Child Health — Watchtower deception!

by Marvin Shilmer 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Child Health — Watchtower deception!

    Today I uploaded a new article addressing a particularly evil deception Watchtower promotes in its July 15, 2011 Watchtower journal. When Watchtower does what it does in this instance the higher-ups have to know they are misleading folks. It’s plain evil.

    My article is titled Child Health — Watchtower deception! and is available at:

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Yan Bibiyan
    Yan Bibiyan

    Marvin, you say: "The freedom of believers to choose medical treatments says nothing whatsoever about whether a given choice protects the health of believers."

    I would like to expand upon it. As already pointed out on this board and elsewhere, this "freedom" is akin to the freedom of a hostage to not yield the armed hostage taker's threats and run away. Actually, I am not so sure...seems the hostage has a theoretical chance of running away without being shot to death; not so with the Watchtower.

    The cowardly wording have it both ways for the WT: If the poor soul chooses blood to save their life - it was their decision - DF. If they choose no blood and die - it was their decision - don't look at us....

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    It just got worse!

    I just uploaded what the Court Watchtower quotes actually had to say about health as it is impacted by Watchtower's blood taboo. Watchtower flat out lied about what the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had to say about the issue!

    Check it out. I am sure officials with the ECHR would not appreciate the way Watchtower misrepresents its decisions.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • sizemik

    Fair analogy Yan Bibiyan . . . but it's even worse than that.

    The "so-called" freedom of choice they self-righteously claim for "believers" . . . and then quote the European Court in support of . . . is then applied to innocent children who have absolutely no choice whatsoever.

    The child is essentially sacrificed by the choice of the church leaders being vicariously foistered upon parents . . . and then boasted about to the world as sterling examples of the "Christian faith."

    And then we are expected to accept that it's in the best interests of the dead child. And it's all achieved with a pre-meditated conciousness of the real issues . . . by clever, deceptive and evasive argument.

    "Pure evil" is the only label that fits.

  • sizemik

    So if I read that right . . . it is the authenticity of the patients refusal . . . not the freedom of choice, that is the legitimate concern of the European Court.

    I'm flabbergasted . . . it's a complete misrepresentation.

  • ScenicViewer

    When it comes to Parental Rights, the Society is conflicted.

    In blood cases it argues for the rights of the parent to decide for the child, even if death would result to the child.

    In abortion cases the Society argues for the rights of the (unborn) child to live.

    (I'm not making a statement in support of abortion, just pointing out a double standard.)

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad


  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    sizemik writes:

    "I'm flabbergasted..."

    Indeed, as should be authorities of the ECHR and other stakeholders.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Cadellin

    THe quote from the Court caught my attention when I read it, as well. It's just a general statement about freedom, with no relationship to the actual case at hand, and is true of autonomous humans in general, be they Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, athiests, whatever--not specifically JWs. It could be argued that JWs situation is exactly the opposite of that statement--that JWs don't have a real freedom of choice because if they "choose" to take blood then they are automatically considered disassociated with the full treatment of shunning that accompanies such a "choice," as is made clear by the announcement made to the congregation with expectation that congregation members will then treat such a person as if that person had gone through the judicial process.

    I think Martin is correct when he notes that the WT misconstrues the quote when they link it to accusations regarding health. However, what I'd be interested in is how the Court applies that general statement to the actual JW case. If someone already commented on that, I missed it... (maybe I need another cup of coffee )

  • sizemik

    What is so obvious to me now . . . is the degree to which WT writers take advantage of the trust placed in them by their readers.

    They quite knowingly troll through extemporaneous material deliberately looking for a paragraph or sentence, which can be used to support their paricular view . . . with absolutely no regard whatsoever for the actual views or intent of those whom they quote.

    They sometimes give a vague source reference . . . other times they simply quote the individual . . . "So and So says...", without citing the source document from which the quote comes. The degree of bibliographical integrity (or lack thereof) is most often directly proportional to the level of misrepresentation.

    When I was a JW . . . I took them at their word . . . attributed intellectual honesty to them by default. I trusted them.

    What I have seen time and time again since . . . is total bare-faced dishonesty.

    They are incorrigible liars . . . and they lied to me, and everybody else, over and over again.

    It's remarkable to me now. And I resent them deeply for it.

Share this