FALSE CLAIMS IN LETTERS TO THE COUNTY GOVERNOR IN OSLO AND VIKEN FROM THE SCANDINAVIAN BRANCH OFFICE OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

THE LETTER FROM JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DATED 18 OCTOBER 2019

I will start with point 4 above—a considerable amount of irrelevant information is given so that the focus is redirected to something other than the real issue. Most of the branch letters contain long quotations from the point of view of JW regarding the authorities in Italy, German, and Sweden and of the judges in the European Court of Human Rights. These quotations direct the focus on two issues:

• The right of JW to be neutral in political issues is confirmed in different court cases:

The standpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses in connection with political neutrality is in no way at odds with the fundamental values in a democratic society. On the contrary, when this issue has been raised, the courts have consistently stated that the religious standpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses is in accord with democratic values. This is confirmed in the following decisions in Italy, Germany, and Sweden.

• The right of JW to disfellowship members is confirmed by the European Convention of Human Rights.

EBD’s judges have decided that article 9 in the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right of the religious denominations “to react, in accord with their own rules and interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them that might pose a threat to their cohesion, image or unity.” This includes the right to decide that a person who follows a particular course can no longer be a member of the denomination.

To the best of my knowledge, no newspaper article has questioned the right of JW to be neutral in political questions or their right to disfellowship its members. But this is the attention-grabbing focus of the long quotations in the letter. The real issue is whether members of JW are pressured against voting in political elections and whether those who do vote are threatened with disfellowshipping. These questions are dodged in the letter, as I will show below.

I will now discuss several claims that mislead the readers, and in my letter dated 17 June 2020, I pointed this out. The critics argued that because Witnesses who vote for political candidates are disfellowshipped by the organization, the JW do not respect fundamental human rights. And for this reason, JW should lose their monetary aid from the state. In response to this, the letter from the branch said:

If a member of our religious community decides to participate in an election, the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the person himself has chosen to leave the religious community.

Everything in this quotation is correct. Nevertheless, the readers are still misled, because the focus is moved from the issue of disfellowshipping to “the view of  Jehovah’s Witnesses” regarding members who vote at an election.  This is an example of point 3 above. By mentioning what “the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is,” the writer dodges the question while refocusing the readers’ attention onto something else. Many readers will accept this answer and walk away believing that the accusation of disfellowshipping those who vote is not correct.

It is also an example of point 2 because important, relevant information is withheld. The readers are not told that the Witness who votes is treated in exactly the same way as one who is disfellowshipped. If he wants to continue to be a Witness, he will not be allowed to do that. He will be treated as a disfellowshipped person; no one will greet him or speak with him, and he will be treated as if he does not exist. So, the words of the letter that JW view a Witness who votes in an election as one who “has chosen to leave the religious community” are simply a cover-up. Table 1.1 shows that to “chose to leave the religious community” is exactly the same as being disfellowshipped.

The technical term JW uses for one who “chooses to leave the religious community” is “disassociation.” I use this term in Table 1.1. The table clearly shows that a person who votes in an election, in reality, is disfellowshipped.

Table 1.1 A comparison with a disfellowshipped and a disassociated person

		Disfellowshipped Witness	Disassociated Witness
1	A committee of three makes the decision		A committee of three makes the decision
2	The person is not allowed to remain a JW even if he wants to		The person is not allowed to remain a JW even if he wants to
3	The person is shunned		The person is shunned
4	Repentance to be reinstated		Repentance to be reinstated
5	Written application to be reinstated		Written application to be reinstated

In order to show that a Witness has freedom in connection with political elections, the letter tells what happens with the persons “who chooses to leave the religious community” and “disassociate” themselves.

Therefore, a short notice is given to the congregation with the words: “[The name of the person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” But the person is still welcome to be present at religious services, to choose a seat where he wants to sit in the Kingdom Hall (the meeting place of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and to participate in the singing of religious songs. In addition to that, he or she can speak with and socialize with the immediate family (the only exception is not to discuss faith-related and religious issues).

