I don’t think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the term “apostate” – it just depends on what a person is an apostate to. It can be a very positive thing, as in the case of XJWs. Those folks who have “turned apostate” toward the WTS have done so for a reason – and a damn good one at that! The reason for those who become “apostates” from the WTS is valid as a conscious and logical decision, and as such their “apostasy” is not something for which they should either be ashamed of or judged upon.
But if, say, a person became an “apostate” toward something that they rightly shouldn’t be, such as an apostate toward the category of people who follow beneficial legal laws like not drinking and driving, not stealing, not committing hate crimes, etc. – if a person were to be an active apostate to that, which is beneficial and required under basic “natural law” of general human society, then of course that would be a bad thing. No one would be proud to claim that they were an “apostate” of the followers of the laws about not drinking and driving, fire safety laws, public sanitary laws for food preparation, etc. (This is just a hypothetical, philosophical example about actively abandoning a particular type of “former beliefs” and principles, specifically in relation to legal standards of law, order, and public safety.)
However, if, say, someone were to become an “apostate” toward something like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Hell’s Angels, the Mafia, the Bloods or Crips, al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc. – if someone were to be an apostate of that, then that would be a totally different kind of scenario in that what is being apostatized from as a “former belief” is something known to be negative, and so apostatizing from that would thus be a good thing, something to rightly be proud of. There would certainly be nothing wrong with the term “apostate” in that case, wouldn’t there?
Now, in the case of being an “apostate” to the JW religion, that is really a beneficial scenario, as the WTS is proven to be something with definite and significant negative aspects. Also, wasn’t “Judge” Rutherford and his corporate empire apostate from Russell? And, indeed, aren’t all of JWs apostates from beliefs which the GB had taught previously? And the current GB teachings will no doubt be considered apostate in relation to whatever future “new light” changes arise.
So, I belief that being considered an “apostate” is not something which should necessarily be taken in a negative or undesirable context. Although it may be rather “lazy” of the WTS to broadly use that label for everyone who simply decides to not accept their teachings and move on, that word “apostate” is something that denotes an intelligent an methodical decision – and the bearer of that term can rightly walk with their head held high.
