On the subject of coercion, do any of you remember when the Awake! published an article critical of enforced celibacy in the Catholic church? (February 22, 1999)
A Catholic objected to the idea of "Enforced Celibacy" and said:
"For some years I have been a reader of your magazines. I have to protest you one-sided reporting about the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the article “The Bible’s Viewpoint: Is Celibacy a Requirement for Christian Ministers?” There is no “enforced celibacy” in the Catholic Church! There is only a voluntarily chosen celibacy that is a prerequisite for a certain profession. Whoever claims that he was forced into celibacy is lying."
Note that this is the exact same defense almost word for word that Jehovah's Witnesses now use regarding blood. "There is no enforced refusal of blood" they say. "There is only a voluntary chosen refusal of blood that is a prerequisite for being one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
Now note the JW response to that objection:
"We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase enforced celibacy and the notion that people are forced into celibacy. If, for example, a corporation establishes a dress code and hires only those who agree to adhere to it but fires those who violate it, then it could be said that the corporation has an “enforced” dress code. In a similar sense, it is fair to say that there is an “enforced celibacy” in the Catholic priesthood."
Indeed..... What happens if we substitute "Celibacy" with "Refusal of blood?"
"We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase enforced refusal of blood and the notion that people are forced into refusing blood. If, for example, a corporation establishes a dress code and hires only those who agree to adhere to it but fires those who violate it, then it could be said that the corporation has an “enforced” dress code. In a similar sense, it is fair to say that there is an “enforced refusal of blood” in the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses."