You have also written about a letter to Prof Besier in which you proved his points wrong. Even there has not been a response I would like to see your points against him.
Dr. Bergman
by Jerry Bergman 109 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
nancee park
I am happy you are here to defend yourself now. Some of us have posted your material and then these other people immediately started saying you are not reputable, which I know for a fact from reading some of your other works and credentials was false, propaganda put out by the Watchower Society. You need to telephone Randy Watters who has freeminds.org and see if he will put some of your other stuff up on his website.
-
ScarabKing
I am a very big fan of Dr. Bergman's--have been for years.
But I will say this. If fifty years ago someone wrote a book and said the moon was made of green cheese and the earth was flat---and that is what people believed at the time--then even today that book would have SOME educational, historical, social, anthropological, value. The material in it is not true--that is not it's value. It is of value becasue that is what was believed then, and great strides have been made--let us hope!!--and better information is available now.
Years ago a book was published by Dr. Bergman in which there was included information that was believed to be true at the time. Well it was NOT true, not then or now. We know this. Thanks to ongoing research, much more information is available now, and this is a GOOD thing.
So I would say to Dr. Bergman: "You do not 'need' to write a new/revised book that includes the incredible amount of updated information available today. You do not have to 'prove' anything to anybody. If you wish that book to only be useful, today, as historical or social history, that is your choice.
But, if you wish for this book to be a useful tool in an arsenal for fighting a 'frontline' battle against cults--and saving many many lives--it will need to republished and revised and updated.
The choice is yours, sir."
-
larc
Nancee, as you know, I have some differences of opinion with Jerry. He and I have agreed to discuss the points in private e-mail, and we may later print our views here once they are thoroughly explored. We thought this would be a better way, express our thoughts privately first, to avoid flames here on either side of an issue. Sometimes, this place can develope a mob mentality, and niether one of us is interested in participating in such.
-
Dia
:-)
I'm thrilled that this discussion is taking place.
For what it's worth, a friend in the mental health field recently informed me that people who are attracted to cults most often have in common, a combination of the following psychological personalities/disorders (there's a lot of room for variation in the term 'psych disorder'):
Dependent Personality
Avoidant Personality
Obsessive Compulsive Personality
-
nancee park
His information is a recital of other authorities who are all reputable. Yes, he could add in year 2002 studies if such are available and put them on the internet, say, on freeminds.org which would create an even bigger, better impact.
Jerry, I know you wrote at least a foreward to the German book "Theocratic Warfare." I recall it had statistics on how many percentage-wise of the Circuit and District Overseers over Jehovah's Witnesses use theocratic warfare which is Watchtower-condoned lying for the benefit of the organization used by elders although most rank-and-file are not informed of its usage and they themselves are often victimized by it.
Why not get that information up on Randy Watter's freeminds.org website which is frequented by so many people? Also, as said, any more recent studies having a bearing on incidence of mental disorders among the JW community, much of which I believe is in fact caused by Watcthower mind-and-word gamery including TW.
I believe if you speak with him that Simon, the moderator of this board, would also be happy to work with you. Although WTS apologists have slipped in falsities against you on this discussion board, it can also be used positively to educate all about such misdoings and related matters.
I also greatly appreciated your book which compiled Bible Student and JW materials into a bibiliography which included descriptions of contents. Extremely thorough and scholarly.
-
GermanXJW
He and I have agreed to discuss the points in private e-mail, and we may later print our views here once they are thoroughly explored.
I am a little sad that this thread ended that way. Jerry Bergman has not adressed yet the points brought against him by Gerhard Besier and Richard Singelenberg.
And he has agreed with larc to discuss by private eMail.
This now feels for me like a secret elder meeting. The outcome will be announced on this board. :-(
-
larc
GermanJW, Jerry and I are not discussing his bibliography. We are discussing his book on mental illness. I have written my opinions on this book before. Rather than repeat them, I thought it best to write to Bergman directly. That way, he and I can approach the issues without the distractions that can occur here. If we decide to post our thoughts here, it will allow the reader to see both sides of an issue, all in one piece. I know nothing of the quality of his bibliography, so I can't comment on it. If you want a further response from Jerry, perhaps you should e-mail and ask him to provide a public response.
-
Jerry Bergman
My paper responding to Richard Singelenberg is now complete (it is 20 pages long) Now I need to post it somewhere. I will let all of you know where (any suggestions?) .
-
Jerry Bergman
A Brief Response to Singelenberg's Article titled
"Stigmas and Stereotypes: Child Custody Decisions and Jehovah's Witnesses' Parenthood"
By Jerry Bergman Ph.D.
