Just sent the following email: Hello, I just found your site and read it with some interest. I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and recently left the religion for conscientious reasons. I think it is great that you are doing a documentary on the JWs, but judging by what I read on your web site, you seem to have a very rosy-colored set of glasses on. For example, your Relevancy page (http://www.knocking.org/relevancy.html) contains the following paragraph: -- How though, some critics may ask, can a morally conservative religion have any role in defending liberal freedom of choice? Wouldn’t Jehovah’s Witnesses be considered an enemy to a woman who seeks full reproductive rights over her body or a gay man who seeks the right to marry? Jehovah’s Witnesses indeed consider abortion and homosexuality sinful. People who do not choose to follow the Bible-based moral code of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot become members, and those who stray from the code are asked to leave. Unlike other religions, however, Jehovah's Witnesses do not try to influence the political process by legislating their beliefs, imposing them on their non-Witness neighbors. Jehovah's Witnesses are staunchly apolitical and have no connection to what is commonly known as the "religious right." Jehovah's Witnesses live by the long-held ideal of "Separation of Church and State" in the United States. Jehovah’s Witnesses would never protest an abortion clinic or lobby against the legalization of gay marriage, as other religions do. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not begrudge the fact that their fight for equal protection under the law and medical control over their own bodies has helped other movements. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not interested in limiting the freedoms of groups with which they disagree. They are an example of how Americans with differing views can peacefully coexist.
-- It is true that JWs do not overtly try to influence the political process in most cases. But it would be a mistake to say that this is because they subscribe to the ideal of "Separation of Church and State." In fact, individual Witnesses are not to have any political opinions. They consider political organizations to be a part of Satan's organization on earth. Their political neutrality is borne from a desire to be separate from Satan's organization, not from support of the ideal you mention or anything like it. The outcome may be similar, but the underlying reasons are very different. Your paragraph above talks about the peaceful co-existence of differing views. This is one area in which there is a double-standard of Biblical proportions in the JW world. First, JWs do not respect views that differ from their own. They believe that their current set of doctrine at any given time comprises "the Truth" and that any conflicting views are deceptions from the Devil. As I mentioned above, the fact that they do not try to introduce legislative support for their views does not stem from respect for others' points of view, but from a doctrinal prohibition from political involvement. In actual fact, JWs have pity at best and scorn at worst for what they see as the sadly misinformed views of "worldy people" - all non-JWs. A second aspect to this is the requirement to think alike within the JW organization. You mention that people who "stray from the code" are asked to leave. This is neither technically correct nor complete. Those who sin unrepentantly in the eyes of the local elders are not "asked to leave" - they are expelled with a formal announcement. After the announcement has been made, no one is allowed to speak to them any longer, even family. If a friend or family member were to continue communication on anything other than very brief business matters, that person would be in line for their own expulsion. But here's what you may not know. In the JW organization, having opinions that differ from accepted dogma is considered "straying from the code." Say, for example, that you have doubts about a literal reading of parts of Genesis. According to the JWs, it is wrong even to entertain such thoughts. Speaking to others about them is considered apostasy, one of the worst sins possible for humans. A person who has differing opinions about any point of doctrine risks being expelled and shunned. Because of the dreadful consequences of expulsion - total loss of family being a not inconsequential aspect - JWs are trained never to question doctrine. The resulting culture is extremely intolerant of any opinion other than the one that is presently officially sanctioned. Therefore, within the JW community, differing views do not peacefully co-exist. Between the JW community and the rest of the world, they peacefully co-exist only because JWs are powerless to do anything about it. Their literature unabashedly speaks of the time when, soon, all who disagree with them will be destroyed. Respect for differing opinions? Judge for yourself. I would like to see any documentary of the Witnesses be as unbiased as possible, and this means making sure you accurately represent the reality. The copy on your web site reads like something from the Witnesses' PR department. It is my desire that you be more complete in your coverage. I can assist in helping you to obtain quotes from JW literature that substantiate what I have stated in this email. There are also good research web sites that would help you to do the same, such as: http://quotes.watchtower.ca (historical quotes from JW publications organized by subject) http://www.jehovahs-witness.com (a discussion board regarding JW beliefs and practices) I wish you the best in your work on the documentary, and I look forward to a balanced, complete presentation. Yours sincerely, [name]
