Hello Ewtie :o)
You write: >>No one has to be a Witness, or have you overlooked that?
Well there are many Jehovah's Witnesses who have been born into Jehovah's Witness families Ewtie and have, therefore, been brought up by their parents with the expectation that they too will join the organisation. This is much the same if you have been brought up by Jewish parents, you will be expected to follow Judaism; if brought up by Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists, you will be exposed to the teachings of that *faith* by your family and there is a strong likelihood that you will follow the same path as your parents before you unless you are exposed to the beliefs of different faiths, move to a country which practises a different religion, go to a different faith school, befriend or marry someone of a different faith, make a conscious decision to follow a different path etc etc.
In those religions where the *initiation* occurs whilst the candidate is still a minor it could be argued that there may have been strong familial/congregational/peer pressures for a commitment to be made. I think that in most religions there will be those who felt that they *had* to become a member for various reasons. Once a commitment has been made, if that commitment is later regretted and the candidate wishes to revoke *membership* of that particular group/faith/organisation, in some cases they can just walk away. But this is not true for all groups/faiths/organisations, and for some members, the penalties for leaving as set by the group are viewed as too extreme/painful/emotionally damaging for leaving to be attempted and so they stay. In many instances, those who have made a commitment to a particular group had no idea at the time of commitment about the penalties which would be applied to them should they wish to leave.
But on another level your statement is true in that it is not necessary to be a member of the WTBTS in order to *witness* and baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Jesus commanded us in Matthew's gospel.
>>Panorama prog., the producer admitted on Sky television that she hated JWs.
If you check the name of the producer of the Panorama programme you will find that it is Murdoch Rodgers. The *she* whom you cite is actually a *he* so could you please let us know which programme on Sky you watched and who actually said that they hated JWs? His voice is distinctive as he is Scottish btw! It is important that we check out the accuracy of this statement as do you not find it questionable that the producer of such a programme as Panorama which is a well respected programme, would appear on a Sky TV programme stating that *he* hated Jehovah's Witnesses when he had just produced a programme about them? Thanks :o)
Betsan Powys, the reporter, was interviewed after the Panorama programme and if someone is clever enough to provide the link to this subsequent interview (pretty please) you will hear her say: "I do not hate the Jehovah's Witnesses".
Her problem, Ewtie - and it is a problem that those who viewed the programme share with her - is the policy followed by the WTBTS which by attempting to deal with reported abuse cases where a Jehovah's Witness is the perpetrator, *in house*, without reference to outside authorities, appears to protect the paedophile but discriminate against the victim because of the enforcement of the *two witness* policy. Imo as well, the WTBTS's lack of due scriptural regard for the *false witness* position as outlined in Deuteronomy 19 vv 16 onwards is a serious omission which compounds the problem further and leaves a *false witness* unchallenged within the group. If this *false witness* is the perpetrator of the crime, his/her reputation goes unblemished whilst the victim who has reported the crime is effectively silenced, and the perpetrator is free to abuse again.
>>If you believe the Panorama prog. please get in touch with me.
Ewtie, I can understand your feelings which are probably much the same as were the feelings of ardent Roman Catholics when the first reports of child abuse started to emerge within the RC Church. The *covering up* by the Church has done much to damage its reputation and its credibility and in the past, this has been highlighted to me by Jehovah's Witnesses and it has appeared on a number of occasions within the WTBTS literature. The policies in the Roman Catholic Church have been found wanting and the process of dealing with the flak is underway.
Time will tell whether the WTBTS will go through a similar process, but in the meantime, if there were any inaccuracies within the reporting on Panorama, I am sure that the Legal Department will be working on the case and there will be repercussions for the BBC. At the moment, however, the accuracy has gone unchallenged as far as I am aware, and in the absence of any challenge by the WTBTS, do you not think it safe to assume that the programme contained nothing worthy of challenge? The WTBTS has so far reacted by sending letters to congregations and an item has appeared on the official website. It has also disfellowshiped those who appeared on the programme speaking out on behalf of victims. But perhaps Ewtie, you could write to HQ and ask in which way they are going to challenge the programme producers and reporter?
Now I can understand *not wishing to bring reproach on Jehovah*, but if in the future Mr Bowen's and Mrs Anderson's concerns about the size and mishandling of the problem within the organisation are confirmed in the public arena and the WTBTS is found lacking, do you not agree that this will bring more reproach on the organisation in just the same way as the Roman Catholic Church has brought reproach upon itself?
>>You must be such suckers I'm sure that I can relieve you of a few quid.
And warm christian greetings to you too :o)