Introduction
A major goal of Singelenberg's article titled "Stigmas and Stereotypes: Child Custody Decisions and Jehovah's Witnesses' Parenthood" (published in Religion Staat Gesellschaft Vol 1 2000 pp. 41-60 and on line at http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/custodyrs.htm) is to argue that all of the research on Jehovah's Witnesses that found their mental illness rate is above average is erroneous. Singelenberg repeats many basic misconceptions about the Watchtower and the experience of growing up a Witness. This is not surprising considering that he was never a Witness and relies almost totally on verbal reports of others-including many active Witnesses-to form his conclusions. He also tries to negate the testimony of former Witnesses-actually implying that those who were never a Witness are in a better position to judge what life is like as a Witness! (p. 56).
This is a surprising conclusion coming from an anthropologist. The tradition in this field stresses that outsiders have a limited ability to judge a culture, and therefore members and former members must be relied upon to understand that society. Thus, to understand their society the researcher endeavors to get into the mind and feelings of members and former members (Kottak, 2000). While it is true that some Witnesses are bitter about their experience (and often understandably so when one evaluates their situation) and can exaggerate their adverse experiences, nonetheless, ex-members are a valuable source of information required to achieve a balanced assessment of any movement including the Witnesses.
Singelenberg implies that Witnesses do not suffer from problems because many Witnesses do not actually believe (or practice) Watchtower Society teachings that critics claim cause problems. He even claims that, for example, "few present-day Jehovah's Witnesses will whole heartily support the blunt phraseology, that unbelieving children will be the victim of a bloody liquidation'" and, he infers, many even consider it wrong to instill fear of the Apocalypse into the minds of their children. This may be true of some Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is not true of many, if not most, Witnesses. The Watchtower does teach in official publications the "blunt phraseology" that not only unbelieving children, but all unbelievers will be the "victim of a bloody liquidation" at Armageddon. Singelenberg implies that this teaching is no problem, or at least less of a problem than critics allege, because most Witnesses do not take their religion seriously. To the extent that they do take their religion seriously, though, he correctly implies that certain Watchtower teachings will be a problem.
As a result, ironically, those who have the most problems are devout Witnesses-those who are more lax will have less problems, an observation made by many commentators of the movement (Bergman, 1992). As many writers have noted, the more liberal Witnesses who do not rigidly follow Watchtower teachings (indeed, those who often take much what the Society says with a grain of salt) are far less apt to have problems. These people are also apt to be less active (such as those who miss meetings), and are more apt to drift away from the Society.
The conclusion that the rules are often (or even usually) not followed by Witnesses is implied in Singelenberg's statement "as long as they do not seriously offend against any of the basic rulings of the movement, severe sanctions such as expulsion will not be applied" (p. 45). Singelenberg implies that disfellowshipping (he uses the incorrect term excommunication) is reserved only for serious wrongdoing-he cites the example of premarital sex-and is applied only if one shows no sign of remorse. It is true that many disfellowshippings occur due to sexual immorality, but many also occur for such trivial things as "celebrating holidays" (or even receiving gifts from one's parents on holidays), disagreement about the Watchtower's prohibition on such issues as vaccination, organ transplants, and receiving factor VIII therapy for hemophilia (all three practices are now approved by the Society). Many individuals have been disfellowshipped for what most people regard as incredibly trivial reasons and, although these may be the exception, nonetheless a significantly large number of these cases exist. Others object to the teaching titled the "theocratic war doctrine" that enjoins Witnesses to "withhold the truth from those who have no right to it," in a court of law or similar situations, a rule that many Witnesses interpret as approving of dishonest and immoral behavior.
Singelenberg admits this when he notes that he personally knows "of several dozens of Jehovah's Witnesses, including local leaders, who profoundly disagree with the major body of doctrines of the movement and the organization's policy. They prefer not to discuss their feelings among coreligionists out of fear that the resulting sanctions will most probably obstruct familiar contacts and association with relatives" (p. 45, emphasis mine). While some people may be able to keep their doubts and concerns quiet, many others have a need to discuss them, if only with their spouse. Also, what happens if a person "slips" while conversing, and these "profound" disagreements are revealed? The answer is an event that Singelenberg indicates that they seriously want to avoid could well occur. In my experience, sooner or later this often happens to dissonants and the person is disfellowshipped.
It is certainly not healthy-especially for leaders who "profoundly disagree with the major body of doctrines of the movement"-to be forced to keep one's questions to one self "out of fear that the resulting sanctions will most probably obstruct familiar contacts and association with relatives" (p. 45). This conflict could be a tremendous burden to carry around and deal with. We would certainly expect that it could result in a certain level of unhappiness, or worse. Although cultures vary in how they respond to internal cognitive dissidence, American culture especially stresses that one should "be true to thineself," and should be "honest to oneself first, then be honest to all others."
Another example Singelenberg notes is "many members do not strictly follow the organizational and doctrinal precepts of the Watchtower Society." I, too, have met Jehovah's Witnesses who "celebrate birthdays, vote for political candidates, sit around Christmas trees (albeit with closed curtains), have premarital sex, let off fireworks at New Year's Eve and smoke an occasional cigar ..." but living this double life is not considered an ideal coping method by therapists, and is usually considered a maladjustment.
