Write letters to citizens of Warwick New York exposing the Watchtower org.

by koolaid-man 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Hi there.

    Rick, I appreciate your earnestness in this manner. I am considering writing my own letter. I thought I would offer some suggestions on what would be effective in a letter and what wouldn't.

    Every religion or cult has their peculiarities. If I were to use disfellowshipping, I would not use the vague "breaks up families". This is true, we all know this. But to add power to it, I would combine it with the disgraceful practice of allowing kids as young as 8 years old getting baptized and making these young people accountable for thier entire life to a decision they were not capable to make.

    Families frequently break up in JW land because a 13 year old gets baptized as a lifelong committment. Later, they learn the history of JW's never presented to them, some simply change their minds, others are gay, whatever. The fact is, they make a decision that is binding and lifelong as a kid, not as an adult. When they change their mind, the GB still holds them to the baptism they made as a minor, requiring their shunning. This is patently unfair. They discourage young marriage whenever they can, but allow the lifelong committment of JW baptism by a minor. It is inconsistent and wrong.

    Obviously, the other main issue with Jehovah's Witnesses is the pedophile problem. Include links to Dateline and the Brian Williams report from NBC nightly news..... Don't make it sound like all congregations have pedophiles. That isn't true. Highlight the fact that any pedophile that is discovered is not reported to the police unless mandated by law, and that the bylaws of the Governing Body frequently allow pedophiles to remain hidden and unknown. Pedophiles still are allowed to participate in the door to door preaching, allowing them to potentially case out a house, regardless of whether they are with an elder or not. By all means, use the resources from Barbara Anderson and what is on freeminds.org Make sure your statements are factual, not sensational. If you have personal experiences or know of any, these would be most powerful.

    Lastly, here is the biggest mistake I see in most letters written by former JW's against the borg. The GB uses this to their advantage. Many letters get too personal, and talk of personal gripes against the people inside. (aka: personality differences.) I am not saying these aren't legit. What I am saying is that to an outsider, this is totally irrelevant. In addition, the GB uses the argument that "apostates" are nothing more then disgruntled former associates who left for flimsy reasons. If you were to use how you personally were treated (i.e. unkind, gossiped about) you turn it into a high school drama argument, and you won't win.

    So, don't make it about you. Don't make it about them, the flock. Make it about the leadership, the Governing Body. Jehovah's Witnesses are conveniently named as such, and the Governing Body (GB) hides behind them. (i.e. The GB is nothing more then JW's...) So make them accountable. In your letters, I would ALWAYS refer to the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Governing Body as those culpable and responsible. Don't refer to them simply as "Jehovahs Witnesses". Because the GB uses their flock and brags about Jehovah's Witnesses all the time. I would even be concilliatory toward the flock as a whole. No need to highlight that they are "misled". Again, outsiders don't care about the UN controversy, 607 BCE and 1914, and other peculiar teachings of JW's.

    The key is to keep it focused on the most harmful aspects about people, not teachings. So bring up the pedophile issues, shunning and disfellowshipping esp as it relates to children (so you put a face on it). I would mention blood transfusions, but in most cases, I wouldn't make it the focus of my letter. You can't compare JW's to other faith fealing cults. Whole blood is the only thing JW's reject, and now they say they take blood fra

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Drew Sagan

    I posted before reading you post. I agree with much of what you say about Rick's website.

    Rick, I don't want you to take that personally. I think that you have a platform to use. While I respect your personal views, I do think at times it comes across as sensational.

    It is my opinion that a more reasonable approach would work better. I can't disagree with Drew about the blood and music. If I were a JW, or even an outsider, I would look at your website and go, "I won't find a balanced viewpoint on JW's here. This is a highly prejudicied website."

    I am not saying that you don't have your reasons, and that your feelings about JW's aren't legit. But that could work against you if you use your feelings on the matter as the biggest criteria as opposed to a more thought out, reasonable approach.

    Just my two cents. Nothing personal meant. I appreciate your efforts to shine a critical light on JW's, and hope that it gets the results you and all of us desire.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Jeff,

    You may find my (completely ignored) post regarding a mormon critique of the "counter-cult culture" of interest.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/185012/1/Anti-Mormonism-and-the-Newfangled-Countercult-Culture

    While heavily biased and absurd extrememly abusrd in its own way (see my post for more), the article raises a number of interesting points that only a group being criticized by countercultists would care to address. The idea of analyzing the "countercult culture" is interesting in and of itself and is probably worth exploring on its own merit.

