"Spare the rod, spoil the child".
Thats what J.W.s practiced and preached when I was growing up.
My mother gave us hair pullings, soap in the mouth, big whoopins in the hall bathroom and at home. She was a single J.W. mother. I think she took her stress out on me and my sister quite a bit.
I almost forgot about it but at my grandfathers funeral, I was talking with one of my cousins who is also a single mother. Her 7 year old son was fidgiting in his seat so she back handed him across his face, right at the table in front of everyone! I couldnt believe it! Her sister told me she was concerned because she had seen her drag her son by his ears or his hair and slapp him around many times.
This isnt limited to J.W.s. I know of other religions who have also supported this behavior.
BEATING KIDS IN THE WASHROOM
by Rags 56 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
Solace
-
waiting
Hello 144,
Rape and murder have also occurred throughout history, but that does not excuse these acts. Child abuse is unacceptable, regardless of past history.
Obviously, we agree. I never said it was acceptable in any way - I said it was nearly universal.....big difference.Sometimes in our recounting our pain and woes with the WTBTS, it seems we single them out ---- as if others don't do the same things. They do.
Can they & the WTBTS get better? Yes. As I said, the WTBTS is behind on their views....probably about a full generation. They still believe in corporal punishment of children (and don't think it's wrong to just *slap* your wife either), they believe a woman is better if she stays at home, not needing education (well, for any of them really), a man has final word - even if ignorant and wrong.....the list continues. It's many issues.
Child abuse is always wrong - but there are many abusers. I was raised an Irish Catholic - and there's a long history of beatings, etc., within the Irish and the Catholics. Just the way it was.
I would suspect there are few religious organizations which from their beginning (of at least 100 years ago) advocated equality of all races & sexes (including homosexuals), non-corporal punishment of women and children, college educations for all, and freedom of speech.
I would suspect none.But some are getting better.
waiting
-
waiting
Btw, there have been sociological studies done on "first generation immigrants" to the USA. My aunt was a public nurse in NYC in the 50's, then a Sociology Professor at several universities, including Hofstra in NY. Being a beaten, poor, daughter of second generation immigrants (Irish & English) - she had a special interest in these studies.
The studies found that a sizeable portion of first generation immigrants are angry, heavy drinkers, don't socialize into the new country's system well, tend to be violent, low paid, etc.......and the kids suffer for their parents' maladjustments. They accomplish surviving the new county - quite a feat.
The second generation immigrants? They start adjusting, or fighting back, going to school, acclimating to the country, etc.
I think similarities can be found within the WTBTS. They target low income people....of which many are immigrants - or migrant workers.
"Violence breeds violence."
But the children who are leaving in droves from the WTBTS? Couldn't that be seen as a corralation between them and the third generation immigrants? They've adjusted and have lives (for the most part).
waiting
ps: The book by Caleb Carr called "The Alienest" is fascinating background into immigrants at the beginning of the 20th century.
-
William Penwell
I can hardly blame the kids from acting up as the Jdub meetings can be as exciting as watching "paint dry". I remember when I was little my mom would let me go to sleep on the floor. As a matter of fact, even to this day it’s a good place to catch a few zzzz. When my children were small, contrary to common practice, I would take them to the back room and let them play or fall asleep. I figured you couldn't force them to listen and you wouldn't make them listen by using negative reinforcements.
Will
"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."
Mark Twain -
waiting
Howdy William,
I remember going to assemblies with crayons, books, food, pillows, etc., for my little ones......and wishing I could join them, as it would keep me awake. Then the news that children should be taught to Pay Attention! I think more mothers moaned than their kids. What were we supposed to do with our kids all those boring hours?
Remarkably, most of us walked around, still kept pencils & paper handy, and found more creative ways to let them sleep. At least, when we were awake. I finally gave up on my youngest son & my husband, just let them sleep as long as they didn't snore.
waiting
-
jwsons
There is an article from The Guardian's religious reporter Stephen Bates about Watchtower+Beating kids+Courts in this 2002:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-26-2002-9660.asp -
William Penwell
Hello waiting
The ones that set these standards are a bunch of old farts that most of them never had children themselves. At the conventions I would walk my sons around the corridors to keep them quiet and have all those idiot attendants comming up to you with their stupid "Please be seated" signs. What a bunch of BS. I am sure glad i am free of all that crap.
Will
"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."
Mark Twain -
Scully
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-26-2002-9660.asp
Stephen Bates: Witness on the watchtower
The letter from JR Brown, director of the office of public information for Jehovah's Witnesses in New York, spoke fondly of the Guardian, pointing out that "our journals, Awake! and the Watchtower quote from it extensively." Sadly, his opinion had changed as a result of a four-paragraph article I...
By Stephen Bates, 1/26/2002
The letter from JR Brown, director of the office of public information for Jehovah's Witnesses in New York, spoke fondly of the Guardian, pointing out that "our journals, Awake! and the Watchtower quote from it extensively." Sadly, his opinion had changed as a result of a four-paragraph article I had written last November.
The story was a particularly terrible one. Larry and Constance Slack, a devoutly religious couple from Chicago's south side, had been accused of beating their 12 year-old daughter Laree to death with a length of electric cable, 5ft long and almost an inch thick, after she could not find her mother's coat quickly enough for them go out on time one Saturday evening.
They had beaten her in accordance with Deuteronomy 25, verses 1-3, prescribing 40 lashes' chastisement, minus one, as authorised by Jewish tradition, but then zealously reproducing St Paul's punishment (Corinthians 2:11) by multiplying it three times. The child, whose mother Constance administered some of the lashes, died after being beaten 160 times. Mrs Slack is a nurse.
The couple's five other children - one of whom, an eight year-old boy, was also beaten for being unable to find the coat - were ordered to help hold Laree down. She was gagged with a towel to prevent her screams being heard.
But what disturbed JR Brown about the Guardian's report was not the shocking story itself but the fact that the Slacks were described as Jehovah's Witnesses. He helpfully appended a statement from Leon, Larry Slack's brother, insisting that the couple were not devout witnesses. Although baptised as JWs, "for the last 10 years they have not shared in our worship services, although there were a few relatively short time periods that they would sporadically show up at meetings.
"To physically harm, abuse or kill others is diametrically opposed to the Bible principles we believe in and strive to practice... among the qualities we study about in the Bible... are.... love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control."
The Jehovah's Witnesses have reason to be nervous about this case. A series of court actions concerning child abuse are pending across the US, and the sect's guidelines are coming under scrutiny because they appear to hinder any investigation of allegations made by children. They recommend, for instance, that complaints be investigated only if abuse is observed by two independent witnesses, and that any documentation arising from an inquiry should be burned rather than shown to outsiders.
The Watchtower does not prescribe 117 lashes for children, but it certainly endorses Proverbs 23:14: "Do not withold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die." Line four of song 164 in the Witnesses' hymn book, Children: Precious Gifts From God", chirrups: "He says 'Use the rod, yet with tenderness and loving care'."
The organisation has been in almost daily expectation of Armageddon since 1914, and keeps members in line by predicting a grim fate for non-believers - known privately as birdseed - since, in fulfilment of Ezekiel 39:18, their bones will be picked clean by crows. In particular, since September 11, they hope no one notices that their standard depiction of the onset of Armageddon is a jet plane crashing into a New York skyscraper.
The Watchtower holds that "theocratic war strategy" can justly be used to deceive outsiders: "In times of spiritual warfare, it is proper to mis-direct the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does no harm."
Presumably, this is JR Brown's precept in his letter. A trawl of Awake! and The Watchtower reveals few references to "the Manchester Guardian" in the last 20 years - certainly none current quoting from it extensively - and those there are appear to be distortions, or outright reversals, of what our articles said. As with the Bible, the interpretation is wrenched out of context.
But there's a deeper, nagging, thought here. Why is the Watchtower so keen to abandon the Slacks to their fate? Surely a Christian religion should not deny its followers, however repugnantly they have behaved? Did not the example of St Peter on Good Friday lay down a few guidelines here? It can't be, can it, that JR Brown believes that ordinary folk - birdseed, Guardian readers - might think that JWs' reading of the Bible allows such a misunderstanding?
We await his next response with interest.
· Stephen Bates is the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
-
rebelledat12
Yes, I was one of those kids. Spanked at the KH and at home. Up to the age of 13, until my mother slapped me. I told her if she hit me again I was going to hit her back...
My dad, in accordance with advice from the elders, whittled a handle in a 2X4. That really hurt. My brother and I used to hide it so we'd get the leather belt instead, it hurt less.
My "crimes" worthy of corporal punishment? Fidgeting, sleeping or drawing at the KH. How humiliating, everyone knew what was being done to you, and you come back crying or with red eyes. Get the shit beaten out of you and your parent says "stop crying, right now or do I have to spank you again?"
Just thinking about it has me bawling, so allow me to vent.
I hate the witnesses.
Hate them, hate them, hate them. -
amccullough
I appreciate Waitings posts about Child Abuse being a universal and even generational problem as opposed to a JW problem. I firmly agree with this.
Farkel posted a number of WT articles condoning spanking, but they were all from the 50's, when spanking was a more commonly accepted form of punishment. I think you would be hard pressed to find references in the more politically correct modern day WT. In fact, growing up in the truth, all I remember being taught from the platform was that we should be balanced in our discipline and that the "rod of discipline" was similar to the rod a shepherd uses as opposed to a beating rod.
In fact, in our hall there was a pretty simple minded brother who used to spank his child very frequently, so the brothers counceled him against doing this.
My father spanking me had nothing to do with being a JW, it had to do with the fact that he came from a family where if you stepped out of line you got punched in the face (a Catholic family nonetheless.)