Secondly, what happens when they are caught violating these rules-all of which are, or were, disfellowshipping offenses? Will they continue to live their double life and feign repentance when their only regret was getting caught? Would Singelenberg recommend that children be raised in an environment that teaches children to live a life that is usually referred to as living a lie? The fact is, many people have a difficult time living as a hypocrite, secretly hiding behavior that the organization to which they belong condemns to the degree that it is considered a reason to disfellowship them. When Armageddon comes, the Watchtower teaches that those in the disfellowshipped state will lose out on eternal life, and face the eternal wrath of God. Living a double life can take a tremendous toll on mental adjustment and health (Ornish, 1998).
In addition, many individuals have genuine disagreements with the Watchtower on policy, and feel it is inappropriate to be deceptive about these disagreements. A current example is some observers feel that the Watchtower Society protects pedophiles, and a number of high level Witnesses have resigned over this issue (and many have been disfellowshipped for voicing their concerns). The concern is "should individuals for which evidence of pedophilia exist be reported to the police, as the law in many States requires?"
Some feel in these cases that if several different individuals claim pedophilia has occurred, the person should be disfellowshipped and, at the minimum, the authorities should be notified. The Society has ruled that in order for a case to be valid, though, unless they admit to the offense there must be at least two witnesses to a specific offense. Of course this is unlikely in most of these type's of cases. Consequently, charges of pedophilia are easily dismissed because, at most, only one witness, the victim, has the first hand evidence required to testify. This is a highly emotional issue over which some people feel they can no longer conscientiously remain a Witnesses, especially if they have been the victim of a molestation. Consequently, these Witnesses are caught between doing what they feel is consciously appropriate and risking disfellowshipping.
Although it is true, as Singelenberg states, that in disfellowshipping cases traumatic effects will not be the inevitable result (p. 44), but the fact is they often do result. Being cut off from most of one's friends and associates, and in many cases one's entire family, can be extremely traumatic. If spouses related the concerns of their mate to the elders, disfellowshipping could well result. It is revealing that Singelenberg admits that the fear of disfellowshipping is so great that Witnesses are afraid to express their honest disagreements within the Watchtower, and Singelenberg claims that he knows of several dozen Jehovah's Witnesses, including "local leaders" who fit this category.
A factor that is very important in a person's life is one's religious beliefs, a concern upon which many people feel their eternal destiny hangs. This is one area that many people have a hard time avoiding, and many will try to in some way deal with their doubts. It is not uncommon for a Witness to go to the elders with doubts in an effort to resolve issues of concern, and find themselves disfellowshipped for what they consider honest questioning (and which would not create problems in an unbaptized neophyte). Although some people can exist for a long time in a situation with a high level of cognitive dissidence, many people find this difficult, and eventually they suffer a "crisis of conscience" as did Raymond Franz, and find themselves speaking up against what they feel is wrong (Franz, 1983 ). And these conflicts involve no small number of people. Given Singelenberg's estimate of about one percent of the active membership is disfellowshipped world wide each year, in the year 2002 this would equal over 60,000 individuals, no small number on which to apply this severe sanction. Within a decade it would equal close to 3/4 of a million persons affecting as many as 2 million persons.
Singelenberg correctly notes relative to disfellowshipped children that "procedures dictate that contact is strictly limited to satisfy the biological needs of the children" (2001, p. 49). This policy many feel is not only detrimental, but inhumane, and strikes at the heart of parental obligation and normal parental-child love. It is also true, as Singelenberg notes, that at least some parents ignore these rules and associate with their children at will. Nonetheless many (and from my experience most) do not ignore these rules, but rather strictly follow them. If they ignore these rules, the parents too will likely also be disfellowshipped.
Again, Singelenberg implies that little problem exists because, like a bad law that can be safely ignored because everyone ignores it, Witnesses don't obey the rules anyway. The fact is, most Witnesses do not ignore these rules, whether out of fear or out of loyalty, and the resentment that results is enormous (which explains the huge amount of bitter literature written by ex-Witnesses, and the several hundred Web sites that discuss these vary injustices and the events that Singelenberg tries to dismiss by concluding that the laws are harsh, but ignored, so the law's harshness does not matter).
Although it is true that certain harsh Watchtower procedures have been relaxed, such as the condemnation of higher education, nonetheless criticism of education has been an important part of the movement since the days of Russell, and therefore has effected a large number of persons. As Singelenberg noted, more Witnesses are earning college and university degrees today-and this will no doubt profoundly change the movement, in some ways for the better, but in other ways for the worse. Singelenberg admits that the condemnation of higher education is still found "among some of the orthodox members of the movement" thus even though the policy is now more flexible, the higher education prohibition still can be a problem. Twenty or thirty years down the road this may not be a concern, but this has been a concern for many years, and still is a concern today.
