Viewpoint from Manager of our local newspaper. (page 2)

That was a great article indeed. I hope lots of JWs in the Surrey area read this. A year ago this article would have made me angry, but now I can't believe I would have let my child die in the same situation because of a cult's interpretation of the bible.

It is too bad the writer made the error about the earth being 6,000 years old, as many JW's will likely use that error to discredit all of the other details.

bluecanary

This is such a good point of argument. I was 12 when I got baptized; up until I was 18 (and moved out of the house) I wasn't allowed to make decisions about association or entertainment. Everything had to be passed through a parental yes/no filter. But in event of an accident, I would have been expected to make a stand for no-blood. Why would that be considered my decision when everything else in my life was ultimately my parents' decision?

AllTimeJeff

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!

Quandry

Very good article. Thanks for sharing.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

Excellent reasoning in that article.

loosie

slimboyfat, even into my teens (raised JW) I thought the 6,000 years was literal. They hadn't made that very clear to me.

I did a report in high school about how old the earth was. My mother called our bookstudy conductor to ask about how old the earth was because she wanted to make sure my facts were right. He said that the earth was 6000 yrs old. needless to say I got an F on the report.

Scully

canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news

Saturday » July 4 » 2009

If you're too young to talk to boys on the phone, you're too young to make life-or-death decisions

Beau Simpson

Surrey Now

Friday, July 03, 2009

With this column, I'm defying the advice my first managing editor - the late, great Peter Godfrey - gave me some seven years ago.

Peter's advice came a few days after I wrote a column that was harshly critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. The letters to the Harbour City Star in Nanaimo were pouring in - Peter loved that - but there was talk of human rights complaints.

"Stay away from topics like that," Peter told me in his usual gruff manner. "It's too easy, like shooting fish in a barrell."

He was right. It was too easy. Plus, I could have done without the strain it put on the relationships with my extended family in Edmonton, the majority of whom are practising members of the controversial religion - some of them have just recently started speaking to me again.

So, as a columnist, I stayed away from the topic for the next seven years, despite reading news article after news article about things like child molestation in the congregations and hugely expensive court fights to keep children from having blood transfusions.

But seven years is a long time to bite your tongue, especially when you have a unique insight into the religion like I do - and especially after reading an article in the Province on Sunday about the Supreme Court of Canada upholding a Manitoba law that denied a 14-year-old Witness the right to refuse a blood transfusion.

The ruling involves a Winnipeg girl, identified as A.C., who was almost 15 when she was apprehended by child welfare authorities and forced to undergo a blood transfusion that she compared to "being raped and violated."

The procedure kicked off an intense legal dispute over the rights of "mature minors" when stacked against the competing interest of the state in protecting children.

Jehovah's Witnesses argue that child services did not have the "right or obligation" to interfere, just as her parents did not have the right because she had the capacity to make her own decision.

They say the forced transfusion violated her charter rights to religious freedom, equality, and life, liberty and security of the person.

So they are arguing that a 14-year-old has the maturity and capactiy to make a life-and-death decision, based on "truths" that have been indoctrinated - from birth - by her parents and religious community.

Do you remember when you were 14? What kind of decision-making skills did you have?

Are your morals and values exactly the same as they were when you were 14? Has your view of the world changed since then?

My sister is 17. She lives in Edmonton. If she were in an accident and required a blood transfusion, her religious authorities - they call them the elders - would be at the hospital, fighting it.

Like the Manitoba case, they would argue that my sister is mature and wise enough to make the decision on her own. They would let her die and would insist it was her decision.

These are the same twerps - sorry, elders - that a few weeks ago were "investigating" a report that my sister was seen - get this - walking home from school with a "worldly" boy (a boy who is not a Jehovah's Witness).

You see, that's a big no-no and they were enquiring to see if they needed to take any disciplinary action - intimidation plays a big role in these congregations.

So, apparently, my sister is mature, wise and educated enough to make a life-or-death decision, but she's not mature enough to walk home from school with a boy - bad things can happen, you know.

What's more, she's not allowed to date - not even allowed to talk with boys on the phone - but she's encouraged, some would say even coerced, to go door to door telling people that they need to join their religion or else God will destroy them at Armegeddon. Pretty heavy stuff for a girl who just wants to be a 17-year-old and do things that normal 17-year-olds do.

If I had needed a blood transfusion at 14, I wouldn't be alive right now. Because at 14, I thought that would be the right thing to do. But I also thought Jonah literally lived inside a whale for three days and three nights. I also thought that the world is only 6,000 years old, because that is what I had been taught - I knew no other way.

The Supreme Court of Canada made the right decision.

If we start letting 14-year-olds make life-or-death decisions based on nothing more than irresponsible and dangerous indoctrinations, then we're going to have a lot fewer 14-year-olds.

OK, Peter. I made my point. You can stop glaring at me now from wherever you are.

Beau Simpson is managing editor for the Now newspaper.

BabaYaga

Brilliant! Thank you so much for posting this (and to Beau Simpson for writing it.)

I hope the link to this article will be work for many years to come, but just in case, here is the pasted article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(dOh... Scully and I cross posted, she beat me to it!)

yknot

Thank you for sharing, an excellent commentary!

Viewpoint from Manager of our local newspaper.

purplesofa

SuspiciousMinds