Perhaps you know of Jehovah's Witnesses and the ban that is going on in Russia right now. Perhaps you don't.
Maybe you know of the vast global virtual community of Ex Jehovah's Witnesses that has rapidly found each other since the creation of Facebook, sharing the strength of their experiences in dealing with past abuse, shunning, and the loss of loved ones within the Jehovah's Witness cult.
Maybe you have no idea what I'm talking about on any of this.
Whatever your experience and knowledge may be, listen up! This will probably shed some light on at least one thing you may not have been aware of.
Chances are, if you've read this blog before, and if you follow me on any form of social media, you see me talk about my former life as one of Jehovah's Witnesses from time to time. And there is a ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia right now, very recently underway. You can brush up on that here.
This post is about how the how various ex Jehovah's Witnesses have responded. I'd like to highlight the effects on the community. And I'd like to try and clearly define what freedom of expression is and what it is not, while letting out some of my own thoughts on all of this.
Suddenly, the dialog between ex Jehovah's Witnesses has exploded, not just with debate, but with emotion. With tears and pain. Friends and families and innocents are caught in the middle. How many innocent victims will this ban harm?
And there are two main camps:
1. There are those for the ban, who believe it's possible to carry out ethically, because there is a higher ratio of child abuse (criminality) within the organization than in other religious organizations and they feel truly innocent Jehovah's Witnesses will obey the ban and discontinue preaching and promotion.
2. There are those who think the ban is cruel, that nearly all Jehovah's Witnesses are too brainwashed to leave, have a persecution complex the ban will only bolster, and overall believe the ban goes against human rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression (and by extension, freedom of religion).
Those are the two main camps. This is a very complicated issue, obviously, so there are many varying opinions. But there is a definite divide developing.
The secondary camp is the position taken by probably the most well known apostate advocate, Lloyd Evans, owner of JWSurvey.org and author of The Reluctant Apostate. Recently he publicly had an interview with BBC where he promoted this opinion, and since then--maybe because of some of the backlash he received--he has posted media that is quite insulting to people who believe differently.
People objected, people who have funded his crowdfunding campaigns, sent him content to use, and people that have supported this person have objected. And he responded by blocking them.
And this is where I come in, as I tend to not get super involved most of the time.
When I saw people upset, I decided to look into it myself. And I don't need to say much other than I ended up being blocked myself, despite often sticking up for this activist in the past and providing him with content various times.
The entire community is in an uproar, not because of me and my little run in there, but because of all these things going on. People speak out, others shun. I have to admit, just because it is what I've noticed: It does seem like usually camp one speaks up, and camp two shuns, in general. To me that speaks a little, to those who may be inquisitive.
So I've been trying to understand, because I am still so surprised by all this hate I see. The upheaval doesn't surprise me, but the blocking definitely does. Many have allowed this issue to upset them so much that they curled up and reverted back to their Jehovah's Witness safe-space of mental shutdown and shunning.
I personally think the JWsurvey.org camp is kinda delusioned into thinking the majority of the Jehovah's Witnesses are as gung-ho as their leader, who himself was a former elder.
I'm transgender--you may or may not have already known this--and I downplay the roles that I had in the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot because I'd rather not have a consistent, giant, influx of questions about those roles, since Jehovah's Witnesses do assign roles, almost always, according to gender...
But I was a pioneer and a Ministerial Servant and even nearly went to Ministerial Training School and "need-greated" (something like self-funded missionary work) before getting reproved. I was really into it for a bit. But I did realize, even then, that there were lots of JWs on the fringes--lots of JWs who only stayed and followed because of family connections. And I realized this because I had once been one of them, before I became more involved because I felt guilted, and because I felt like there wasn't really a better choice. And that's the thing, if there had been a ban, there is no way I would have kept up with it. No way my family would have, especially when I was younger... People who just barely make it to the meetings before a ban don't suddenly go out of their way to become extremists when the ban starts. Are you kidding me? I mean, I'm not sure where such a thought process would come from.
Sure, Jehovah's Witnesses have a persecution complex. So does Lloyd Evans apparently.
I mean, you can't deny the silly response, and I'm not trying to be harsh. I really am not. Never really did. But I am using him as a lighthearted example here. It's his career--and we propped him up--he can take it.
But I'd like to ask you all: How is this person--how is Lloyd Evans--responding to being disagreed with? What do you think he would do if YouTube and Huffington Post were suddenly banned? Do you think his actions recently show this person is more conditioned to protect himself, or protect YouTube and Huffington Post and free expression?
He's not interested in free speech any more than Jehovah's Witnesses are interested in it. They are both more concerned with their families and themselves than anything else. And who can blame them for it? But the point stands, just the same. He is a leader in all this PR work, and he isn't interested in transparency. He is interested in protecting his vision for how to beat the cult while still also protecting what's his, because he is more worried about his personal family within the cult, and not the effects on the world society that he has decided to now become a apart of, and even claims is worth fighting for. But his unwillingness to even keep a dialog going for other points of view shows he doesn't really care about that world, about free expression, or how the criminal actions of Jehovah's Witnesses effect the world, and by extension how his actions as a career activist may effect it.
It's sad, and its also worrisome, and someone in his position should show they take these things to heart.
Jehovah's Witness leaders, on the whole, have been proven--not just saying this--they've been PROVEN by every full nationwide investigation to be more involved in the protection and cover-up of child abuse than any other organization. This is criminal. That's just a fact, nothing to debate there.
Still with me?
Think you know which camp I'm in?
I don't think I support the way the Russians intend to carry out the ban, I think they are doing it for the establishment of Orthodoxy, thus far. But they are banned. Not much any of us former Jehovah's Witnesses outside of Russia can do except wait and see.
But as far as banning, in general, you can just ban membership and leadership.
A ban doesn't have to include preaching, or the confiscation of all literature. A ban on a religion doesn't have to impede free speech. There are ethical ways to ban a religion, especially one with a heavy criminal background.
Governments can shut down the factories and distribution systems that produce new directive literature--because that is leadership--you criminalize and arrest the leaders, you criminalize and arrest anyone who manages territory.
Hell! Territory servant used to be my job, so this point of view isn't about being selfish or heartless. I wouldn't have been happy about such a ban during that time when I was heavily involved, but I can't say, as a leader, I wasn't completely informed as to what government I actually stood for. I may have been brainwashed into thinking it was normal, but believe me, all the leaders at least fully understand who they're working for and the possible consequences.
So you criminalize and arrest anyone who holds territory or publisher record cards, or--especially--anyone that inducts or expels members.
Banning key components of leadership, thus banning membership, and thus banning expulsion and shunning would be key.
If this type of ban were enacted, the first thing that would happen is no one would get disfellowshipped. Because if you disfellowship someone, that person will go to the authorities. Which means if Jehovah's Witnesses really were determined to still expel members, they would have to kill them.
That choice alone would force individual Jehovah's Witnesses to make the decision between becoming real extremists or just leaving. And what do you really think the majority of them will really choose? What would you have chosen do you think, when you were in?
When the Bible students were banned in this country, do you think they were disfellowshipping anyone? Do you really think German Jehovah's Witnesses were disfellowshipping people in Nazi Germany?
Probably not.
And as I just pointed out. A ban that focuses on membership and leadership only would have the exact same effect within the group, over time, but without hurting the completely innocent base members, very much unlike the bans of the past...
And I'll remind you, every country has extremists, every country has a black market and shadow societies. Every country has criminals. This is an economic and political science fact. You either expose and regulate criminal things into the underground, or you let them work freely, grow, and effect more and more people subversively.
So when it comes to bans on highly criminal institutions, it's not all or nothing.
I think former Jehovah's Witness would do better to stop making this about Jehovah's Witnesses and religious whateverment. Stop thinking like a Jehovah's Witness. If this were simply a business--which, really, that's all such a ban would be on: a non-profit business--everyone would be calling for a dissolution of the board and company-wide management investigation, seizure, and all sorts of responses.
I really do fail to understand how some of the same people can say the rioters in the riots earlier this year are criminals that need to be dealt with, but the leaders involved in hiding and protecting world-shattering records of child abuse are not.
And many ex Jehovah's Witnesses are very aware the crimes go even deeper from there. So just keep reconsidering...
It is complicated. The discussions will go on for some time.
The one thing I can absolutely guarantee you, though, is as long as you treat me with relative respect, I will try to do the same, and I definitely will never block you for disagreeing with me.