I resigned from the Watchtower due to what I felt were its dishonesty and policies that were clearly detrimental to health, such as their prohibition against organ transplants and numerous other medical procedures (and many of these prohibitions have been abandoned since I left, supporting my conclusions). I was, of course, to be treated as a disfellowshipped person, which was difficult because most of my close family and friends were then Witnesses. A few of them broke the rules and did continue some fellowship with me, nonetheless our relationships were extremely strained, and were no longer characterized by the warmth as previously. Consequently, even if the rules were disobeyed (and I knew full well my mother and many of my relatives could have been disfellowshipped if it became known that they were associating with me) the rules still motivated us to reduce our association to a minimum and strained even that limited association.
Do the Witnesses Have an Above Average Mental Illness Rate?
Singelenberg also tries to argue that the evidence for an above average mental illness rate is lacking. Among his arguments include the conclusion that, if the presumption is correct that former Jehovah's Witnesses are the victim of mental health problems (such as psychological traumas) after forced expulsion or voluntary "withdrawal from the movement, it is highly unlikely that this relatively large group with such characteristics would go unnoticed" (p. 46). Singelenberg claims that "reports from national mental health services or social welfare sectors indicating requests for counseling from a steady stream of rebellious children from Jehovah's Witness' families suffering from psychological problems, are nonexistent" (p. 46). This, in fact, is not the case, as the large amount of literature, both on the internet and published, which make claims relative to trauma experienced after one was expelled or were forced to withdraw attests.
Given Singelenberg's own data, since there are only 30,000 active adherents in the Netherlands, and in 1992 to 1996 there were only about 1,300 disfellowshippings, we would expect only a small number of these would seek professional help. It is known that most distressed people do not seek out counseling, especially the less educated and poor, and this would especially be the case among both current and former Jehovah's Witnesses. Witnesses are strongly discouraged from seeking help from any secular, worldly authorities. Even after many leave the Watchtower, they normally do not seek help from professional mental health authorities for several reasons. One reason is Witnesses were taught to eschew all mental health experts, and many still carry this baggage after they leave.
Singelenberg is arguing that no mental health problems exist on the basis of a lack of scientific evidence, and one cannot draw firm conclusions about studies that have not been done. It cannot be concluded that mental health problems are not an issue if help from a professional therapist is not sought. What is required is a psychological interview of all the 1300 Witnesses that were disfellowshipped (or at least a random survey of several hundred of these).
Nonetheless, surveys among counselors by the writer find that Jehovah's Witness patients often make up no small number. The writer was employed for a number of years at Arlington Psychological Associates and other psychiatric clinics as a therapist in various capacities (first as a therapist in training in the late 1970's, then as a professional after I was licensed many years ago). Although many of my clients were referrals, nonetheless, I had a significantly large number of Witness clients for a medium sized American city such as Toledo. The statement "neither does scientific research indicate any widespread problems among children who left the faith of their parents" (p. 46) is incorrect and no scientific evidence was cited to support this claim.
Singelenberg does admit that "some anecdotal data point to 'psychological adjustment' problems," but then claims that "confirmation from clinical evidence is lacking" (p. 52). In fact, a large number of published and unpublished clinical reports have been produced that clearly document that clinical evidence is not lacking, and is actually fairly abundant. Although Singelenberg claims that the conclusions that some of the Watchtower teachings have clear negative influences on child development are "unfounded" yet he himself documents a number of areas where Watchtower teaching and policy could, and often does, adversely effect social and psychological adjustment.
The behavioral science literature is very clear as to how potential adjustment problems can be a concern in this situation. This does not justify trying to water down the problem by claiming that "any socialization in a subcultural environment of which the values are at odds with those of the dominant society may involve cognitive reorientation when the individual disengages himself from the minority group" (p. 53). This statement actually does not refute the conclusions of these many studies, but supports them, negating the claim that allegations that the "suggestion that this will lead to serious psychiatric disorders ... is unfounded" (p. 53).
Singelenberg's conclusion that "75% of the studies tend to show the psychological profiles of individuals tested fall well within normal bounds" may be true for many religious movements, but all of the research and literature that I am aware of-about 20 studies-indicates this is not the case among those raised Witnesses (p. 54). Singelenberg does not site a single study that shows that the Witness' mental illness rate is average or below. In correspondence to me, he claimed such exist, and sent a set of references, all of which I checked-and not one indicated that the mental health rate of Witnesses is average or below.
Singelenberg dismisses the Australian Study with broad generalizations such as unfounded claims that it is methodologically unsound, and alleging that the article "received serious criticism on account of its unsound foundation: 'serious errors of fact and method,'" a claim that does not hold up to scrutiny. What are these series of errors of fact and method? Singelenberg does not state even one. A number of studies in progress as well as completed, indicate that mental health problems is a serious concern (such as Potter, 1984 and Malinoski, 2001). These issues are considered in a separate paper.