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Hi there. My other post got ripped and it won't allow me to edit, so here are my finishing comments...

    The key is to keep it focused on the most harmful aspects about people, not teachings. So bring up the pedophile issues, shunning and disfellowshipping esp as it relates to children (so you put a face on it). I would mention blood transfusions, but in most cases, I wouldn't make it the focus of my letter. You can't compare JW's to other faith fealing cults. Whole blood is the only thing JW's reject, and now they say they take blood fractions. The GB has made powerful counter arguments to defend their blood teaching. In my view, most outsiders already know about JW's and blood, and if you want to make a difference to Warwick, I would concentrate on other issues.

    Good luck to all!

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother
    what the Watchtower Society really is, a dangerous and destructive cult!

    Around here, any planning application has to stand or fall on the building that is planned and environmental impact . Any suggestion that the authorities were swayed by their opinion of the religion, would be great grounds for a successful planning appeal and legal challenge by Brooklyn.

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Blues Brother said

    Any suggestion that the authorities were swayed by their opinion of the religion, would be great grounds for a successful planning appeal and legal challenge by Brooklyn.

    Drew Sagan said

    On a more practical level, a number of issues could be made regarding how the city will effecitvly manage the increased level of public services needed to facilitate a new Watchtower campus. However, many states provide 10-15 year (or more!) tax abatements for redeveloped brownfields. This being the case, the fact that the Watchtower is non-profit changes very little.
    This is property development. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I agree with both of these. I was thinking in the spirit of Rick's initial post that this is an opportunity to expose JW's. I still believe it is, and I am sure that Warwick politicians would benefit from reasonable letters coming in.

    Having said that, Warwick is not allowed to discriminate against a religion on religious grounds. If they were to use material regarding the beliefs, practices and dogma about JW's as the main reason to deny them the ability to build, that would give the Governing Body legal ammo against Warwick for 1st Ammendment discrimination.

    Regardless of whether we former JW's like this or not, the fact is that JW's are a registered and recognized religion of long standing in the United States. Warwick cannot use JW dogma against them. They legally can only use zoning and development laws, plus a consideration of the impact of JW tax exempt status in regards to how they will allow JW's to develop the property, nothing more.

    Thanks for pointing this out. I missed that fact.

  • lrkr
    lrkr

    If you really want to fight this- dont fight as a former member- fight as a concerned taxpayer. There is a taxpayer revolt on in much of the country and rural NY is no different. Some longstanding incumbents were turned out in November. Most people dont care about religion or truth or politics- they care about money. The only winning fight against this will be to point out the huge impact on roads, land, etc with NO tax benefit. Another large parcel of land permanently off the tax rolls. (Then they will just find another location, though- I suspect that Warwick is the OTHER location- Ramapo really has no desire for another large non-profit sucking up resources and paying no taxes.)

  • DaCheech
    DaCheech

    what good is it to the city?

    the city is not gonna collect a dime in taxes?

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    What good is it to the city? The city is not gonna collect a dime in taxes?

    The city will have a (probably contaminated) vacaent property cleaned and redeveloped. Visitors to this facility (as well as the individual JWs) have the potential to contribute to the local economy (hotel rooms, resturants, and other local "domestic" businesses). I know that many JWs at Brooklyn still spend money in the local economy, albeit not a large amount. This could actually have greater impact on a small town like Warwick.

    Lots of towns across the country provide incentives for non-profits to enter an area. The difference here is that very little jobs will become available to the local economy. But for a town that is out of options, they will take what they can get.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan
    Around here, any planning application has to stand or fall on the building that is planned and environmental impact . Any suggestion that the authorities were swayed by their opinion of the religion, would be great grounds for a successful planning appeal and legal challenge by Brooklyn.

    Correct

    To be specific, there is a United States federal law that provides some protections for religious organizations attempting to develop property. Titled the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" (RLUIPA), the statute seemingly limits the ability of municipal governments to enact zoning laws that restrict religious land development (something that currently is being challenged I believe). Any zoning ordinance regulating religious buildlings that is reviewed by a court will trigger "strict scrutiny" (most rigorous form of judicial review in the US) whether it is actually discrimintory or not.

    This law has plenty of flaws, but it goes to great lenghts to protect religious land use. If anybody in Warwick's government made a decision based upon the claimed "dangerous practices of the Watchtower society" as described by ex-jws on the internet they would be up shit creek without a paddle.

    ~ Drew, of the "Cogita ante salis" class

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit