Dear Friends,
I believe the Judicial Committee wheels are starting to turn. Let me explain why. On Monday, February 14, 2005, my local newspaper published a story entitled "Bloodless Medicine" which implied how Jehovah's Witnesses have pushed for bloodless surgeries. The article implied that JWs have a total ban on blood transfusions. Because I know that is not true, and because I want JWs to know they have options (blood fractions, etc.), and because I hope JWs and others outside of the WTBS will see that the blood ban should be I abandonded altogether, I wrote a response letter to the editor which was published on Saturday, February 20, 2005. (The letter is below, in its entirety.)
The letter began "Formerly a faithful witness....." That line, apparently, has got the JC wheels rolling. Outside a grocer store yesterday, an elder approached me and talked to me for about twenty minutes. He let me know that he had heard about the letter; that it had already been discussed. After discussing with him all of the many reasons that I now believe that the society version of the so-called truth is simply not true, he pratically begged me to allow him and another brother to have a meeting with me. (They need two witness to disfellowship for abandoning your faith.)
Anyway, at the end of the conversation, he reminded me of my baptism and dedication. I told him that I was 15 years old when I was baptized and made the lifelong dedication. I reminded him that at age 15, a person is not allowed to drive, to vote, to give consent for sex, or to sign a legally binding contract. ?So,? I asked him, ?Why should I be obligated to a dedication I made when I was 15 years old??
Think about it. The society doesn't want its youth to date or to get married until past the "bloom of youth." But I have seen young people in the organization get baptized as early as 11 or 12 years old. And baptism and dedication is supposed to be the most important decision of one's life, even more important than marriage.
Although the society doesn't believe in infant baptism, they will hold a person in their 20s or 30s or older to a decision they made when they were 11 or 12 (or 15) years old and disfellowship them when they get old enough and wise enough to get out of the organization.
I haven't been to a meeting in years and I do not consider myself one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a cult and that blind faith is the cornerstone of every "good" witness. However, I don't really want to be disfellowshipped. I like the idea that I can still talk to JWs I see around town, although word is geting around that I'm an opposer.
I have done a little research on legal action against the WTBS in matters of disfellowshipping. I printed off a 9-page letter from www.randytv.com/secret/dfletter1987.htm which showed the case law precedents which are clearly in the society's favor in the matter of disfellowshipping their members.
However, I have not seen or read anything about legal action against the society in the area of contract law. I think that if a court viewed baptism as a contract, then the society would no longer be able to disfellowship any one of their members who was ever baptized as a minor. Since a minor can't enter into a legally binding contract, I don't think it's that big of a jump to think that a minor shouldn't be able to enter into a contract-like relationship with the WTBS.
What does everyone else think?
P.S. Good news all....This former janitor/pioneer was just accepted into law school a couple of weeks ago!!! Maybe I'm already thinking like a lawyer.
Lafayette, IN. Journal and Courier, February 14, 2005 Dear Editor: Formerly a faithful Jehovah's Witness, I was drawn to Tuesday's article "Bloodless Medicine" (J&C February 15). The article implied that Jehovah's Witnesses have an outright ban on blood transfusions. While many Jehovah's Witnesses believe this is true, in the June 15, 2000 issue of the Watchtower magazine, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the legal name for Jehovah's Witnesses, loosened the ban to allow transfusions of what they call "blood fractions." Quoting the Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to 'abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.' (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. [...] Some Christians may conclude that [...] they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells." So transfusions of whole blood are wrong, but fractions are okay? It is an overwhelming sadness to know that good people die and allow their chidren to die because they adhere to such a curious policy. Concerning the Jehovah's Witness policy on banning whole blood, but banning blood fractions, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Raymond Franz, said "It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, page 288).