Importantly, no scientific research exists that indicates children who have left the Watchtower do not experience problems-although some studies have been completed in this area (such as Malinoski, 2001), a problem is the lack of extensive survey research. Singelenberg's statement implies that scientific research has been completed and this research has found no "widespread problems among children who left the" Watchtower when this is not the case (likely, at the least, they were alienated from their parents). Nonetheless, Singelenberg admits that he is "familiar with some cases of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses who suffer from severe mental problems, partly due to their upbringing." The research consistently indicates that the number of persons in this situation is not small, yet Singelenberg attempts to claim that the number is, at most, trivial.
Singelenberg also openly admits that "some autobiographical accounts suggest adverse effects of upbringing in Jehovah's Witness families" (2001, p. 49). Singelenberg then tries to trivialize these accounts by stating the reason they have problems as a result of "excessive involvement in organizational policy by one or both parents" (p. 49). In other words, those less committed Witness' have fewer problems, a conclusion that is probably true, but what does this say about the Watchtower policies? There are indications that mental health problems are less of a problem in much more liberal Holland where Singelenberg writes. No research has ever claimed that all or even most Jehovah's Witnesses have mental problems, only that this issue is a major problem, and likely above average, especially before, and for some time after, they leave the Watchtower fellowship. And the number of Witnesses raised in what Singelenberg calls an "excessive" Witness environment is not small, especially in the United States.
The Cases Cited by Singelenberg
While I cannot comment on the specific court cases Singelenberg reviewed, his second case especially appears to confirm some of the common charges leveled against the Watchtower. It appears that the testimony of the expert in this case on "cults and world views" was maligned without evidence. It also appears that the custody in this case should go to the father. Assuming this account is correct, how can one argue that a mother, who was unable to give an explanation for a child found unconscious and had to be hospitalized, is an ideal parent? That the high court partly reversed the decision and granted custody to the mother would, from my experience, be inconceivable, assuming the material presented in the case history is accurate.
Based on my experience as a consult in several hundred custody cases, if evidence exists that a mother beat her child unconscious and had to be hospitalized, she would permanently lose her rights even to visit the child unsupervised, let alone be granted custody. In this country, the mother would probably be jailed (parents are not uncommonly jailed simply for bruises on a child's body that indicate abuse). In addition, if the woman indicated she will continue beating her child, the court in USA would have no choice but to remove custody (and this reviewer was surprised that the woman was not jailed and lost all contact with her child).
In addition, it should be stressed that, at least in the United States, virtually all custody cases involve male non-Witness endeavoring to gain custody of his children from the Witness mother. In about 90% of the cases in the recent past, custody has been largely automatically awarded to the woman. Only in extreme circumstances has a father achieved custody. In these cases, the father is likely to use every argument available to convince the court that he is the better custodial parent, and would no doubt try to utilize the mother's Witness beliefs against her. As most judges soon learn, custody and divorce disputes tend to be among the most difficult to adjudicate, and often involve the least reliable testimony (often uncorroborated testimony about the opposing party's behavior) and because in many cases both parents appear to be equally good (or equally bad), decisions in such disputes are very difficult.
Simply being a male is a major disadvantage in custody cases in the USA, and most males have found this extremely frustrating. It is not uncommon for the divorced woman to remarry and move hundreds or even thousands of miles away, severely limiting any contact the father has with his child or children. Nor is it uncommon for fathers, after struggling with the court for many years, to simply give up and typically have little contact with their children. Certainly in these situations there should be some concern about the father's role and the difficulty fathers face in custody situations.
Singelenberg quoted Wah, a Witness attorney involved in many of the Witness court cases, who stated "religion ... can have a negative effect on a person's mental health when it is misused, abused, or excessive" (p. 50). Singelenberg responds that "one is tempted to categorize this course of action, propagated by the Watchtower Society, as such" admitting that this religion can create a seriously detrimental effect on the mental health of its members (p. 50). He then quotes Wah, who states that "participation in dissemination of thoughts and exchange of religious or political ideals in the marketplace is the cornerstone of American democracy. Why should the child be denied an opportunity to observe and participate first hand?" (p. 50). Yet Singelenberg admits that Witnesses themselves are denied the right to participate "first hand" in this exchange because they must keep their doubts about the Watchtower to themselves out of fear of being disfellowshipped! (p. 45).
They also are not allowed under pain of disfellowshipping to attend another church to participate "first hand" in this exchange. Furthermore, why was this right not given to the "several dozens of Jehovah's Witnesses, including local leaders, who profoundly disagree with the major body of doctrines of the movement and the organization's policy?" (p. 45). Religion is a critical area that is often central to one's life, yet Singelenberg totally ignores this concern and approves of Witness elders and others living what can only be characterized as a double life (in religious circles it is often termed a hypocritical life). Another related concern is exactly as Singelenberg expresses it-Witness children are not to "set eyes on reading matter other than that published by the Watchtower Society while the outside world was portrayed as a place of Ultimate Evil" (p. 49).
