to go in "service," "baptism," etc.
GB (Splane) says JW parent should "force" their children
lol.. its obvious that he has never had kids and if he has then his wife Linda raised them because he is clueless. Force, that might..MIGHT work for 15 yrs or so then when they are bigger, possibly smarter, and independent they do what they want anyway
Oh I seeee. So from a 'true Christian's' standpoint, your kid's employer-employee relationship with McDonalds is like his relationship with God. He HAS to go in service on Saturday mornings because God is paying him everlasting life for doing so - it is not a free gift according to God's grace or 'undeserved kindness.' Right. Got it. (Cp. Rom. 4; 2 Cor. 9:7)
And *shock* - kids are getting as old as 13 and 14 years old without getting baptized! Disgraceful. Hook them in early!
AnnOMaly nails this one.
Shame on you parents with young children who are not "unbaptized publishers" and extra shame on you if your young teen is not baptized.
Yes, as said you can pressure obeddience for the first 15 years but as the teens come life changes. I believe the doubts are there for most teens it just depends on whethervthey act on their doubts. Force just doesn'twork. The tighter you hold on the more the young pull away. Try holding a todler too tight and see what happens.
Imagine if the same things were said but with a different subject matter:
"We have heard of 10,11 and 12 year olds who are not engaged to be married yet".
"We have heard of 12, 13 and 14 year olds who are not married yet."
Ridiculous!! The GB are bothered when children have not made life-long commitments to the Org. and actually desire to be kids for a while. So, a child is forced to make a commitment before they're mature enough, then the WT disfellowships them when they make a mistake (or when they re-think their decision once they're mature enough to reflect on it).
Funniest line from a GB member: "Let's be honest here". Morons.
So is it shame on jws who study with non-jws who do not get baptized?
Watchtower Corporation's CEO David Splane wants the young children to be corporate pawns at a very young age. How utterly repulsive is this move by the corporation's top management guys to tap this source of revenue for their corporation's coffers.
I wonder if they are violating any child labor laws for religous nonprofit corporation with this move to capitalize such a young free labor source? I think this video can help win child molestation case against the WT especially if it happened in connection with the Corporation's field service requirements for young ones.
Each state also has its own set of child labor laws that may further prohibit or restrict employment of children. The laws vary in detail from state to state, particularly for those states where seasonal or agricultural employment is high. However, federal law preempts state law, and so all state laws must comply with all federal minimum requirements.
Specific provisions of the particular child labor law govern the age of majority. Some laws permit minors to be employed in certain activities if their parents satisfy stated conditions concerning supervision, control, and approval. The state has the right to prohibit parents from binding a minor to an employment contract based upon the theory that parents cannot diminish benefits that the law confers to children.
Cursory directions to subordinates are not sufficient to fulfill the employer's duty to enforce child labor regulations. Where such directives are followed by further violations, sterner measures controlling the actions of subordinates are required.
In some states, it is unlawful to employ children under a specified age in certain activities without an employment certificate issued and filed in accordance with the law. An employer's failure to comply with this requirement makes the employment illegal. Technical errors, such as the lack of a detailed account of the child's duties in the employer's pledge of employment, will not have this effect nor invalidate the certificate.
Regulations also relate to occupations that are or may be potentially dangerous, extremely hazardous, or harmful to a child's health or morals, as defined by statute or judicial decision. In one state a log-loading machine was held to be within the meaning of a law that barred the employment of minors in businesses using dangerous machinery.
The violation of child labor regulations can subject the perpetrator to criminal prosecution or render the employment contract illegal. In appropriate circumstances an Injunction,a court order that commands or prohibits a certain act, may be issued against a violator to stop the illegal conduct.
In 1919, Congress passed the so-called child labor tax law , (40 Stat. 1057) which imposed a ten percent excise tax on persons or establishments that employed children under the age of 14 or children between the ages of 14 and 16 working more than eight hours daily or more than six days a week. However, in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 42 S. Ct. 449, 66 L. Ed. 2d 817 (1922), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the law as unconstitutional, agreeing with a lower court that "the provisions of the socalled taxing act must be naturally and reasonably adapted to the collection of the tax and not solely to the achievement of some other purpose plainly within state power."
Liability for child labor law violations depends upon the provisions of the law. As a general rule, the owner of the business is liable, whether it is a natural person, a corporation, or a joint association. An employer is usually not liable if a minor is assigned to work on the premises in violation of law by an Independent Contractor, a person whose work methods are not controlled by the employer. Some states, however, will impose liability on the owner under such circumstances.
The employer's knowledge that the child is within the prohibited age is not an element of the offense. The offense is committed if the employer does not know but should have known by the exercise of reasonable diligence that the child was underage. The employer's good faith—his honest belief—is no defense even though the child misrepresented his age.
A person who hires a child in violation of law will be liable if the child is injured. The duration of the employment and the status of the child as an employee are irrelevant.
The parents will not be held liable merely because they assented to the hiring of their child by another. Only the injured child will recover damages, reparations for injury caused by another, for third persons are not within the class of persons that the laws were enacted to protect.
Force your JW Children to work for Me!..
David (BulletHead) Splane..
Has had his Head successfuly Fired out of a Rifle..