Love, Marriage, and Soulmates
Alzheimer's Research: So the Cops Shoot the Bad Guys Instead of the Good Guys...

Proposition 8, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Joel

Is it really so that Mormons brought us Proposition 8, that 2008 California referendum that banned gay marriage, and that Jehovah's Witnesses overturned? Really? Well.....no, it's not really so. But there is something to it.

Mormons didn't originate that campaign to change the state's constitution. A group called Pro Marriage was responsible. Mormons did, however, rally in a big way to ram it through. “We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this."

Just like politicians before election day, or Jehovah's Witnesses....bless their hearts....any old time, Mormons canvassed California to stoke Proposition 8 support and get those recruits to the polls. 80-90% of all Proposition 8 “foot soldiers” were Mormons, says the New York Times. Their efforts succeeded. Proposition 8 carried 52% of the state's voters; thus gay marriage was banned in the California.

But on Aug 4th, 2010,  U.S. District Court judge Vaughn Walker overturned the ban, asserting it violated the state's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Jehovah's Witnesses, who within their congregations, also oppose gay relationships, had nothing to do with that, did they? Well, no, they didn't.

But on the other hand, they did. At least a little.

On page 116 of the judge's lengthy judicial opinion is cited West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. That's the 67 year old Supreme Court ruling stating that the children of Jehovah's Witnesses could not be compelled to salute the flag. It reversed another Court decision, made just three years earlier in the height of wartime fever (1940), which stated they could. Didn't I write about those two cases here?

That rare reversal was the strongest support cited by Justice Walker to establish that the rights of a minority cannot be negated by the majority, no matter how numerous the latter might be. Justice Jackson, who wrote the prevailing opinion of  West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, noted that the "very purpose" of the Bill of Rights was to protect some issues from politics and "place them beyond the reach of majorities." In present day 2010, Justice Walker applied that reasoning to gay marriage. "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant," he wrote.

Now, it was Joel Engardio, director of Knocking, a 2006 PBS documentary about Jehovah's Witnesses, who first noted the JW connection in Proposition 8's demise. This prompted another blogger, who, as may be discerned from his narrative, has little use for Witnesses, to opine:

The reference by Judge Walker to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette will have the Watchtower Society scratching their heads. “How did we help those wicked sons and daughters of Sodom and Gomorrah?” they will be asking themselves.

To which I replied: “No they will not.”

Well....... “It was never the intention of the intolerant Witness religion to grant any freedom of expression outside their own narrow view,” he asserts.

“Nor was it their intention to restrict any other group from benefiting from legal precedent they’ve established,” I replied.

Unlike many groups that stand for something, Jehovah’s Witnesses views on homosexuality, or anything else, are theirs alone. They apply them to themselves. They don’t attempt to force them upon general society...say...by writing those views into law, or even resorting to violence. They are respectful of those holding opposing views. To be sure, JWs don't keep those views to themselves. Their door-to-door visits rank right up there with death and taxes as one of the constants of everyday life. But the exercise of free speech is as far as they go, and in today's world, many groups feel sanctioned to go well beyond that. Mr. Engardio has stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses provide an excellent example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully. Frankly, I am much impressed that he can be so objective, since, as our aforementioned blogger points out, JW beliefs conflict with his own sexual orientation: Mr Engardio is gay. Most people take a position on various issues based solely on their own immediate benefit. He doesn't.

Roam online, and you'll find countless gay websites that absolutely loathe JWs. I've never found any that praise them. Jehovah's Witnesses, after all, make no accommodation for gay relationships within their congregations. How can they? They're a Bible organization and they don't assume the authority to change scriptures. I don’t think they harp on it. I even think they’re sympathetic to those claiming a different sexual orientation, but they are bound to represent scripture, or else change their mandate entirely. It does make it challenging for anyone gay within their ranks....no question about it. Don't they have to do what swimmers do caught in a rip tide? You don't swim against it; you can't, in any conceivably short time, will yourself or even pray yourself straight. You don't swim with the tide, buying into prevailing propaganda that holds ones sexuality is irrevocable and ought be a source of pride. You have to swim parallel to the current, maybe for a long long time, maybe for the duration of this system, with faith that the influence of God's spirit and congregation will, over  time, serve to readjust sexuality. No, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it? That's why I have the greatest respect for anyone following that course, and none whatsoever for Westboro-church types who rail against homosexuals. They've never fought battles the like of which they would have others fight.