Singelenberg notes that the November 1, 1999 Watchtower announced a policy change on voting, which is no longer evidently a disfellowshipping offense but is now a "matter of 'individual conscience'" (p. 51). This and similar changes no doubt will reduce the tensions between the Watchtower and outsiders, and could well eventually have an effect on reducing the incidence of mental conflicts and mental illness. One should ask why was this change made? The writer knew a number of people who were disfellowshipped for voting on issues such as school mileage or water department issues. Will individuals disfellowshipped for this reason, now that it is approved, receive an apology from the Watchtower and an invitation to rejoin? Likely not. If they are to seek forgiveness, what is it for? For obeying a now outdated, overturned policy? The Watchtower insists that members should obey policies when they are in effect, even if they are unjust and later changed.
Lying for God
Singelenberg mentions the "preparing for child custody cases booklet" but only indirectly notes that it is quite clear in advocating, at the minimum, misleading the court, and has been interpreted by many as advocating what in the United States would amount to perjury (not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth as one swears under oath in court to tell). Singelenberg openly admits that the booklet is "apparently at odds with standard [Watchtower] literature" and that the organization requires its followers to "do just the opposite" as it the Watchtower booklet indicates (p. 52). Is this not advocating lying (see Bergman, 2002) ? Singelenberg also admits that the preparing for child custody book has "evoked widespread commentary from critics and adversaries because some its contents were apparently at odds with standard literature from the movement" (p. 52).
The booklet was not apparently at odds, but was blatantly at odds with required Watchtower policy, and has been repeatedly characterized by others as outright dishonesty. Singelenberg himself gives several examples of where the organization continuously "appeals to its followers to do just the opposite" as the booklet claims (p. 52). He tries, though, to excuse this "inconsistency" by stating "in the context of the world view of the movement the ethics of some recommendations in the booklet are remarkable at least," but it is also possible to conclude, "albeit cynically, that role playing in different social situations happens to be a matter of every day life" (p. 52). Next time a Witness is caught in pedophilia, he should just claim he is role playing! People in polite company normally term this behavior "double speak, misspeaking, or telling white lies," but it is more accurately openly lying. While Singelenberg calls this dishonesty "role playing" (p. 52) he does admit that "in the context with the world view of the movement the ethics of some recommendations in the booklet are remarkable" (p. 52). They are not just "remarkable," they are dishonest.
The Watchtower and Crime
Singelenberg also claims that my Social Compass article "is riddled with unfounded assertions such as the 'high murder rate among Witnesses'" without citing a single study that show the murder rate is in fact average or below (p. 53). What studies that have been completed indicate that the rate is above average (Bergman, 1976). Part of the work for my doctoral thesis was to evaluate crime and religion. According to my study of this population (which I tried hard to 'explain away' because at the time I completed the thesis I was an active Watchtower representative, holding several positions of authority in the congregation (including ministry school overseer) the crime rate was significantly above average. Furthermore, a good body of literature tries to explain why the crime rate appears to be high in persons raised Witnesses (Kostelnuik, 2000; Rosen, 1996).
Numerous studies have found persons raised in certain religions were more likely to be involved in crime (Conyers and Harvey 1996 p 46). Other researchers criticize these studies for not controlling for other causative factors including socioeconomic status, class, and race. This writer has worked with many cases involving persons raised in devout Witnesses homes and ended up in a life of crime (Bergman, 1982). In chapter 10 of Bergman (1992) scores of cases involving persons raised in devout Witnesses homes who ended up in a life of crime were documented, including several nationally known infamous cases. Why the crime rate is high among a group is of much interest to society to help deal with the crime problem.
One of the most notorious and well documented cases that vividly illustrates the relationship between religion and crime occurred on February 26, 1995, in a suburb of Allentown, Pennsylvania. There 17 year old Bryan Freeman, his 15-year-old brother David, and their cousin Ben Birdwell, slit their father's throat, stabbed their mother numerous times, and murdered their brother Eric with a baseball bat. This crime without equal in Salisbury township captivated the world with its brutality and shocking callousness. The new book Blood Crimes is the story of how and why three boys who were raised Jehovah's Witnesses became skinheads, active in propagating hate against blacks, Jews, "mud people" and others. This work documents in detail the relationship between religion and crime. One explanation of why they became involved in the skinheads is found on page 145:
Bryan had finally found someone who accepted him. In Hitler he found his surrogate father, someone who had channeled hate into something constructive: no less than the destruction of anyone who was different. It was a philosophy with broad appeal, which is why it stood the test of time and now, fifty years later, after Hitler had died, his legacy was the hate in Bryan Freeman's heart, hate that was born from rigid, unloving parents, hate born from a religion that demanded he stay an outsider, hate born from kids looking at him funny because he didn't have a birthday or Christmas dinner, hate born from too many tears and too little love. But now, he was accepted in the white Aryan brotherhood of man (Rosen, 1997).
