I have been thinking over the posts between Amazing and Amnesian for several days. From what I see, the issue at the heart of this is getting muddied by the battle mentality--Amazing vs. Amnesian, elders vs. rank and file, men vs. women, etc.
After reading the exchanges, my questions are: What harm did I cause while I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Whom did I influence? Whose lives were affected by the way I chose to live my life? How liable am I for the harm caused to others?
I haven't commented much until now because the questions are difficult ones. I also balk at considering the questions of blame and liability because I consider them rather futile. I would rather work towards cleaning up the damage than on pinpointing blame. At the same time, I know that two of the twelve steps for alcoholics are:
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
While mulling these questions, I tried to mentally step away from the example of the Watchtower Society and consider corporations in general. When corporations cause damage, who is responsible, liable? If I cause harm to others by my job, who is liable? Me? My supervisor? The company?
This is not easy to decide. Sometimes corporations are prosecuted; sometimes individuals within companies are prosecuted; sometimes it is a combination of both. It all depends on the circumstances.
Also at the heart of this issue is what one believes about the organization and one's intent in staying in the organization. Buddhist philosophy has been helpful to me in weighing the nuances of knowledge, perception, doubt, intention, carefulness, and awareness. Buddhism also has a teaching about "right livelihood."
Here is a link to an article called "Vinaya Principles for Assigning Degrees of Culpability" by Peter Harvey:
http://jbe.la.psu.edu/6/harvey991.htm
None of us can look into the heart of another and know their intent. Neither can we know exactly where any other person is along the spectrum of belief/disbelief in Jehovah's Witness doctrine. Without this knowledge, I am loath to cast stones.
Whatever standards I use to judge elders, I feel I must first use to judge myself. If a "good elder" perpetuates the myth that the WTS is God's organization, I think a "good publisher" does the same. What varies is the degree of influence each may have.
When it comes to doling out blame for remaining one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I largely blame myself and my desire for simple answers, security, a sense of belonging, and immortality in paradise.
This is from the French report of December 22, 1995, "Cults in France":
Plusieurs interlocuteurs de la Commission ont mis en évidence ce paradoxe : l'originalité des groupes sectaires réside dans le fait que, notamment lors du processus aboutissant à l'adhésion, la victime est acteur. Un certain parallélisme peut être établi avec la démarche des toxicomanes : " Nous avons des controverses avec les parents de toxicomanes. Ceux-ci pensent - d'une certaine façon à juste titre - que sans l'horrible dealer leur enfant serait un ange. Ils oublient les neuf dixièmes du trajet qu'a parcouru le malheureux enfant, responsable ou non, mais de son fait, pour se rendre dans les bras dudit dealer. Il ne faut pas exclure la part volontaire de l'adepte, qui n'est pas un imbécile que l'on manipulerait - c'est vous et moi --, mais (...) qui s'est rendu délibérément." Dans cette optique, les recruteurs des sectes ont pu être présentés comme des "dealers de transcendance." A cet égard, une image utilisée par une personne entendue par la Commission paraît particulièrement apte à faire comprendre le caractère conscient de la démarche du futur adepte: "les sectes ne sont pas un filet qui s'abat sur des gens, mais une nasse dans laquelle ils se rendent."Several speakers to the Commission highlighted this paradox: what is odd about cultish groups is that, particularly during the process leading to adhesion, the victim is an actor [actor in the literal sense of one who acts, one who does, is not a passive victim]. Certain comparisons can be made with the stages of drug addicts: "We have debates with the parents of drug addicts. The parents think--in a certain way rightly--that without the horrible dealer their child would be an angel. They forget the nine tenths of the way that the unhappy child traversed, responsible or not, but of his own will, to go into the arms of the aforesaid dealer. One should not forget the voluntary share of the follower, who is not an imbecile that one would manipulate--it is you and me--, but (...) who went deliberately." Accordingly, the recruiters of the sects could be introduced as "dealers of transcendence." In this respect, an image used by a person heard by the Commission appears particularly apt to illustrate the conscious character of the step of the future follower: "Cults are not a net that falls down on people, but a lobster trap into which they swim."
Ginny