The information in the first part of the quotation is true. But important information is withheld (point 2 above). The reader is not informed that if the person attends a meeting in the congregation, no one will greet him or speak with him, and he will be treated as if he does not exist. Because of this, is it correct to say that the person “is welcome to be present at religious services”?

The last part of the quotation is a lie (point 1 above). The one who votes at an election and thereby “chooses to leave the religious community” cannot, in fact, “socialize with the immediate family.” No one will deny that the “immediate family” of a man includes wife and children, parents, grandparents, and siblings. However, a “disassociated” man can only socialize with those who are living in his household. If a member of “the immediate family” outside his household socializes with him (regularly meets or speaks with him), he or she will be disfellowshipped from the congregation because this is considered a grave sin.

The letter continues:

We hope that on the basis of what is mentioned in this letter, it is clear that we completely respect a person’s fundamental right to make a decision regarding political neutrality and that Jehovah’s witnesses in no way exerts pressure or use threats in order to frighten a person from voting.

The first part of the quotation is correct. JW respect a person’s right to make decisions in connection with political neutrality. But the last part is not only untrue, but it is a lie. The two persons who have composed and signed the letter know full well that Witnesses will experience great pressure if they attempt to participate in a political election. I have already given a detailed description of said pressure in the article above. But here I will innumerate what this pressure includes: A witness has children and grandchildren, but they do not live in the same household with him. They are a part of the pressure. Because of the JW policy, the elders, in reality, say: “If you vote at a political election, you will never see your children and grandchildren anymore; they will not have anything to do with you. And likewise, you will also lose all your friends because they will not have anything to do with you.” This is not only pressure but also an unimaginable threat!

The letter also states:

Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize the fundamental rights that we have in Norway, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

I must also point out that the words above are false. Human rights are:

The right to freedom of thought, belief, and religion has two aspects under human rights law:

• the right to hold, or change religious or other beliefs
• the right to put your thoughts and beliefs into action (‘manifestation’)

The right to hold, not to hold or to change your religious or other beliefs is absolute and cannot be interfered with under any circumstances. [1]

We can again use the aforementioned grandfather as an example. He has not voted in an election, but he has sent a letter to the congregation stating that he does not want to be a Witness anymore. What happens now? Exactly the same consequences as if he had voted in an election; His children, grandchildren, and friends will shun him. They will treat him as if he did not exist. If a person cannot leave a religious denomination without great sanctions being placed on him, can we honestly say that the denomination “recognizes the fundamental rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion?” Absolutely not! The absolute right to hold and change religious beliefs, according to the Declaration of human rights is  being blatantly violated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It is both ironic and very misleading when JW uses the Declaration of Human Rights to show that they have the right to disfellowship members (see the first point under the heading), but then ignore this Declaration when they pressure and threaten members not to vote at political elections, and exclude those who do vote; also when they pressure and threaten members not to withdraw membership from the denomination.

 [1]. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-human-rights-multipage-guide/right-freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion.

THE LETTER FROM JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DATED 31 AUGUST 2020

This letter from JW is a clear example of points 3 and 5 above. I make a quotation:

We respect Rolf Furuli’s right to express his personal viewpoints regarding our letter to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken from 18 October 2019, and we know that there will be different viewpoints regarding the practice of exclusion. Our faith is based on the Bible, and as individuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses are motivated by love for God and our fellow man. Apart from this, we have no further comment on Furuli’s letter.

As you will see in my letter dated 17 June 2020, I gave concrete and detailed information as to how the letter from Jehovah’s Witnesses misled the County Governor. Instead of commenting on this concrete information, which the County Governor asked for, the writers of the letter claim that my concrete and detailed information only represents my personal viewpoints. This is a known tactic on the part of JW, directing the attention to something other than the real issue and maneuvering the situation in such a way to bypass having to answer the actual criticisms lodged against them. The County Governor should have seen through this maneuvering and asked JW to comment on my criticism. But this did not happen.

The letter refers to two articles on their website jw.org. One reference is the article “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Shun Those Who Used to Belong to Their Religion? The article says:

Those who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned. In fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.

