often times with severe personal consequences.
You have stated that you find some of JW practices lacking - the blood issue and shunning if I'm not mistaken. As long as you remain an active participant in the JW faith, you have no choice but to participate in those practices if you wish to remain within the community. Your refusal to participate in these practices risks your association with the community and would surely result in disfellowshipping if known.
What would be the consequences of you openly questioning, criticizing and fighting for change about these issues with your JW community. That too would result in disfellowshipping. That is why you are Friend here and not using the name you are known by in your JW community. Your have no choice otherwise while continuing and wanting to continue to participate in that community.
So, I probably should have said that by choosing to participate in the JW community, one chooses to severely limit their ability to choose and still remain part of the community.
:If you argue that communities (JW or not) cannot be intolerant toward some practices then you argue that communities cannot be intolerant of murder and other heinous crimes. Is it valid to charge that a sold[i]er unilaterally deciding he will no longer salute his superior officer has no choice?
I never argued that communities have no right to be intolerant toward some practices. I agree all communities do so. It is the goal of most so called "civilized" societies to do so in an attempt to protect the liberties (or freedom of choice) of its citizenry in as many ways as possible, not to limit them in an attempt at uniformity of thought and/or action. They try to accommodate and encourage diversity and not eliminate or put asunder distinct and often times conflicting points of view.
I don't condemn all JW practices. I believe they have the choice as to how to practice their faith. I believe Paul speaks of this in that if one finds a certain day more holy than another person or if one wishes to eat nothing but vegetables and another meat in pursuit of their faith, none should be condemned for practicing their faith as they see fit. What I do have a problem with is their intolerance and condemnation of those with differences of opinion and differences as to how they want to practice their faith, within and outside of their ranks. There is also the often times severe personal price that many have to make if they decide the WT way is not theirs.
CPiolo
: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.
Friend
:I have already indicated that as an area needing change, which is a flaw of virtually every community of people.
Yes, but you, as stated above, you have no choice to openly fight for this change while choosing to remain part of the community. You must be subversive in order to struggle for this needed change. Your community allows no other choice. Also, the flaws of most communities don't cause their member's death.
Cpiolo
: 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.
Friend
:I am not sure what you mean by absolute obedience. I suspect me earlier comments have already dealt with it.
I mean absolute obedience in that they must absolutely obey certain teachings and practices to remain associated with the JWs.
:Because individuals are born into certain groups is no excuse for supporting them if they are convinced that that community adequately offends the sensibilities of society at large. Were German citizens acting in support of Hitler without culpability?
As far as supporting a group simply because one is born into it, I think I said as much myself that it wasn't sufficient reason, but in communist East Germany and other communities one's very life may depend upon how one participates in it.
:The biggest problem in this area is where JWs, in my opinion, are not sufficiently accommodating of divergent views. They will listen to and tolerate divergent views unless those views are used to divide other JWs away from their aspirations. I don't see a problem with that concept, but there is a problem with the application of that concept in some/many cases where individuals are deemed to be causing divisions just by virtue of discussing their divergent views with fellow JWs. That application is taking a legitimate concept and applying it in far too strict a fashion. I am glad to say that not all JW officials (elders) are so sensitive and easily offended to the point of adversely judging one of their own. In some cases people are charge with serious offenses like apostasy when their known divergent ideas do not inhibit in any way whatsoever the aspirations of fellow JWs.
In other words you may say what you like as long as it is ineffectual, not heard and doesn't cause debate. So any view is O.K. as long it is not threatening to the JW status quo? Sounds like the same problem the Romans and Pharisees had with Jesus - it didn't matter what ideas he preached until people started paying attention. Until then, he was just a divergent carpenter with some wild ideas and didn't threaten the aspirations of those within their ranks.
In peace,
CPiolo