So the ex-Jehovah's Witnesses piece in Vue was smokin', and I received kudos from the interviewees, fellow writers, friends and family. I'm pretty proud of it, but scanned the Letters to the Editor for the inevitable. This week, one of the longest Letters I'd ever seen ripped me a new one! I decided I would use this environment of pure self-indulgence to rebut.
The essence of the tirade was that I had a number of my facts wrong, neglected to address the wonderful things that Witnesses do and merely contributed to increasing hate and violence in the world. The writer claims legitimacy by saying she was disfellowshipped after being raised a Witness and leaving to research other religions in her 20's. After doing all her research, she "can say that there is no other religion that stands by what the Bible teaches, doesn't conform to society's peer pressure to change Bible guidelines into what suits them, actually enforces its rules, and gives people hope for the future that's positive."
During my research for this piece, I read that exact quote in a Watchtower publication.
It's nice that I got people thinking about the religion, but that was never my intent. I was interviewing people who had left - their impressions, their memories, and the difficulties they had adjusting. I tried very hard not to pass judgement on the organization, but let the subjects speak freely.
My interviews were full of references to people who tried to leave, then returned after being unable to be completely cut off from everyone and everything they had ever known. I'm not suggesting that the Letter writer experienced this.
And now, the rebuttal:
1. "Witnesses
do use the Bible - any translation..." Every Christian splinter sect does as their root. But only the Witnesses produce reams and reams of "interpretation" literature to help their followers better understand. And the New World edition presents a whole bunch of interpretation masked as differences in translation.
2. "There is no minimum time requirement..." Not written down, there isn't. Organizations have a way to enforce social standards that aren't part of the written credo. The "Code Red" issue in
A Few Good Men comes to mind.
3. "Leaders are
overjoyed to explain the teachings..." Again, I had only the interviewee's word for his experience, but it echoed my own: I made two calls to Elders in Edmonton Kingdom Halls about the story. No reply. I heard that a coworker's friend had passed on the request to her Elder. It was forwarded to the JW Media Relations division in Ontario. No response. That doesn't sound like overjoyous explanation to me.
4. "JW's do not connect higher education with Satan..." The statement I wrote was corroborated by three separate interviewees.
5. "Bethany Hughes wasn't blind or in a wheelchair at the time of her death and her father was not denied contact with her." I relied on an eyewitness account and a sworn court affidavit over the word of the writer's (Jehovah's Witness) family friends. Whatever Bethany believed or not at the time of her death, I do not blame a father for trying to protect his daughter's life, or for suing the organization that he sees as responsible.
She closes by saying she won't read the magazine any more and a lot of her friends won't either. As much as I regret losing the readership, I think it's best if her and her group aren't exposed to any new ideas presented in Vue. Indeed, she's better off sheltered from any publications not produced by her Society. They might shatter her safe religious haven where everyone knows the Truth and nobody needs to read anything that purports a different opinion.