We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”—1 Corinthians 5:13.[1]

The two paragraphs represent the answer to the question in the heading, and this answer is false and misleading. The phrase “those who used to belong to their religion” must include all persons who were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer are a part of the denomination. Three groups are included, 1) disfellowshipped persons, 2) those who have resigned and have disassociated themselves,[2] and 3) inactive persons who have not resigned.

The second paragraph in the quotation shows that disfellowshipped persons (group 1) are shunned, and this is correct. The first paragraph shows that inactive persons who have not resigned (group 3) are not shunned, and this is also true. But information about persons who no longer “belong to their religion” because they have resigned and are considered disassociated persons (group 2) are withheld. The book for elders “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock” (1991), page 102, says:

Those that disassociate themselves should be viewed and be treated the same as  disfellowshipped persons. (italics mine)

The conclusion the reader is led to draw by reading the two quoted paragraphs is that JW do not shun persons who used to belong to their religion, except for those that have been disfellowshipped. But this conclusion is false. Those who voluntarily resign from the denomination are, in fact, shunned as well. This means that it is not possible to resign from JW without sanctions being put on the person. In other words, resigning from JW is for all practical purposes the same as being disfellowshipped. Thus, the answer to the question in the heading, by employing willful misdirection, leads the reader astray.

One question on jw.org is “Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Respond to All Accusations Made Against Them?”[3] References to Jesus, Paul, and Peter are used to justify the policy of not answering accusations. The references imply that all accusations against JW are either false (the example of Jesus), or are pointless disputes by opposers (the example of Paul), or are occasions for letting actions provide a rebuttal (the example of Peter).

The implication of the references is that because all accusations against JW are false, there is no need for JW to make any attempt to debunk the accusations. The position of JW is so elevated that, by default, they stand above any accusation. In effect, they say, ‘Because our end is lofty, it justifies any means at our disposal to achieve those ends, even a little dishonesty here and there.’ If anyone criticizes such dishonesty or points out any other wrongs, they are categorized as an “opposer” who is working against those lofty ends—the greater good that JW are working towards. In reality, I am saying that to achieve those lofty ends, the Bible and its principles must be strictly adhered to every step of the way, including ‘being honest in all things.’ (Hebrews 13:18) This has been an absolute and fundamental principle for JW. But as this study shows, members of the Scandinavian branch office and writers of articles on the website jw.org have violated this principle.

However, some years ago, the Awake! magazine had an article referring to reports in some newspapers saying that the Catholic Church had shares in establishments that promoted prostitution. The Awake! article said that because the Catholic Church had not denied the mentioned reports, we can believe that they are true. This is a logical way of reasoning. If someone gives false information about me, I will, of course, publicly prove that the information is false. In a similar way, we must draw the conclusion that when JW did not contest my concrete information showing that they had misled the County Governor, my information must be true.

[1]. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/.

[2]. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/.

[3]. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/respond-to-accusations/.

LETTER FROM THE SCANDINAVIAN BRANCH DATED 18. OCTOBER 2019

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Branch office of Scandinavia

Stenhusvej 28 DK-4300 Holbæk, Denmark

 

18 October 2019

 

 

To county Governor in Oslo and Viken

PB 325

1502 Moss

 

 

We have received your letter, dated 11 September 2019, accepted on 13 September 2019, where you ask for our comments in connection with news articles discussing the standpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses in connection with voting at political elections. You ask us to make comments on a letter that you received from the Department of Children and Family. We appreciate the opportunity to correct some of the wrong information that has been presented by different news media and to be able to explain our biblical view of political neutrality.

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses appreciate the fundamental rights we have in Norway, including the right to thought conscience, and religious freedom. As Christians, we respect that others have the right to vote or not to vote. We do not argue against elections, and we cooperate with the authorities. But each Witness of Jehovah makes a personal decision to have a strictly neutral attitude towards the politics of the nations. They believe that political neutrality is a biblical commandment. (Mathew 22:21; John 15:19; 18:36; 2 Corinthians 5:20: 1 Peter 3:16) Additional information about our religious reasons for not voting at political elections can be found at our official website: https://www.jw.org/no/bibliotek/boker/guds-kjaerlighet/flagghilsen-valgdeltagelsesiviltjeneste/.

