From: smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: A correction is in order (was JWs Child Custody booklet ...)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 17:47:10 GMT

Mark Sornson, (who hopefully has gotten over hating himself on Friday)
writes:

   >you don't have direct knowledge of which  portion of the material the 
   >judge considered...you can only guess;

Quite true, I believe I expressed that in my post.  
   
   >and you are obviously guessing based on
   >the things that push YOUR particular 'hot buttons.'  You AREN'T simply
   >passing along what the judge said, you are editorializing on your own.

The judge said the booklet "recommended untrue testimony".   Much of the
book is simply a listing of questions a person might be asked, or questions
that the JW lawyer might put to the non-JW spouse, a part on the
psychological exam, etc.  Much of those portions contain no recommendations
on what testimony to give.  Since the judge cited that the booklet
recommended untrue testimony, I am focusing on the sections (and there
aren't that many) where the JWs are actually given recommendations.  
In this way, I hope to avoid having my biases control the topics selected.
That's the best I can do.

>    the Society
>    only fittingly encourages all to set the HIGHEST of spiritual goals.
>    ...include making the ministry a full-time part of their life.

There are a lot of underlying issues here, such as "how does someone
go about becoming qualified to be a minister", etc.  The JWs used to,
and may still, attribute the title "minister" to children, who
obviously have nothing close to a seminary education to qualify themselves
for the job.  In fact, don't the JWs consider almost all JWs to be
ministers?

No one is saying that the JWs expect that all children will become
pioneers; but the pressure to do so is way, way higher than the
pressure on children in other denominations; and the pressure on
them to forsake college is much, much higher; as is the advice to
remain single, and if not single, than stay childless, so you won't
be burdened with children, which would reduce your ability to
pioneer and be a burden at Armageddon, which is any day now.

Thus, when the booklet says "Be careful they don't all say that they
are going to be pioneers.  Plans can be trade, getting married and
having children...", what are they doing?  They are setting forth
for the court a picture of JW youth which is in direct contradiction
to everything the Watchtower teaches.  

>    Sure, they
>    are 'hand picked' as good examples, but that's because they ARE
>    "normal" in the eyes of non-Witnesses AS WELL AS being "spiritually
>    minded" in the eyes of the Witness congregation.
   
This is an *excellent* sentence for showing why some might view this
whole "act normal" thing as deceptive.  The Jehovah's Witnesses are
taught not to allow their children to participate in after-school
activities, such as drama club, chorus, etc; to avoid "bad associations",
and because they would take time that they should be using towards
"spiritual interests", like going door-to-door, or doing their Watchtower
studies.

For a JW child to want to participate in such things, or school sports,
or the other things the booklet recommends they say as "normal" activities,
are just the kind of things that would get the JW child "marked" within
the congregation as "spiritually IMMATURE", and "wordly"; a child who
puts his own wants and desires above Jehovah's.  Many JW parents
wouldn't even let their kids associate with such a 'wordly' child.

>        Point 2 is that the spiritual values and goals of Jehovah's
>    Witnesses make little difference to worldly courts [just as they make
>    little difference to you].  Therefore, the Society quite naturally
>    directs the defense counsel to emphasize those things which worldly
>    courts DO think are important. 

Which is all well and fine, unless the values and goals that the JWs
emphasize are in direct conflict with what the child in question is
likely to be brought up under as a practicing JW.  When the booklet
advises the JWs to present to the court as "normal JW kids" children
who plan to go to college, get married & have kids, and not to
pioneer, then it is advising the JWs to give the court an untrue
representation of what the typical JW child is to be brought up like.

Some JW children will be able to "break the mold" so to speak,
and go to college.  Boris Chen comes to mind, for example.  But
for each that does, how many people in college will be converted
to the JWs and drop out as a result of their new-found religion?
Recall the Watchtower article cited in a previous post which related
the story of such a case.  Personally, I know of a JW woman who
was offered to go to college for free; she took a test at the
state unemployment office, and scored high enough that rather
than give her a menial, low paying job, the state was willing to
pay her way thru college, so she would then be in a better position
to support herself with a good job.  She turned them down, because
of her religion.   

>    We value our spiritual goals as "pearls," but clearly the evidence
>    accrued from years of experience is that the non-Witness world in
>    general does not see our goals this way.
>    ...there are times which call for us to
>    'keep our pearls to ourselves' 

Having spiritual goals isn't a problem.  A court isn't going to hesitate
in giving custody to a JW parent because she might instill spiritual
values to the child.  

The problems begin when these spiritual values include viewing everything
outside the 'organization' as permeated with Satanic thinking, including the
non-JW parent.  What kind of view of the non-JW parent will be fostered
in the child, what kind of an effect will that have on his relationship
with the non-JW parent, and how will that effect the child's emotional
well being?  Really, the whole "pioneer" thing isn't the #1 problem.  

Also, the JWs track record in the medical area is a cause for concern.
The JWs used to lump the evils of vaccinations right up there with
blood transfusions as "ungodly", and organ transplants were "cannabalism".

>        I can't help but notice that you haven't once quoted the Bible,

Because I'm not trying to make any theological points, Mark.

>    All you have proved is that what we teach is in conflict with your own
>    worldly standards.

Which is the point; what you teach is in conflict with "normal" 'worldly'
standards; thus, it is deceptive when JWs are encouraged to present,
as their own, those kinds of standards to the court, in order to make
them look 'normal' and non-harmful to the child.  Mark, I can't help
but notice how on the one hand you say JWs really hold those values,
(when the need is to make them look as 'normal' as possible to the court)
and how on the other hand what you teach is in conflict with them.


  -=*=-
             
All this aside, I'm sorry you view all this as such a personal war.
There's no need for it to be a nasty debate.  You seem to be going
out of your way to make it so, trying to provoke a hostile response.

Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with going door-to-door, distributing
books that tell how evil everyone else's religions are, how morally
corrupt and filthy they are; how they carry the bloodguilt of millions
on their hands, are under the control of Satan, enemies of God, etc.
They have no problem saying that the Catholic Church was behind getting
the JW president jailed in 1918, that WWII was the fault of the Pope,
etc.  Anything that is said against the Watchtower Society _pales_ in
comparision to the hate they spew at everyone and everything.  

Think about what your own religion has been saying about everyone else
for the last century, next time you get annoyed at someone talking about yours...

Walter Smith
smith_w@apollo.hp.com

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc