Is it really proper to say that the Witness organization is a “destructive religion (or cult)” or that they promote “self-destructive” behavior in its members? Most on this forum would say yes, emphatically so. I think the situation is actually more complex, however. I don’t believe it is fair to categorically state that they are destructive without defining what one actually means by such a label. Let’s peruse four different domains in which a group or individual can be thought of as “destructive”: Physically: This is probably what most people think of when they hear the word “destructive.” David Koresh and Jim Jones obviously led groups that would rightly be labeled as destructive in this way. The alcoholic or drug addict can also be thought of as engaging in self-destructive behavior that effects the physical domain (either to the abuser or to others). Three areas come to mind that might open the Witnesses up to accusations they are physically destructive: their stance on blood transfusions, poor handling of cases of abuse (sexual or physical), and possibly their politically neutral stance which might open individuals up to uncessary physical persecution (for example, Malawi).
In the first instance -- blood transfusions -- one must admit that present day technologies make death from lack of a blood transfusion a rarity. Also, there might be few instances -- especially years ago or in underdeveloped countries -- where refusing a blood transfusion has saved individual Witnesses from complications or even death (although, it must be admitted the reverse is also true). So, all in all, it might be said that this peculiar practice of refusing blood transfusions may be physically destructive. But is it really fair to then give the categorical label of destructiveness based on just this practice? Looking at the matter mathematically may help answer this question: in all probability the potential for individual Witnesses to be physically harmed from the Society’s stance on blood is very low.
The Society’s handling of abuse cases has been given great attention on this forum and in the popular press. Surely there was mismanagement on the part of the organization’s representatives both on the local level and from Brooklyn. But changes have been made and it is quite possible that further changes will be made from the top down, especially as further negative press comes to light. Just like blood transfusions I don’t think that one can judge the whole of the organization on just one aspect of it’s parts.
Because of their neutral stance the Society has promoted needlessly destructive behavior on the part of some of their members, such as those in Malawi in the 1970’s. But again, how many lives have been saved due to the Witnesses politically neutral stance (not going to war, engaging in civil conflict, etc)? I would wager that more have been saved than lost.
Therefore, I conclude that it is inaccurate to say that the Witness organization is destructive in the physical domain. Perhaps what most people mean by their use of the label “destructive”, however, is emotional, mental and social. I think a greater case can be made that they are indeed destructive in these spheres, although broad categorizations are still open to dispute.
For those who have been disfellowshipped, reproved, shunned and reaped the disciplinary whirlwind from the elders a strong case can be made that the organization’s practices have been subjectively harmful. On a milder scale than most, I too have experienced the psychological pain and social stigmatization that are the by-products of the Society’s draconian moralism. But I think one must realize that not all Witnesses experience this pain, nor do all who are involved in judicial matters resent the discipline they meet. Other than those who leave the organization permanently, the emotional pain and social inconveniences endured by those reproved or disfellowshipped are temporary and their memory usually fades. It is those who leave the fold on a long-term basis that are truly the ones who are hurt, and in this regard I do believe it is proper to call the organization “emotionally and socially destructive.” But notice I wrote “in this regard.” I think that it is impossible to categorically brand the entire organization destructive due to their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning of former members (not all of whom are shunned, I might add). Just as with the other examples mentioned earlier, most Witnesses will never experience this sort of pain on a long-term basis. Since the Society’s practices are not emotionally destructive for the majority of it’s members, I don’t think it is fair to label them destructive. On the other hand, since a sizeable minority do experience this pain I don’t think it is proper to label them harmless or benign either. The truth is somewhere between these poles.
You seem unable to deal with the idea there might be something actually bad about the JW religion. I know when you look at things from different angles, the injustices of the JW religion pale in comparison with other injustices in the world. But that doesn't mean its all good, does it?
So you don't like the idea of JWs being described as a cult or as destructive. There are many definitions of the word "cult" and by most if not all definitions of the word, the JW religion fits. I like how perfectly the JW religion fits the secular cult opposition definition of "cult" (from Wikipedia below).
---------------------------------------
Definition by secular cult opposition
Secular cult opponents define a "cult" as a religious or non-religious group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Here two definitions by Michael Langone and Louis Jolyon West, scholars who are widely recognized among the secular cult opposition:
- Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders. 1
- "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." 8
---------------------------------------
As far as "destructive" goes, I strongly feel the beliefs and practices of JWs are at least potentially destructive to its membership and at most can be devastating to some people with weak a psyche or other difficulties in life. They may not know it, or they may know it. Either way, lasting or temporary problems can be, and have been for many people, a result of belonging to this group.
For example, I may not bleed to death, but there's a fairly good chance I can ruin my opportunities for happiness and financial independence if I marry a man in this group. If my marriage was to end but I couldn't prove infidelity, I wouldn't be allowed to ever remarry. How many people does this little problem affect? And how can you say that isn't destructive to them?
Yes, it's all self inflicted. I agree with that. But persuasion and manipulation is a big part of that, and that's part of what makes it a cult.
The way I like to look at it is this... there are many cults. Some are even more ridiculous and revolting than JWs, some are less so. Either way, I hate cults. And my personal pet cult to hate is JWs, because it's personal.