 

The decision to remain neutral in political issues is a personal decision of each individual on the basis of his understanding of the Bible and his conscience. If a member of our religious community decides to participate in an election, the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the person himself has chosen to leave the religious community. Therefore, a short notice is given to the congregation with the words: “[The name of the person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” But the person is still welcome to be present at religious services, to choose a seat where he wants to sit in the Kingdom Hall (the meeting place of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and to participate in the singing of religious songs. In addition to that, he or she can speak with and socialize with their immediate family (the only exception is not to discuss faith-related and religious issues).

 

The standpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses in connection with political neutrality is in no way at odds with the fundamental values in a democratic society. On the contrary, when this issue has been raised, the courts have consistently stated that the religious standpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses is in accord with democratic values. This is confirmed in the following decisions in Italy, Germany, and Sweden.

 

THE DECISIONS ARE QUOTED

 

Another point is that most (if not all) religious denominations that receive monetary aid from the Norwegian state have beliefs and practices that each one in the denomination must follow. This includes beliefs and practices that others can view as undemocratic.

 

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW V, RUSSIA IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS QUOTED.

 

In connection with all these religious practices, the conclusion of EBD in Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, that is referred to above, according to paragraph 141 was: “…the State does not have the right under the Convention to decide what beliefs  may or may not be taught because the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excludes any discretion on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate (see Manoussakis and Others, cited above, § 47).”

 

EBD’s judges have decided that article 9 in the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right of the religious denominations “to react, in accord with their own rules and interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them that might pose a threat to their cohesion, image or unity.” This includes the right to decide that a person who follows a particular course can no longer be a member of the denomination.

 

REFERENCES TO DIFFERENT COURT CASES

 

So the sincere religious view of Jehovah’s Witnesses in connection with political neutrality is absolutely not at odds with fundamental values. But it is a fundamental right that is protected by the Norwegian Constitution and by the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

We hope that on the basis of what is mentioned in this letter, it is clear that we completely respect a person’s fundamental right to make a decision regarding political neutrality and that Jehovah’s witnesses in no way exert pressure or use threats in order to frighten a person from voting.

 

Best regards

 

Kåre Sæterhaug                                Dag-Erik Kristoffersen

Member of the board.                           Public Information Desk

LETTER FROM R.J. FURULI DATED 17 JUNE 2020

 

 

Rolf J. Furuli dr. art.

Skaufaret 12C

3292 Stavern

Tel: 22149605

Mobil: 47391272

e-post: rolf.furuli@sf-nett.no

 

17 June 2020

 

The County Governor in Oslo and Viken

Postboks 325

1502 Moss

 

 

 

 

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND VOTING AT POLITICAL ELECTIONS

 

Several persons with interest in Jehovah’s Witnesses have contacted me in connection with the letter that Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Branch office of Scandinavia, wrote to the County Governor (Fylkesmannen) on 18 October 2019. They are concerned that the letter contains several false claims. They contacted me because they know that I have written a book that defends the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses but is critical to the current leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 59 years, and I know the community from the inside. The Bible demands truthfulness in all things, and because of that, I think it is correct to make some comments regarding the letter. Paragraph 3 says:

The decision to remain neutral in political issues is a personal decision of each individual on the basis of his understanding of the Bible and his conscience. If a member of our religious community decides to participate in an election, the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the person himself has chosen to leave the religious community. Therefore, a short notice is given to the congregation with the words: “[The name of the person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” But the person is still welcome to be present at religious services, to choose a seat where he wants to sit in the Kingdom Hall (the meeting place of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and to participate in the singing of religious songs. In addition to that, he or she can speak with and socialize with the immediate family (the only exception is not to discuss faith-related and religious issues).

