But the element that struck me is the trend that it's OK to give a pass to an elderly JW for a lifetime of supporting an organization that practices cruel shunning and death (via policys like blood tranfusion), as long as it's that of someone we know. But If the JW is the relative of someone we don't know (a stranger), then it's OK to blame them and hold them accountable. Is that about right?
There's a lot of truth in that. When we put a human face to the abstract concept it makes a difference. For instance, in another thread I expressed my empathy for a GB member that I knew.
There is the concept of group-think wherein people go along with things they never would by themselves. Do they share in the blame for what the group does? Or can we just blame the group but not its members? Collectively it is blameworthy, but we are loathe to point to any one individual and assign them the blame. After all, many of us were once carried along by the same delusion, so we should have empathy for them; they are as we once were.
Yes, there may be exceptions, but on the whole I think of them all as victims: even the GB members.
I think there are times when it is not kind or appropriate to break the truth to someone. You can't assign an arbitrary age; it's on a case-by-case basis.
Nothing would be served by telling a GB member on his deathbed that he had been living a lie. Well, maybe a cruel sense of revenge that we would later regret.
In the overall scheme, blame is of little importance: change is what's important. If someone is past the point of being able to change, then there's little reason to make them aware of their blameworthiness.
