The Jehovah Witnesses are sitting this one out

I’m really surprised by this one because, based on all the stuff I’m hearing on the news, the Christians have been coming out in force to vote. From the beginning, the Witnesses have been pacifists and were banned in some countries for being so. They have also been criticized for being too authoritarian with their congregation.

Yesterday, a little old lady came to the door to talk to me about the Jehovah Witnesses and Jesus. I’m OK with this as long as I can talk about politics as well. I asked the lady if she was going to vote. She said she had already voted…for Jesus. She told me that the bible told her that God is above all governments and that he would save her. I told her that old joke about the guy who was drowning in the ocean. A boat came by and asked if he needed saving. “God will save me,” he said. He told that to the next boat and the boat after. Then he drowned. When he went up to heaven, he asked God why he didn’t save him. God said “I sent you three boats. What more did you want?” “What if Obama is the boat?” I asked her. “What if the world is still messed up when he gets in?” she asked in return. Fair enough. But, I still think everyone should be voting.

I like the Quakers. Their Friends Committe on National Legislation promotes responsible, peaceful policy. They also write really good letters, which I have been know to copy full text and send to my representatives in the big house. You don’t have to be a Quaker to agree with their stand on the war (war is not the answer). Their otherĀ  remits include equality and justice for all, fulfilling every person’s potential and protecting the Earth. Oh my. They sound like socialists.

7 Comments so far

  1. Laureen Lentz (no_laureen) on October 30th, 2008 @ 12:14 am

    Attacking particular religions has a place on a personal blog but I find it very offensive here. What’s the problem? You don’t have cable? A brick at the TV usually covers everyone.


  2. Daneeta Loretta (daneeta) on October 30th, 2008 @ 8:27 am

    Oh, hey, Laureen. Not attacking particular religions at all. I totally respect the JWs for their pacifist stance. They have been persecuted for this, but they stuck to it. This post was about the conversation I had with a lady that came to my door. It was a lively discussion, and I also respected her for discussing politics with me. I’m was just surprised that she is sitting this one out.


  3. neutral on October 30th, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

    Daneeta, I agree with Laureen. Everyone has a right to an opinion,but this post belongs on a personal blog, not on metblogs.

    I debated whether to comment or not, but there were several things that I just couldn’t let go.

    Many Christians maintain a neutral stance in politics not just JWs or Quakers. JWs along with other Christian groups also do not bear arms based on many scriptures including Matthew 26:52.

    Though they are Law abiding citizens, that same right that allows you to vote allows them the choice not to. Those voting someone into office may become responsible for what they do. Christians, or anyone for that matter, have to carefully consider whether they want to shoulder that responsibility. By avoiding politics many Christians are able to maintain a christian unity NOT ONLY in the US but worldwide.

    Just as a final note the Bible didn’t just tell this lady that, but JWs are 7 million strong and that doesn’t even factor in the other Christian groups that have a similar stance on politics and neutrality throughout the world.

    There is so much more i could say in defense of those who choose to remain neutral,for religious reasons or not, but I just thought they should be better reflected on this site.

    By the way it would be more respectable and professional to link JWs to their actual site rather than Wikipedia.
    http://www.watchtower.org/


  4. annieroonie on October 30th, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

    I’m not sure if we’re all reading the same post. I didn’t get any religion bashing from the post – what I got out of it was a dialogue between two people about the role of religion in politics and vice versa. Daneeta apparently didn’t know JWs abstain from all elections, but I don’t think her comment was "offensive." She disagrees with the JW’s stance, but all I got was respect for it – hence the phrase, "fair enough."

    And BTW, neutral, Quakers DO NOT, as a matter of dogma, abstain from political activity. I know a nice Quaker couple who have a political sign in their front yard as we speak. :-)


  5. justuptown on October 31st, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

    I’ll probably be banned for this but… this metablog slams Republicans and Bush and our local idiots along with anyone that seems to be on that side of the fence. This slammed no one. Not Bill Clinton and the Democrats, nor one specific god. It asked questions, that some of us would like to see answered.

    Reminds me of the old saying: your entitled to what you believe as long as it agrees with my opinion. What happened to freedom of speech? I didn’t realize you guys censored your blog site. Perhaps you should post the rules on occasion.

    If you are going to censor the slamming of any church or state, you must do it across the board – to everyone – regardless – even if you agree with them.

    Hell I’d rather vote for Jesus than anyone that is running. At least he isn’t a lawyer.

    Disclaimer: All posts are just MHO.


  6. liprap on November 1st, 2008 @ 9:20 am

    I didn’t see this as an offensive post, either…it’s simply a personal observation on why one person isn’t voting.

    The lady in question needs to think about the vote she’s giving away, actually. Every non-vote will make the actual votes count for double – whether they be left, centrist, or right. Better to say what YOU want in the voting booth rather than have others try to infer it by your silence.


  7. Daneeta Loretta (daneeta) on November 2nd, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

    Just a word about "rules." When I started with London Metblogs three years ago, they told me I could write about anything just as long as it has something to do with the city. That was pretty much the only rule.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.