All the information in the quotation is correct. But just the same, the County Governor is lead astray. The paragraph gives the impression that if a person votes at an election, and by this “choose to leave the religious community,” his situation in relation to the religious community is about the same, with the exception that he no longer is a member. That is not correct. The phrase “the person himself has chosen to leave the religious community” is a cosmetic expression for disfellowshipping. If a person votes at an election, he will be treated in exactly the same way as one who has been disfellowshipped. No one will greet or speak to him or her. He will have a normal life together with the members of his own household. But family members outside his household will not greet him or speak with him, except on very special occasions. It is correct that he can attend religious services and sing religious songs. But how many will want to do that when those present treats him as if he did not exist? Important information is withheld, and therefore, the reader gets a wrong picture of what happens with a person who votes at an election.

 

The last paragraph says:

We hope that on the basis of what is mentioned in this letter, it is clear that we completely respect a person’s fundamental right to make a decision regarding political neutrality and that Jehovah’s witnesses in no way exerts pressure or use treats in order to frighten a person from voting.

It is correct that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use threats in order to frighten a person from voting. And the decision to vote, they let the conscience of the person decide. But this conscience is under strong pressure. If a Witness voted at an election, he knows that he will lose all his family members, except those who live in his household. None of them will say a greeting to him or speak with him, and he also loses all his friends. This can only be viewed as a strong pressure to prevent him or her from voting at an election.

 

In paragraph 2, we read:

Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize the fundamental rights that we have in Norway, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

Jehovah’s Witnesses only partially accept freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. If a person leaves his religion in order to join JW, then Yes, these freedoms are considered valid by JW. But if a person wants to leave JW and join another religion or no religion, these freedoms are no longer valid or applicable to JW. It is not possible to leave JW without receiving such sanctions. If a person writes a letter saying that he no longer wants to be one of JW, the person will be treated in the same way as one who has been excluded or disfellowshipped. No one will say a greeting to him or speak with him, and that includes family and friends, except those who are living in his household.

 

Therefore, strong pressure is exerted on a person not to leave JW. Twenty-five years ago, I raised this issue for the leaders at the office at Ytre Enebakk. I pointed out that to treat one who wanted to leave JW in the same way as disfellowshipped persons was a violation both of the Bible and of freedom of religion. No change occurred. When the Norwegian leaders moved to Denmark, I raised the issue again for the Service Department. But no change occurred.

 

I know several persons who no longer have the faith of JW, but they feel the pressure to remain in the religious community, so they do not lose their family and their friends. If JW had truly accepted the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion they claim to espouse, a person would be able to leave without being treated as a disfellowshipped person.

 

My conclusion is that the County Governor has been misled by the letter. And because I know that, I deem it to be right to inform the County Governor about that.

 

 

Best regards.

 

 

Rolf J. Furuli

LETTER FROM THE SCANDINAVIAN BRANCH DATED 31 AUGUST 2020

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Branch office of Scandinavia

Stenhusvej 28 DK-4300 Holbæk, Denmark

 

31 August 2020

 

 

THE COUNTY GOVERNOR IN OSLO AND VIKEN

 

 

 

 

Regarding your letter of 17 August 2020

 

Many thanks for your letter dated 17 August 2020, where you ask us to make comments on a letter from Rolf Furuli dated 17 august 2020.

We respect Rolf Furuli’s right to present his personal opinions about our letter to the County Governor in Oslo and Viken dated 18 October 2019, and we realize that there will be different viewpoints regarding the practice of disfellowshipping. Our faith is based on the Bible, and as individuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses are motivated by love for God and our fellow humans. In addition to that, we have no comments regarding Furuli’s letter.

 

The County Governor may find more information about the practice of disfellowshipping and the biblical basis for this on our website jw.org, for example, the following articles.

• Do Jehovah’s Witness Shun Those who Used To Belong to Their Religion?
• Why Disfellowshipping Is a Loving Provision?

