The Quiet One's answer (all five parts)...
Firstly, I'm not against free speech at all, you have every right to express your views. But regarding this claim that you are not misleading anyone... CEDARS said: "with a conscious effort not to say anything that is untrue or misleading in any way." -- Perhaps you tried not to be misleading. But even with all of your caveats, you failed to explain a vital detail, which is.. the difference between the public and study editions of the WT, and who they are written for. If you are truly not trying to be misleading then you would explain, for the benefit of readers that aren't active jw's, that the Study edition is for baptised Jw's (or students who will be taught the Bible-based policies in the Bible Teach book) who know and choose to obey the Biblical command of Jesus to not divorce for anything except adultery and that THEY would ALREADY know the WT stance on marital seperation.. They would know that it is the persons choice, with no punishment, to leave or not to leave their partner; where abuse, endangerment or wilful nonsupport are involved. Jw's who read this WT article WOULD KNOW that domestic abuse is not condoned by the WT, with no need for a footnote disclaimer (which would obviously have been entirely necessary for a magazine article aimed at the public). But you don't explain this at all... You instead let some people believe that this experience was meant for people who didn't already know that domestic violence is not condoned by the WT. The ones who already know that it isn't condoned, the people who the article was intended for, do not need to be reminded with a footnote.
CEDARS BLOG said: "Could the Watch Tower Society's out-dated approach to domestic violence be putting thousands of women in harm's way?" -- This is misleading. The WTS doesn't tell anyone that they should stay with a violent partner, the victim can seperate from them, taking themselves out of harms way.. and the command to not divorce for domestic violence (or any grounds other than adultery) comes from the Bible, even if you decide to rewrite Jesus's words... Therefore the 'approach', as in not divorcing for domestic violence (but seperation is allowed), is actually the Bible's approach, not the WT's. This opening statement is sensationalism to me, and immediately reveals your bias to a discerning reader, as you make it seem like it is the Societys approach for women to stay living with the offender, which combined with a picture of a distressed woman, is obviously going to engage emotions first, rather than clear and logical thinking right from the start.. Baptised jw's know the answer to your question, and you know full well that this is the STUDY edition, not written for the general public.
CEDARS BLOG said: "This does not mean, however, that quoting such an experience in the absence of any condemnation of domestic violence was wise or appropriate" -- This was quoted in the Study edition, so such a condemnation was unnecessary, as baptised jw's know that we do NOT condone domestic violence. Only the PUBLIC edition would need such a disclaimer, as jw's know this.. According to your logic, a hypothetical experience printed in the WT Study edition where: A jw woman was denied necessary money for food and clothing by her unbelieving husband on the day before she had her Bible study. Having been told about this, the sister studying with the woman encouraged her to pray to Jehovah about the matter and read her 'the long-suffering scripture' (or any other to do with enduring), and pointed out that her husband was not a Christian and so she could not expect him to apply him to 'provide for those who are his own'. She decided to stay with her husband and eventually he came into the Truth... would need a footnote stating that Jw's do not condone wilful nonsupport, or that she could have left him for wilful nonsupport (and that would involve assuming that he continued to deny her money, just as you assumed with the article that the physical abuse continued throughout all those years) ? No it wouldn't.. Because all Jw's would know this about wilful nonsupport, it's in the Bible Teach book (which every Jw has studied at least once)!... As is seperation for abuse.
CEDARS BLOG said: "In no way does it command any wife who faces abuse from her non-believing husband to remain with him regardless, and endure a violent relationship in the blind hope that he will eventually embrace her faith and stop abusing her." -- Seeing as how you are claiming that this is how the WT applies this scripture, the ambiguity of your wording, 'remain with him', is misleading because it makes it sound as though it is the WT's stance that the wife must physically stay with him. It would be more honest and open of you to use the words 'remain scripturally married to him', (as even a legal divorce is allowed, as you admit), and also to not use the term 'command' as you know perfectly well that the WTS does not COMMAND anyone to remain living with an abusive partner. The context makes it clear that you are contrasting the scripture with WTS policy, and yet your wording would mislead people as to what the WT policy on domestic abuse is. A jw woman/man CAN leave a partner who is beating them, endangering them or wilfully not providing for them, as any jw knows from the Bible Teach book. They would not even have a Judicial, let alone be disfellowshiped. The decision to stay/not stay with the abuser is theirs alone, it's not anyones right to tell them what they have to do in their situation. The scripture you refer to is applied in WT's to show that some have treated their wives badly, but have changed when they became a Jw. It's offering a hope that change can happen, the only other alternative scripturally is to live life as a seperated married person, or commit the sin of adultery. You can view that offer of hope as the WT wanting women to stay with men who beat them if you want to..
CEDARS BLOG said :"In fact, the Governing Body has used the pages of its literature to try and dissuade victims of domestic violence from availing themselves of, for example, the emergency services" -- Here you claim as a fact (that the GB has deliberately dissuaded victims from contacting the emergency services) something that you admitted earlier in your article was only (what you perceived as) an IMPLICATION in the 1979 Awake article. Is that honest?