But my mention of Joel Engardio prompted a minor skirmish as to his motives. “What could be more transparent about Engardio’s benefit,” shot back my opponent, “he is promoting himself and his film.” Is he?…..well, maybe. But why make such a film in the first place, one that runs directly counter to his immediate interests? Why not use his data and background to make a film bashing Jehovah’s Witnesses? God knows it would find a larger audience than one praising them. To which my adversary  (I'm not sure he's really an adversary, for I've stomped around his blog and there's much I like about him....he advocates for the disabled, for instance, so we overlap somewhat. And how can one not like a guy who appreciates Bob Dylan?) acknowledged: “Engardio is definitely an advocate for freedom of speech and the Jehovah’s Witness court record on winning those rights in the United States is strong.”

It is indeed. Jehovah's Witnesses have tried 50+ cases before the Supreme Court, most notably in the 1940's and 1950's, but as recently as 2002. Aside from the government itself, no group has litigated more often before the Court, and their legal victories have clarified the Bill of Rights for all citizens.  Said U.S Supreme Court Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone: "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." (the same can be said in several other countries)

Advocacy groups of all stripes benefit greatly from the groundwork JWs have prepared. Rather than acknowledge any debt, however, they generally join popular clamor in ridicule or even opposition to the Witnesses. Even Rochester's beloved City Magazine piled on, prompting this rebuke from our own Tom Weedsandsheat.

It's a curious fact ...let us acknowledge it...that the most well-known apologist today for Jehovah's Witnesses is an openly gay man. Who would have thought it? Regularly, you'll find Joel Engardio's writings in mainstream publications such as USA Today and the Washington Post. In many ways, he explains Jehovah's Witnesses better than the Witnesses do themselves, at least from a certain vantage point and to a certain audience. Here he writes about Proposition 8. Here about Russia's persecution of JWs. Here even on Michael Jackson. Here he explains JWs for Beliefnet.com.   

Not to suggest that everything he writes is about Jehovah's Witnesses. By no means. Check out his own page on the ACLU blog:

Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a lot of friends among the well-connected, and they make no effort to court them. They aren't political. They neither buy politicians nor grow their own. Nobody politically connected owes them anything. Besides, they preach that human efforts of self-government are divinely disapproved, destined to failure, and slated for replacement by God. (see Dan 2:44) How's that for a recipe to ingratiate yourselves with today's elite? Mr. Engardio's one of the few who will speak up for them. He's certainly in a unique position to do it, knowing both worlds well.

Joel Engardio states that he was raised a Witness, but left early on, breaking his mother's heart. He broke it again, he adds, when he later confessed he was gay. But sexuality was not the cause of his departure. Rather, he writes, he didn't want to wait for God to set matters straight. He thought he could set them straight now, as a journalist. He explains it all here. He worked his way through the ranks, and by the time I first heard of Knocking, his name was well-known among NPR newspeople.

For the most part, whenever we receive media coverage, we get slammed. Journalists, by and large, come from a different planet. They seldom get their heads around where we're coming from, so they're quick to buy into stereotypes. Knocking was the first fair shake I've ever seen from the media. It won a few awards. Said Anderson Cooper of CNN: "Riveting and illuminating. KNOCKING takes us inside the world of Jehovah's Witnesses in a way that is utterly surprising and moving.”

As to Mr. Engardio's motives, who knows? Maybe, as a journalist, he values JW contributions to Constitutional law enough to override individual concerns about sexuality. Maybe he wants to do his Mama proud. Maybe he simply wants to strike a blow for what's true, without regard for how it works for him personally. We don't have to know everything. His motives are his. Moreover, the 'fat lady' hasn't sung yet. Maybe he'll be like that guy who hauled Jeremiah out of the muck and so made out just fine when the Babylonians stomped in. (Jer 38:7-13) I haven't a clue. But I'll tell you one thing. He writes about us both accurately and respectfully. I do appreciate that.

..........................................

[Edit: Joel himself emailed me shortly after the post appeared, to say "......thanks for writing your blog about Prop 8 and me. It was a good read. I wouldn't call myself an "apologist" for JWs (plenty of doctrines I don't agree with), but I certainly value our Constitutional rights to speak, believe and live as we see fit."

I called him an apologist after seeing him described that way on the web. Plainly he doesn't view himself that way, notwithstanding that he's posted plenty of good material about us.]

...........................

More Supreme Court history here and here.

 

*************************

Tom Irregardless and Me           No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash


 


 

Comments

TJ

Hi Tom,

In a way, I always find it strange when people assume that Witnesses are somehow bewildered or upset when one of our legal precedents benefit a group whose conduct we may not condone. We have always fought for freedom of conscience for all people; we don't try to force our beliefs upon others via government sanction, but instead we rely on reasoning with people, face-to-face, on why we believe what we do and the benefits of it. In my opinion, this sets Jehovah's Witnesses apart from the majority of religion.

As the upcoming December 2010 issue of the Awake! magazine comments, "The Bible says: 'Honor men of all sorts' or, as Today's English Version renders it, 'Respect everyone.' (1 Peter 2:17) Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They show kindness to all people, including those who are gay.--Matthew 7:12"

In addition to Mr. Engardio (who has my respect as both a fair-minded person and excellent journalist), you may also want to check out the work of Dr. George D. Chryssides (for example, see http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=40147 ). Also very fair, seeking understanding and new insights rather than just recycling the same old narrative.

tom sheepandgoats

TJ: I hadn't heard of this fellow, and I did check him out. You're right, he doesn't just recycle the same old same old. Thanks for the heads-up.

vargas

>>In many ways, he explains Jehovah's Witnesses better than the Witnesses do themselves....<<

That, right there, is a joke. If we are unable to explain ourselves to him it's because he, like most people, do not listen to us when we speak.

tom sheepandgoats

I probably didn't phrase the point as I would have liked. But I don't think we always explain ourselves very well. In recent years, we have gotten better

casey

you write:
"You don't swim against it; you can't, in any conceivably short time, will yourself or even pray yourself straight. You don't swim with the tide, buying into prevailing propaganda that holds ones sexuality ought be irrevocable and a source of pride. You have to swim parallel to the current, maybe for a long long time, maybe for the duration of this system, with faith that the influence of God's spirit and congregation will, over time, serve to readjust sexuality."

With all due respect, my personal sexuality does not need to be readjusted. Religious zealots, Christians, Muslims, et al, need to stop even THINKING about MY life and worry about their own. Gay people do not need to be "readjusted" so that we can fit into your narrow view of how a life should be lived. Laws are enacted to provide a safe and even playing field for EVERYONE, and that includes non believers, believers and everyone in between. We don't ask for your approval, we don't need your approval. What we need is a civil society that allows every individual the right to happiness and contentment without infringing on the happiness and contentment of others. YOUR religious beliefs are YOURS and the only time we will have a problem is when you attempt to make ME follow the principals YOU guide YOUR life with. I am not a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu or any other "organized" religion, and there is zero reason for me to follow the tenets of any religion beyond the basic human tenets of decency and respect. If I am EVER lucky enough to meet a man I'd like to share my life with, my gay marriage would have ZERO impact on your straight marriage. Live and Let Live. You believe in what you believe in and show me the same respect. The Federal Government is there to protect that right for me and for you. Prop 8, and ANY proposition that puts up the rights of a minority to a vote by the majority is just flat wrong on the face of it. Human civil liberties should NEVER be put to a vote. Christians have the right to their belief system, but they do not have the right to try to make me live my life according to their "rules" and we certainly don't need to be spoken condescendingly to by Christians waiting for us to "readjust" to their own personal religion.

tom sheepandgoats

Thanks, Casey, for the comment.

When I wrote the paragraph you cited, it was with the understanding that it applied only to those within our faith, not outside, as you appear to be.

Gays, understandably, might find that paragraph rough. But it's not written for all gays. We apply our standards only to ourselves. To be sure, we publicly recommend what we feel is the Christian way of life. But people are free to decline that invitation, and most do. With that being the case, we don't feel it's our place to meddle in their lives. Isn't that in harmony with what you wrote?

Sorry to cause offense.

Tru Agape

Tomsheepandgoats you wrote" They're a Bible organization and they don't assume the authority to change scriptures."

This is not true at all with regards to homosexuality. Jehovah nor any of the men whom he used to author the bible never NEVER linked sodom and gomorrah with homosexuality. Biblical history and even the Septuigent confirm this. The New World Ttranslation uses the man made word "sodomite" as it's excuse for equating arsenokoitai with homosexuality. Changing scripture is a blasphemous affair, and the society cannot wipe its hands clean of such decietfulness.

tom sheepandgoats

TA: We've been through this before in a lengthy exchange at the end of the post Advise and Consent:

http://tinyurl.com/3xz62uv

I didn't buy it then. I'm afraid I still don't.

I don't want to hash through it all again. We've been there.

Tru Agape

T.A. a nickname! I like it!

I will post a response in that other thread. Thank you.

Oh and rest assure that I don't want you to "buy" anything. Facts aren't sold, they're given.

The comments to this entry are closed.