In addition, we refer to our comments in our letter to the County Governor dated 18 October 2019. If the County Governor thinks that something in our letter is unclear or have questions regarding our faith or our practice, the County Governor is, of course, welcome to contact us. We will answer any questions that you have.

 

Best regards

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses the Branch office in Scandinavia

 

 

Kåre Sæterhaug                                  Dag-Erik Kristoffersen

Member of the board                          Public Information Desk

LETTER FROM R.J. FURULI DATED 17 OCTOBER 2020

 

 

 

Rolf J. Furuli, dr. art.

Skaufaret 12C

3292 Stavern

 

To the County Governor in Oslo and Viken

 

17 October 2020

 

 

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

 

 

I refer to the letter from the County Governor dated 6 October 2020. I respect, of course, the decision not to do more investigations in this case. But I must be allowed to make some comments on the letter from Jehovah’s Witnesses dated 31 August 2020.

This letter claims that my criticisms in my letter of 17 June 2020 are my personal opinion and not factual information. The letter also claims that the issue is the disfellowshipping practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is an internal matter. This is to turn the issue on its head.

The issue is, in reality, two situations that are related to the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion:

• Can a member of JW vote in a political election without any sanctions being put on him?
• Can a person leave the religious community of JW without any sanctions being put on him?

In my letter dated 17 June 2020, I pointed out that the answer to both questions is No. In the letter dated 31 august 2020, JW dodge the questions and they do not comment on my criticism. The claim is that my criticisms only represent my personal opinion. In what follows, I will present relevant data. The following claims in the letter of JW of 18 October 2019 are not true:

We hope that on the basis of what is mentioned in this letter, it is clear that we completely respect a person’s fundamental right to make a decision regarding political neutrality and that Jehovah’s witnesses in no way exert pressure or use treats in order to frighten a person from voting.

Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize the fundamental rights that we have in Norway, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND POLITICAL ELECTIONS

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that their denomination does not exert pressure or use threats to scare a Witness from voting. If someone votes, the view is that the person voluntarily has “disassociated himself” and does not want to be a member of the religious community any longer.

The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God”, which is a document that only the elders can read, shows that these claims are not true. Chapter 18, 3 (4) says:

18.3 (4): Taking a Course That Violates Christian Neutrality:  (Isa. 2:4; John 15:17-19: lvs pp. 60-63, 244) If he joins a nonneutral organization, he has disassociated himself. If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities, he should generally be allowed six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.—See lvs pp. 204-206.

The words “political election” is not mentioned in the book. From a judicial point of view, it would be dangerous to use these words. But all elders know that “a course that is violating Christian neutrality” includes military service and voting at political elections. The words “nonneutral (activity)” refer to any activity that is supporting political and military organizations. A person who supports anything that is political or military will not be allowed to be a member of  the Jehovah’s Witness denomination, even if the person wishes to be. I will elucidate this.

What is a “nonneutral organization”? It can be a factory where some of its products are sold to the Armed Forces. If the elders understand that a part of the factory’s production has been contracted for  military purposes, they will inform  the Witness that he has six months to find another job. If he has not changed his job by the end of the six month deadline, and continues to work at the factory, the view of the elders is that he has “disassociated” himself from the congregation and voluntarily  left JW.

In reality, however, not one aspect of these proceedings has been based on the free will of the Witness. Confirming this, what happens if the Witness says: “I do not agree that the production of the factory where I work goes against the Bible. Therefore, I will continue to work at the factory, and I wish to continue  as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” He will not be allowed to do that. Instead, sanctions will be put on the person, the same sanctions that are put on one who is disfellowshipped. No Witnesses will say a greeting to the person or speak with him, and his fleshly family, apart from those who live in his household, will refuse to have any contact with him.

If a Witness “violates his neutrality”— when the elders decide that he has done that—he will be treated in exactly the same way as one who has been disfellowshipped. But in order to avoid problems with the authorities in the country, JW use the euphemism  that the person has “voluntarily  disassociated himself” from the congregation in keeping with his ‘desire to leave’  the organization. A Witness who votes in a political election will not be allowed to continue as a Witness, even though the person desires to. Instead he will be treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.

