Article: Telegraph-JW agrees not to show son religious cartoons because of risk of 'Emotional Damage'

by AndersonsInfo 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AndersonsInfo

    A Jehovah's Witness has agreed not to show his son religious cartoons and has been banned from taking the six-year-old to some church events because it could cause him "emotional damage".

    The man is embroiled in a family court dispute with his estranged wife and has been barred by a court from taking the little boy to Jehovah's Witness assemblies, annual conventions and memorials.

    District Judge Malcolm Dodds also said that the father had agreed not to show his son "Jehovah's Witness cartoons", a decision he described as "wise".


  • LV101

    Thanks, AndersonsInfo. Judge is to be commended, however, the part about Sunday meetings (2 hrs) providing something about 'child activities' is odd. Are they providing the children (who can't be away from their parents for a second because of the pedophiles -- nor should they be at his age) JW coloring books/crayons these days. I hope someone clues the judge in about the meetings but he's probably trying to be fair and reasonable.

  • careful

    No more Caleb and Sophia? I assume that's what the judge means...

  • tiki

    Sounds good to me! Kid is dodging a bullet.


    I’m glad the Father is trying, mine never did, at least to my knowledge...

    Its not easy to be a parent as there are so many ways to make a mistake. You can never teach what you don’t know.

    At least this guy is taking a stand.

    I’ve heard JW parents laud Caleb and Sophia as “Brainwashing at its finest..” as they set their toddler in front an electronic device.

    DD 🤦🏻‍♂️

  • dropoffyourkeylee

    Can the boy watch Saturday cartoons? Some of them are really questionable nowadays, even for nonJWs

  • carla

    "He heard that the couple had separated about a year after the man began to study the Jehovah's Witness faith."- big surprise there, another broken family the wt is involved with and probably a big part of the separation.

  • peacefulpete

    Boy that is an unusual ruling. The judge actually waded into the mire of what is mentally healthful for the child with regard religion. The shared custody issue is the linchpin. Since the mother has primary custody and objected to the indoctrination, it follows that limits could be set as terms of visitation. Still a ruling that few judges would have felt comfortable making.


    My bad. I thought the roles were reversed.

    GO, Mom!!


  • under the radar
    under the radar

    Thanks for posting this, Barbara!

    I personally don't think the judge went far enough, but you take what you can get. In my mind, he should have also been barred from letting anyone "study" with the boy. And he should have been prohibited from making any negative references to the boy's mother or any other non-JW persons as "bad," or "worldly," etc.

Share this