Morally Impaired

H.L. Mencken is credited with saying that "morality is doing right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." It may be a cynical view of religion, but it is a correct one. It's just rather unsympathetic in its delivery.

The basic tenet of any Abrahamic religion is that obedience is necessary for absolution and eternal reward. Muslims believe it. Jews believe it. Christians believe it. The holy books respective to each tell adherents what is expected of them, outlines the rewards for compliance, and details the consequences of non-compliance.

History is rife with what this era calls 'atrocities'. Genocide is just the most obvious among them, but there have been many versions of oppression and otherwise inhumane treatment of people who did not or could not live up to the scripture of choice. Death by torture was a very real possibility for anyone who loved their own gender, believed in a different God, taught or studied sciences, or impeded the Religious authority in any way. Barring that, one could find themselves at the business end of a mounted charge simply because a government waged war on them under the banner of religious fealty.

Short version? Holy violence was more likely to kill you than old age. But why is that?

Religion as a social convention relies heavily on unified observance to survive. It's the human equivalent of an ant colony. Everyone does their job and respects the will of the Superior Authority, and the colony thrives. Simple.

In Mencken's statement, the religious obedience clause is what probably feels most familiar to former Jehovah's Witnesses. We've all grown up or lived under the express understanding that if we didn't do exactly what we were told, it would result in our expulsion. That seems like a very straight forward and reasonable expectation within any religion. You have the same god(s), you believe the same things, and you accept the same behaviors.

It begs the question, however, is obedience right if the Superior Authority is wrong?

Many of you will be familiar with the Douglas Walsh trial held in Scotland in 1954. For those of you who are not, Walsh was a full-time pioneer for the movement who was suing for exemption from conscripted military service. The courts called upon several leaders of the Watchtower Society, notably Frederick Franz (future president of Watchtower) and Hayden Covington (legal counsel for Watchtower), to testify about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Court transcripts are very telling.

Franz was questioned as to whether acceptance of doctrine was a matter of choice or obligatory if one was to remain a member of the Watchtower Society. He stated explicitly that it was "obligatory".

Covington's testimony was more damning since he was asked about the validity of the [by then] debunked 1874 end-times prophecy. It was established under oath that disagreement with a false prophecy, which would later be retracted, would still be grounds for expulsion on the sole basis that absolute unity was necessary. Being agreeable was more critical than being right.

This begets further questions.

The practice of expelling dissenters began shortly before the Walsh trial started. Up until 1952, Witnesses did not excommunicate members. They had in fact called it 'pagan' and 'unscriptural' as recently as 1947. However, since the adoption of the practice, it has been applied to everything from blatant sin to simple disagreement over doctrine. Notably, Frederick Franz's brother Raymond, also a member of the Governing Body, developed disagreements with the organization and effectively surrendered his membership. Sensing a potential disruption in their operations with the latter Franz's departure, he was retroactively excommunicated so that existing members would be held to the mandate of shunning expelled members.

Raymond explicitly failed to do as he was told. His actions were not particularly immoral by any other standard. He simply kept company with a man who had been his employer, but had disassociated himself from Watchtower. Leaving the ranks of a club, group, or organization by choice is in no way reprehensible. However, Watchtower views this as a sin worthy of death (another interesting claim made during Covington's testimony).

As Watchtower mounts an ever growing list of failed predictions, modified doctrine, and abusive policies, it's members have been conditioned to accept every change with a smile and graciously embrace the 'new light'. They have no difficult decisions to make as all of those decisions are made for them. Compliance is their only yardstick of morality. Is Watchtower's interpretation of morality upheld? Yes/No?

If Yes, please stand by and wait for modified instructions.

If No, proceed directly to elders, do not pass Go , do not collect $200.

In any other context, this sounds nothing less than absurd. Consider the same premise in the framework of Branch Davidians under David Koresh, or The People's Temple under Jim Jones, or Heaven's Gate under Marshall Applewhite.

It's difficult to consider suicide under the direction of a spiritual leader to be any kind of morality. However, from all the reports and data that have been amassed over the years, when cults follow their leader to their demise, there's been very little evidence of any organized resistance.

No, this is not meant to be a direct comparison of Jehovah's Witnesses to suicide cults. However, there is a striking correlation between the obedience required of the adherents and its relation to the promise of salvation.

Without exception, the only way for a follower of any of these groups to gain their ultimate reward is to follow every instruction without hesitation and without question.

There are quite literally hundreds of ways to be expelled from Jehovah's Witnesses. However, there is only one way to stop being one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing, and that is to die by any means other than suicide.

Does that alone make them immoral? No. That doesn't meet the burden of calling them immoral. It does, however, place one squarely in the crosshairs of damnation if they face a moral duty that conflicts with the Governing Body and their interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Simply put, any time a moral imperative must be sacrificed for the sake of obedience, we have failed the perfect duty of righteousness and the God that is claimed to own it.

If our God requires us to violate our conscience, it's time to find a new one.