From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Child custody
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:49:26 GMT

In article <Apr.8.05.23.30.1992.314@dumas.rutgers.edu> hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	I read the article about Child custody. Nothing was told about lying
>>	in the court. 
>
>I think I agreee with Andreas on this one.  I see why Walter thought
>the booklet was hypocritical, but I don't think I'd really call it
>lying. 

In the court's decision, they used the term "untrue" rather than lie.
All people want to put their best face foreward in public, and I'd
imagine the judge is used to that sort of thing.  Some of the testimony
the booklet advised the JWs to give goes well beyond putting your best
face foreward.  

For example, telling the children to say that they have been exposed
to other religions and that as a result, they have learned to be tolerant
and respectful of other's divergent opinions; when in reality, they
are taught at the Kingdom Hall to view ALL other religions as
filthy and evil; as tools of Satan.  While the term "lie" may seem
inappropriate for what they are advising, it is most definitly
"untrue testimony" that they are advising, which is the wording
the judge chose.  

>But the business about pioneers seems largely a
>matter of degree.  In many churches becoming a minister or priest is
>sort of an ideal held up to kids.  That doesn't mean you really expect
>them all to do it.

True; the business about pioneers isn't the strongest example of
the "untrue" stuff, although as some of the Watchtower articles I cited
said, in some places, most of the kids do decide to become
pioneers.  Mainly, it was just another example of JW children
being taught one level of truth in private, and being told
to tell the public another level; as with the 'respect for others views'.

At least in my eyes, the biggest problem in this isn't the career
limitations they are espousing, but the doublethink they are
fostering in the children's (and adults) minds; they are expected
to say and believe that all other religions are filthy, yet they
are to say under oath that they are taught to respect others
views; they are taught to say and believe that going to college
is a waste and that they should put off marriage until the new world,
and pioneer instead; yet they are advised to say under oath that
their plans are to get married and have children, and maybe
be a journalist.  

Also, in churches where becoming a minister is an ideal held up to
kids, few are expected to reach for it, those that do are viewed as
an exception.  With the JWs, those that reach out for pioneering
are not viewed as exceptions, but 'normal'.

>It's clear that this booklet is telling them to minimize the
>differences between JW's and "normal" people.  But I don't think I'd
>say they are proposing to lie under oath.

I would agree that "lie" may be too strong a word, I'm more comfortable
with "untrue"; "untrue" to the point of going well beyond putting
your best face foreward.

>There are a range of JW's.
>It's not lying to make sure that the court sees that they're not all
>extremists and they don't all become pioneers.  

Again, you're right that the pioneering part isn't the strongest example
of untruth.  The 'respect for others' part is much stronger.  I have
yet to meet a JW who would disagree that ALL other religions are
filthy, apostate, Satan-controlled, etc.  That is not the 'extreme'
view among JWs, it is the 'normal'.  Thus, in the sense of becoming pioneers,
they may not all be extremists; but in their view of other religions,
they are.   And there is evidently a conscious effort on their part
to hide that.                     

In a custody case between a JW and a non-JW parent, they have good
cause to want to hide it; the consequences to the child's relationship
with the non-JW parent (if the child is awarded to the JW parent
and indoctrinated into the JWs) would likely be severe; unless
the non-JW parent totally avoided discussing religion with his
child, and avoided having the child over at Christmas or other
holidays, the child would be led by the JWs to view the non-JW
parent as being heavily controlled by Satan, and thus someone
to keep their guard up against.

>I admit that there's a
>certain hypocritical flavor to emphasizing different things in the
>court-room than you emphasize in your own teachings, but I suspect
>this material is well within the normal limits of preparing witnesses
>for cases like this.

I think they go a little too far beyond that.  If they emphasized
'different' things, that would be one thing.   But asking the kids
to say "opposite" things instead of "different" things is crossing
a line that should not be crossed.

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc