But, you’re right. It’s not such a major point to pursue endlessly.

I don’t think it would emasculate the university to present the scenario in a way you would find acceptable. I think it would not suit the purpose of the assignment.

Your argument regarding the language of the JWs is mere semantics. And I don’t think my views on whether or not religion is a “destructive force” that “misleads people” would contribute anything to your argument about whether or not the JWs still use the same language mentioned in the assignment.

With your last point, I suppose you are comparing the JWs to religions that do try to control the morality of the people through political means. I don’t know why you’re trying to draw me into this observation. It makes no difference to the assignment question.

I think if you are so sure the JWs are live and let live, and you follow their views so closely, you would be best to live and let live regarding this discussion, because I have nothing to concede regarding your argument.

In fact, that language has long been dropped by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They haven’t recanted the words, (nor should they) but they haven’t spoken in that same tone for a long time. To be sure, they sometimes write that religion is among the means that Satan misleads humanity and that it is a major destructive force. Do you disagree with that thought? With Satan you do, of course, but do you otherwise disagree that religion is a destructive force and that it misleads people?

You will include JWs among those who mislead, most likely, but you must admit they are a peaceful bunch who have never contributed to war. Nor do they impose their views upon people. They speak as persuasively as they can, yet if you disagree with them, they go away. They don’t afterwards seek, through political means, to legislate their views upon the majority, much less resort to violence. Essentially they are live and let live. What’s wrong with that?

Actually, I wouldn’t put it that strongly. I would say I’m familiar with the JWs’ argument, but not personally familiar with the book you mention. Perhaps because I said I know the JWs can argue their point using the bible, you thought I supported their point of view, but as I have said, I don’t believe in God or accept the bible as a source of authority. Or, perhaps because I said the JWs were brave to go up against the “mainline churches” you thought I supported the JWs’ views. I don’t. I just think it was brave of them to stand up for their opinion against widespread opposition.

You are concerned that the account has been inaccurately depicted, or falsified for dishonorable reasons. I don’t agree. Because I think knowing the actual case will make it difficult for me to concentrate on the issues I’m supposed to discuss I wouldn’t normally look for it, but I did. And the case is apparently a very well known and important US case called Cantwell v Connecticut (http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/cantwell-v-connecticut). I think the scenario has been used by the university because it is well known by the lecturers and suits their purposes, which is to get us to think about rights and the public and private distinction as it relates to religion now, not eighty years ago.

Also, I don’t think the JWs have been misrepresented by the changes the university has made to this scenario. Calling the phonograph a CD makes little difference to the scenario except to put it in a different time. You complain that the university has discredited the JWs by putting the scenario in a different time and not explaining that the JWs were calling other religions “instruments of satan” and attacking Catholics specifically because they were preaching the troops into war. You say that the JWs’ actions and words were “appropriate given the circumstances.”

As I have already said, I know that JWs still call other religions “instruments of satan” and are particularly scathing in their talk of Catholics. These opinions are in their literature – even if that literature is not a book called ‘Enemies or played on a phonograph – which is distributed from door to door and in the streets today, not eighty years ago when you say circumstances made it appropriate.

The JWs are entitled to make their views known to others and to distribute their literature expressing those views in Australia. Other religions are also entitled to express their views. I believe universities are entitled to ask their students to discuss this conduct as it relates to rights and if they change a scenario slightly, but don’t misrepresent the views of the parties, I don’t think they have discredited anyone. And because I don’t think they have misrepresented the JWs I also think it follows that they have not created conflict for the JWs.

Regarding your time as a JW, you’re glad you don’t talk that way any more. That’s fine. People change their goals and paths all the time. It’s part of life. You also concede, however, that there is nothing innacurate about that book and record in it’s time, that Witnesses can support all they said both historically and scripturally. We’ve falsified nothing. If “instruments of Satan” is harsh, so is twice preaching the masses into massive war where tens of millions would die.

But someone else has falsified the experience to insert it into the questionairre, so that it appears in a context in which it does not fit. Probably, it’s a deliberate falsification, for who knows what reason, but likely not honorable. I mean, record has to be change to CD. That doesn’t happen by accident. So, I admit, it peeves me, because it is deliberate manipulation of the truth which has the effect (if not also the motivation) of discrediting JWs.

Look, as you know from your past, we are out of sync with contemporary life in any number of ways. We stand for different things. These differences give rise to plenty of genuine conflicts, so I don’t know why it’s necessary to make up other ones out of thin air.

Anyway, I should actually be spending more time studying and writing my assignment, and less time on my blog right now.

I certainly don’t fault you for thinking the exchange took place recently. It was presented to you that way. But I find it amazing that a university would take such liberties with the truth. Do they not generally pride themselves on accuracy and facts? What would have influenced them to be so negligent in this case.

Frankly, you ought to forward both posts, yours and mine, to them. Probably, someone forwarded the experience to them, and they just published it verbatim.

“a certain blogger assumes it did happen yesterday”

Although I haven’t been a JW for 13 years I am fairly familiar with their lexicon. I spoke the language for 20 years. So, when I read the scenario I thought it sounded a little out of date. Particularly as the “CD” was titled ‘Enemies’, though I’ll admit the fact that the University had “updated” the scenario and called the phonograph record a CD did throw me a little.

“But it didn’t happen yesterday. It happened eighty years ago… and the record was entirely appropriate for its time.”

I’ll accept that my post referred to the scenario as if it happened recently and that it is unfair to judge the incident out of context in terms of time and circumstance.

Also, I’m familiar with the role of the “mainline churches” during the world wars. I think it took real guts on the part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to go head to head with popular opinion and the churches to expose how the churches stoked the conflict on both sides of the war in the name of God.

However, I may defend the JWs, despite being an ex JW and not believing in God, and despite how incredibly angry they make me sometimes, like today when I heard that the family of one of my very good friends has been asked to stop associating with their disfellowshipped son, but my patience and tolerance is extremely limited.

So, when I hear or read an expression like “instruments of Satan”, which was still used by the JWs in conversation and possibly their publications (you may correct me if I’m wrong about the publications) 13 years ago, I don’t think “Fair enough, their target fits the description” (even though I know they can point to incidents and quote scriptures to support their accusations), I think “How embarrassing, I used to talk like that. I’m so glad I don’t now.”

Of course, like Mohandas Ghandi said, an eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.

I’m not saying the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong here. Nor am I degrading the other Churches. My point is that you have to look at both sides of the story before coming to the conclusion that it’s exactly what they have done. Well, it doesn’t matter.

By the way, I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness. Just a friend of Mr. Tom here, but I’m more toward Presbyterian. Even then I do not dismiss the Jehovah’s Witnesses or other religions because like I said, you have to listen to both sides before you start dismissing the other party. Who knows, you might learn something new.