What at first seems like a 180 degree conversion from saint to sinner actually was a refocusing of the values taught by the Watchtower. Both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the skinheads are hate groups; the difference is the focus of their hate and how their hate is acted out. Research on the Jehovah's Witnesses in the concentration camps during World War II reveals one of the reasons why Witnesses and Nazis butted heads so often: they were in many ways much alike-both were highly authoritarian groups convinced only they had the truth and the answers to the world's problems. They both also taught that opposers should be eliminated, the Nazis by the inevitable rule of history and the Witnesses by Jehovah God.
Fred Rosen (1997) skillfully shows the critically important influence of Watchtower teaching in the murder of the boys' parents and brother. The book also eloquently documents not only the failure of the Watchtower, but also the failure of secular social service agencies. The family appealed to several secular social service agencies when they realized they had lost control of their boys, and it was in a state institution that one of the Freeman boys first discovered the skinhead philosophy that all three soon reverently embraced. Once their Witness mother, Brenda, realized she had lost control she tried everything-even going to sources discouraged by the Watchtower such as psychologists and the anti-Defamation League.
The boys' active rebellion began in 1991 when Bryan was 13 and David 11. The boys then decided they would no longer attend the Watchtower meetings. As a result, they were marked as bad association and consequently rejected by their entire congregation. By then they already had known much rejection because of their refusal to involve themselves in many school activities including saluting the flag, celebrating birthdays, and the many other Watchtower taboos - behavior that severely alienated them from their peers. The rest of the world was wrong, Brenda would tell the boys--the only religion acceptable to God is the Watchtower; consequently, they must accept being rejected by their peers at school. Rosen states that they were enjoined from celebrating all of the holidays and
the Freeman brothers never got birthday presents either, because celebrating birthdays is prohibited under Watchtower doctrine. They had to listen to their friends' stories about how wonderful their parents treated them on their birthdays. The brothers were told that their present was being "in the truth," as Witnesses refer among themselves to their beliefs (Rosen, p. 99).
In short, "the boys' outside life was made difficult by their parents' religious beliefs. Children who grow up as Jehovah's Witnesses grow up in an atmosphere of isolation. They are not allowed to participate in after school group activities. Friendships with schoolchildren who are not Witnesses are prohibited. On the rare occasion when David and Brian questioned their parents' beliefs, which had been imposed on them, they were answered with biblical quotes from the Witnesses' version of the Bible that supported their beliefs. Obedience was the watchword" (Rosen, p. 98).
Their Witness father, even though he was over six feet tall and of no small build, evidently gave up trying to discipline the boys and relegated most discipline to his petite wife. It was by then too late. On the inside David Freeman "developed a hate toward the authority figures in his life, specifically his mother, father, and the Watchtower. That hate imbued itself in every facet of his life" (Rosen, p. 123).
Was the callousness that others expressed towards the boys for so long because of their religion internalized so that they became calloused of the feelings of others? Even though their parents later violated Watchtower policy and sought outside help, Rosen wondered whether if they had earlier
"sought intervention as a family and stayed with a therapeutic program, things might have turned out differently but to do so would have been to admit that the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses were not enough to get them through their family crisis. To do that would have been to repudiate the religion and risk disfellowship and damnation" (p. 126).
Some children are able to deal with the many conflicts between their religion and their social environment. Bryan evidently was not, for he "spent long nights alone, staring up at the ceiling, feeling unloved and unwanted, wondering what he had done that was so wrong to end up . . . Alienated from his parents and their beliefs, which further served to alienate him from his peers . . . Nowhere did he belong . . ." (p. 127). It was at this time that skinhead Seth Monroe entered his life and Bryan became a convert. Soon his brother also became a convert, as did his cousin, Ben Birdwell who also grew up in the Watchtower. The man they began following, Mark Thomas, was a "very intelligent man who couches his anti-Semitic, racist beliefs behind logical arguments 'derived' from the Bible. To children like the Freemans and Birdwell who grew up on the Bible and knew it forward and backward, and who had a perverted value system, Thomas's scriptural interpretation was the same as the Witnesses', only more palatable" (p. 150).
Soon David, Bryan, and Ben were all uncritically following Thomas' rhetoric just as the Witnesses uncritically follow the Watchtower. Rosen claims that "David and Bryan Freeman and Ben Birdwell were among those faithful followers taking in everything Thomas preached" (p. 170). Ironically, when they were Witnesses, a big problem was doing drugs and smoking--but when they became skinheads their drug use stopped because "when you're a skinhead, you drink, but you don't do drugs [because] skinheads are totally against drugs" (p. 155). After the boys moved from their old authoritarian belief structure to a new one, they were obedient to their new found skinhead philosophy as they had at one time been to their old one. Because of their isolated Witness upbringing, they lacked social skills, and evidently in spite of their conformity to the skinhead philosophy conflicts with fellow skinheads were not unusual.