Losing all his friends and  family, and all his contacts, except for his wife and children who live in his household, is a traumatic experience. And this can happen if one votes in a political election or works at a factory where a part of the production is allocated for military purposes. Claiming that JW “in no way exerts pressure or use threats in order to frighten a person from voting” simply is a lie. I can hardly imagine a stronger pressure on a Witness who decides to vote in an election than to lose all his  contacts, friends and family. This is definitely a violation of the fundamental “right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” that we have in our country.

RESIGNING FROM JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” implies that a person can join or withdraw from a religious denomination or a political party without any form of pressure or reprisal. This right does not exist among JW. A person who fulfills the requirements to join JW, can freely do so, but no one can withdraw from JW without sanctions that are put upon him.

Indeed, to withdraw is viewed as a very big sin. The Norwegian Watchtower of 15 September 1986, page 31 says: “the one who deliberately leaves the Christian congregation (a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses) is a part of the “Antichrist.” A person who withdraws will be treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. He will lose all his friends and his family. Because of this, many persons who no longer believe the same as JW and are not active in the congregation do not formally withdraw. That way they can keep their friends and their family.

CONCLUSION

A known tactic when the branch office in Scandinavia is asked to answer criticisms is not to answer. Or if it is necessary to answer, saying as little as possible. The letter dated 31 August 2020 is a typical example of this tactic. No comments are given to the criticism in my letter dated 17 June 2020. Instead, the writer introduces a red herring by insinuating that my criticism is merely my personal viewpoint.  Next, the writer uses misdirection by implying that practice of disfellowshipping, which a religious internal matter,  is the focus of my criticism. However, the data that have been presented in this letter tells a different story.

I am no enemy of JW, but I have a positive view of the Christian faith of the denomination. Neither do I desire that  JW  lose the monetary aid they are receiving from the Norwegian government. Honesty is basic for JW, and so, there is no situation where the Witnesses can justify telling lies. Those who have signed the letter to the County Governor dated 18 October 2019, have, in their eagerness to continue receiving such monetary aid, deviated from the norm of JW and have presented several false claims. These false claims should be corrected, and that it the reason for my letters to the County Governor.

I would like to stress that the criticism in my letter dated 17 June 2020 and in this letter is not my personal view of JW, which is implied in the letter from the Scandinavian branch dated 18 October 2020. The quotation from the book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” represent data, which shows the view of JW regarding voting in elections and the choice of occupations that are viewed as a violation of one’s neutrality.

The issue is not the practice of disfellowshipping by JW, as the branch letter claims . But the issue is that JW do not accept the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion that we have in our country. To be sure, both this and the practice of disfellowshipping are, of course, internal issues. However, if JW insist on upholding these practices considered ‘internal matters’ they should own it, i.e., openly admit it.  But when the letter to the County Governor includes several false statements, it is in the interest of the public to point this out.

In order to cut through the tactic of JW in this matter, I have the following challenge: Is the data and my comments to these data that are mentioned in this letter correct? If there are errors, I ask for a correction of these. If no correction is given, as earlier explained above, the readers of my letter have the right to believe that what is written in this letter is correct.

 

A copy has been sent to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the branch office of Scandinavia.

(Copies of the original letters in Norwegian are found in the Category “Å trekke seg — i strid med Bibelen” in the Norwegian part of this website.)

ADDENDUM

A person who studied the correspondence quoted above wrote a comment regarding how to leave JW that is so excellent and to the point that I quote it below.

And so, when it comes to formally withdrawing from JW, an almost mafia style system has been created. For example, a person could join the Mafia, but if he tried to leave that organization, he would be killed. Similarly, a person who qualifies can freely join JW, but the only way out of the organization is via a spiritual “death”. And this analogy of “death” applies in more ways than one, because not only is a disassociated Witness considered spiritually dead, but he is also treated as if he were literally dead. No one will greet or speak with him, including friends and any family members living outside of his home. He is completely ignored by other Witnesses and treated as if he did not exit.