Now this is sad

by dgp 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dgp

  On another thread, http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/190929/1/JWs-say-Worldly-People-are-Better-Off-DEAD, undisfellowshipped posted this:

  Our Kingdom Ministry, September 1992:
  
  What will you do if an attorney or a judge asks you why you are refusing a “lifesaving” transfusion for your child? Although your first inclination might be to explain your belief in the resurrection and express your strong faith that God will bring your child back if he dies, such an answer by itself may do no more than convince the judge, whose paramount concern is the physical welfare of the child, that you are a religious fanatic and that he must step in to protect your child.

  Are witnesses supposed NOT to witness under this circumstances, and lie instead? YES.

  How sad.

  It is also so sad that they recognize that the worldly person has the "paramount concern" of the "physical welfare of the child". That is to say, the judge, attorney, whatever, is not acting on bad faith, but out of sincere interest for the child, and witnesses must lie to him.
• 

  Mary

  Although your first inclination might be to explain your belief in the resurrection and express your strong faith that God will bring your child back if he dies, such an answer by itself may do no more than convince the judge, whose paramount concern is the physical welfare of the child, that you are a religious fanatic and that he must step in to protect your child.

  In other words----lie your ass off so that the judge doesn't find out that you are a religious fanatic and that he must step in to protect your child if that child is to live.
• 

  dgp

  I would appreciate it if someone told me where I can get this thing. Boy, is this shocking!!!!!!
• 

  zeroday*

  I would appreciate it if someone told me where I can get this thing. Boy, is this shocking!!!!!!

  Watchtower Library CD...
• 

  dgp

  Thank you, zeroday. I have that.
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  "...such an answer by itself may do no more than convince the judge, whose paramount concern is the physical welfare of the child, that you are a religious fanatic..."

  Oh now why would he ever think such a thing! Tsk
• 

  carla

  What do they say after that paragraph? In my mind they are basically admitting they are religious fanatics, surely they must whitewash that statement later?
• 

  Invetigator74

  This follows:

  21

  What the court needs to know is that, although you are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds, youarenotrefusingmedicalcare. The judge needs to see that you are not neglectful or abusive parents but, rather, loving parents who want their child treated. You simply do not agree that the alleged benefits of blood outweigh its potentially lethal hazards and complications, especially when medical alternatives that do not carry these risks are available.
• 

  Invetigator74

  Check out the footnote to that article:

  Only when there is a present, ongoing emergency which, in the doctor’s opinion, requires immediate attention may treatments deemed necessary to the child’s life or health (including blood transfusions) be lawfully provided without either parental or judicial consent. Of course, a physician must be accountable when he relies on this emergency power in the law.
• 

  nelly136

  In other words----lie your ass off so that the judge doesn't find out that you are a religious fanatic and that he must step in to protect your child if that child is to live.

  think that sums it up mary.