Nicholaus: "I am not advocating an attack of this nature on the Watchtower. I am wondering when it might happen."
Aaahhh! Let's not be coy. I will come out and say that we should advocate it.
The Watchtower is no where near as threatening as Scientology or Westboro.
"That's a perception I don't share..."
I think that needs to be clarified. The Watchtower is not considered to be a threat by the outside world. Scientology and the Westburro Baptist Church have a high profile in the public eye. The Watchtower doesn't even register on the public's radar, except as a mild nuisance.
"Shunning of family members, sheltering of pedophiles, badmouthing every other religion but theirs, promoting ignorance through educational dissuasion, sacrificing lives to the blood idol, condemning people to live lonely and poor lives with the promise of impending Armageddon ..."
Out of all of those only the ones I highlighted should be mentioned, and repeatedly. In the public's eye the rest of those issues simply will not concern them. We have to think like the public in order to maximize our effect. We have to go for quality not quantity.
The first and foremost issue should be the pedophile issue. This will grab the public's attention even more than the Catholic Church's own situation because the Witnesses actually go to their doors.
The second, and last issue, should be the disfellowshipping of members. But I would also tie that in to the pedophile issue by focusing heavily on their disfellowshipping of teenage girls who exposed their molesters to the police (a powerful example linked below). This will really hit the public hard. Other disfellowshipping issues should be mentioned either as a brief introduction to that pedophile related disfellowshipping or appended as an afterthought. I would strongly suggest the following statement:
"Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate 1% of their members every year for a variety of reasons. Premarital sex; the victims of rape who do not scream; joining the YMCA and other offences."
Again, only a few disfellowshipping offenses should be mentioned and chosen for maximum impact. The public won't give a damn about disfellowshipping for adultery, smoking, etc.. Furthermore, a long list of offenses will simply be forgotten. What's more, in a debate or argument, the opposing side always focuses on the most trivial statement; this to the exclusion of stronger arguments presented againt him which he wants to avoid.
With these principles; putting ourselves in the public's mind, choosing only two or three, at the most, issues; and choosing the most dramatic ones; can we hope to latch on to the public's (easily distracted) imagination.
I would suggest the following video, which I've posted twice before, as the video that we should somehow manage to go viral. Then there's the possibility that it would show up on Anonymous' radar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZpScLCMqEk
Villabolo