Their friends believed the boys "became skinheads because . . . they felt left out because their family didn't care about them " (p. 155). Their parents were said to be intelligent people, and they "could not have been unaware of how their sons felt, yet they apparently did nothing to show them love." (p. 156). This same friend observed that their younger brother Eric received preferential treatment because he fully conformed to the Watchtower (p. 156).
It is not uncommon to leave one authoritarian religion for another, and the similarities of the beliefs of the new group that the Freemans associated with and the Watchtower are many. For example, the Watchtower taught Armageddon is a battle fought between God and Evil people--and the skinheads teach that Armageddon is the battle between the good people and the people of Satan, and God has commanded the good people, the Whites, to exterminate the people of Satan, which includes Blacks, Jews and others (p. 170). The Witnesses' Kingdom will soon be established on earth and be ruled by the Watchtower. The skinheads kingdom will also be established on Earth but will be ruled by the white anglo-saxons, the true people of Israel and of God (p.170).
The murders, according to testimony in the case, were planned. The boys first went to the movies to see "Murder in the First," and then evidently formulated the murders at a Wendy's restaurant before they went home to carry out their plans. Conflicting reports of what happened exist, and of course only the boys know the truth. Nonetheless three persons were murdered, and all three boys were all involved. Aside from a few inaccuracies concerning Watchtower teachings, the author has done his homework and presents an excellent review of Watchtower theology. This book would even be excellent for those who want to learn about the Watchtower and the results of their teachings. This is not the first case of Witness patricide-this writer is aware of many others involving Witnesses-nor will it be the last.
Singelenberg notes that I quote from psychiatric studies on Witness conscientious objectors, claiming that during the period these articles were completed society considered military conscientious objection a mental problem (p. 53). The basis for determining that these individuals had mental problems was not because they were conscientious objectors, but as the reports make clear, the researchers used standard psychiatric criteria. It is true their conscientious objector status may have colored the evaluation, and one who has not worked extensively in this area may find certain psychiatric conclusions extreme. Nonetheless, these adjustments were made by qualified medical doctors carrying out their professional duties, and one must at least consider their conclusions.
Conclusions
If one disagrees with the results of a behavioral science study, it is not difficult to find what appear to be reasons to reject such studies, such as the vague charge of methodology problems. Singelenberg implies that any study that has what he considers flaws should be disregarded. This thinking could be used to disregard most studies in the behavioral science area. In the author's current research area, the causative factors involved in cancer, specifically lung cancer, thousands of studies have been completed that have been routinely disregarded for years for a wide variety of reasons (and some major critics have been eminent geneticists) but the overwhelming evidence that continues to pile up (an estimated over 30,000 studies have found a significant relationship between smoking and a wide variety of diseases) is beginning to convince all but the most recalcitrant observers. Will the same thing occur in studies of the mental health of the Witnesses?
References
Bergman, Jerry. 1976. Evaluation of an Experimental Program Designed to Reduce Recidivism Among Second Felony Criminal Offenders. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
______. 1982. "The Relationship Between Religious Belief and Homicide." The American Rationalist, January/February 1982. p. 70.
______. 1992. The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clayton, CA Witnesses Inc.
______. 1992. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Health. Clayton, CA: Witnesses Inc.
______. 2002. "Mental Health & Depression." www.Jehovahs-Witness.com. Aug. 18, 2002 22:20.
______. 2002. "Lying in Court and Religion: An Analysis of the Theocratic Warfare Doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses." Cultic Studies Review: An Internet Journal of Research, News and Opinion, 1(2): 1-31, 2002. http://www.culticstudiesreview.org.
Conyers, Lisa and Philip Harvey. 1996. "Religion and Crime: Do They Go Together?" Free Inquiry. 16(3):46-48, Summer.
Franz, Raymond. 1983. Crisis of Conscience. Atlanta, GA: Commentary Press.
Friends. 2002. "Documents Proving Higher JW Mental Problems, Suicides." www.Jehovahs- Witness.com. July 8, 2002 01:07.
Kostelnuik, James. 2000. Wolves and Sheep: The True Story of Murder in a Jehovah's Witness Community. Toronto, Canada: Harper Collins.
Kottak, Conrad. 2000. Anthropology; the Exploration of Human Diversity. New York: McGraw Hill.
Malinoski, Peter. 2001. "The Degree and Nature of Psychological Distress in Former Members of Psychological Abusive Groups and Ex-Jehovahs Witnesses." In Press.
Ornish, Dean. 1998. Love and Survival: The Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy.
Potter, Robert. 1984. A Social Psychological Study of Fundamentalist Christianity. The University of Sussex (Ph.D. thesis S2322/1985).
Rosen, Fred. 1996. Blood Crimes: The Pennsylvania Skinhead Murders. New York: Pinnacle Kensington.
Singelenberg, Richard. 2000. "Stigmas and Stereotypes: Child Custody Decisions and Jehovahs' Witnesses' Parenthood." Religion Staat Gessellschaft. Zeitschrift fr Glaubensformen und Weltanschauungen Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. 1(1):40-59.