Tell the Grandmother to get the grandson's Mom to go jwfacts.com.
A poignant comment on JWsurvey.org from a nonJW regarding Sparlock
by cedars 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mamochan13
I think you've given gram some good advice, Cedars.
Just wanted to add a couple of comments. KS, you suggest gram should have read a particular book before raising her daughter since she is in a cult. I wish it was that simple. AS parents we cannot control how our children turn out, unfortunately, no matter how many books we read! We also make many mistakes in raising our children. I did, because I raised them in the cult.
Giordano's observation about the gram/daughter relationship got me thinking. My eldest daughter and I have a sometimes difficult relationship. Of my girls, she is the one most likely to return to JW land, although with my mom (her gram) gone that danger may be lessened. Her grandmother had a major influence on her, unfortunately. So it can go both ways. I should add that my other daughters are all open-minded critical thinkers who will never go back. It's just my eldest who is a black/white thinker attracted to cults.
However, she is allowing my granddaughter to attend children's sessions at an evangelical Christian group with some family friends. My granddaughter is always telling me stuff about God, heaven, etc. I try to give her different perspectives, tell her I don't believe certain things and that there are many different religions. We have some great discussions (she's 7). I respect her mother's right to raise her and teach her what she will, whether I agree with it or not. I also have worked really hard to not interfere because of my own experience with my mother. I'm simply trying to encourage critical thinking and let my granddaughter know that there are other valid viewpoints (a la Dawkins).
However, my granddaughter recently told me that her mom doesn't want her at my house because of these conversations. So sometimes you just can't win for trying. It really is a very complex thing when you are a grandparent who wants to do right by your grandchild.
Now, I should add that if my daughter does ever start attending JW meetings, I may find it much harder to be tolerant. I don't think it's simply "moral panic". The danger to this 3-year-old is very real and gramma is right to be worried.
PS - never underestimate the intelligence and reasoning capabilities of a 3-year-old.
-
King Solomon
Sizemik, my point is that we're all far removed from these people (including Cedars: he only got an e-mail from the Granny, asking for advice), and however much we WISH we were empowered to control this particular situation, we are not. Privacy rights of citizens, and respect for others' personal boundaries means ALL people are entitled to lead their own lives as they see fit, including choice of religious beliefs. As much as it pains some to realize it, JWs ARE engaged in a protected activity. SUCKS, I know! But it's true....
Perhaps why these words struck me as more than a bit condescending:
She hasn't indicated how she wants to proceed further, but I think we must give her the benefit of the doubt in assuming she will handle the situation responsibly and with sensitivity.
Really? And what other choice do we have, exactly? Perhaps tracking Granny down to discover her identity, trace her daughter and child down to find their address, and kicking down the front door with Child Protective Services in tow MIGHT be a tad much, just yet?
It just MIGHT be wise to "give her the benefit of the doubt" that she'll be able to handle HER life "with responsibility and great sensitivity", just like her daughter and grand-kid should similarly be entrusted to do the same. No spit?
If some cannot see this as yet another example of making mountains out of molehills (another fitting expression, btw, that the judges would accept) to push one's Molotov-throwing "Down with WT!" personal agenda, then consider having your objectivity calibrated. Because as surprising as it may be to consider, not everyone supports ends-based justification thinking, willing to throw out rationalism in the name of an agenda....
Mamochan said:
Now, I should add that if my daughter does ever start attending JW meetings, I may find it much harder to be tolerant. I don't think it's simply "moral panic". The danger to this 3-year-old is very real and gramma is right to be worried.
True, but under the principles of civil and criminal law, there has to be a compelling reason or imminent threat to remove a child from the legal custody of the mother. The "moral panic" was, as pointed out by Steve2, the fear of what MAY happen to the child, eg child abuse, blood issue, etc. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in this case), courts don't act on what harm MAY come to the child, but what harm actually HAS happened, or is imminent.
That's why I posted about GM being aware of the blood issue, etc, as in case the child were in an accident, she may be the one (that is, if the ER doctors don't automatically start blood) who needs to be his advocate, against the mother's wishes, and seek court intervention to give the child blood.
But the other issues raised are valid, but alarmist and irrelevant: if JWs were recognized as such a threat to their own children, then there'd be MILLIONS of children placed into foster homes and shelters over-night. It's not going to happen, as protecting freedom of religious expression has repeatedly been affirmed in court as the more-overarching concern (except in individual cases, as mentioned, where the court steps in to protect the child's interests in life-or-death issues like blood).
-
whathappened
Jehovah's Witnesses are a dangerous cult. They destroy families, they destroy lives. This grandmother has to intervene or live with the devastating consequences it will doubtlessly bring upon her family. Go grannies, GO!
-
talesin
Stick to the issue and reign in the moral panics, please.
The issue is that the child is being exposed to a cult. I note that you shy away from that term. C U L T
Moral panic, indeed. Shouting at me is not going to change my mind, nor can your blustering and blathering about the catholic church.
We all know about the sex abuse cover-ups; we all know that no JW child is safe.
You shot your mouth off at the beginning of this thread about parents' rights. The parents have all the rights in the world; they have the right to teach that child fear, and hate. But Granny has the moral obligation to do what she can to help that child grow up with an open heart, and to watch carefully to ensure that precious child is not sexually abused, or otherwise damaged by the dangerous cult of Jehovah's Witnesses.
t
-
cedars
She emailed yesterday to ask a few questions about the 144,000, namely who these people are. I used this opportunity to explain the concept of "two-tier Christianity" and how the Governing Body uses this ideology to reinforce their authority as representatives of the "Slave Class".
Hopefully by the time she talks to her daughter (or daughter-in-law) she will be well informed - assuming she hasn't done so already. I can only hope she will approach the matter with calmness and sensitivity. I think she should try to do what she can to help her daughter before the situation becomes irretrievable.
Cedars
-
steve2
You shot your mouth off at the beginning of this thread about parents' rights.
Talesin, we disagree on this fundamental issue, but your language is extreme. You say in your latest reply that I "shouted" and (quote above) 'shot' my mouth off about parents' rights.
First, if the tone of my response came across as "shouting" I apologize. Second, by secular law parents do have the right to raise their children acording to the parents' beliefs (unless it is different in your country?).
Again, you may not mean to, but you side step the specific point I am making about grandparents needing to respect boundaries.
To raise the issue of child abuse is to side-step the specific issue being raised here. I have no hesitation in stating that, if the grandmother had concerns about such abuse, I would totally agree with you: The rights of the child would be paramount. However, the grandmother has not raised such an issue. Yes, I cannot deny what has happened - and could well still be happening - in the organization. But to raise that potential threat where none was raised to begin with is to "use" it to rob parents of their legitimate parenting rights.
You state that I do not regard the Watchtower as a cult. Where have I ever stated that? In my opinion, it is one of many cults that are allowed by secular law to operate - whether we like it or not. In the meantime, I go back to a issue I raised earlier which so far has not even been acknowledged:
If the situation were reversed and a non-JW parent left their child in the care of a JW mother-in-law who preached to the child, many on this site would cry foul. They would insist the JW mother-in-law had no right to preach to the child because she is not the lawful parent. And I would absolutely agree with those posters.
The principle applies the other way around as well. Until such time as the law declares the JW organization to be an illegal religious group, we have to respect the rights of JWs parents to raise their children in their religion (which is not to condone anything that has happened - or is still happening - in the organization).