How would you handle this?

[SKL]

Here Rivka provides a quote from the OP to back up her statement.

 

 

To me, "had no issue missing church" means they were willing to do so if necessary but it does NOT mean they promised to do so. There is a difference.

 

For example, if I say "I might need to borrow your car on Sunday morning, would you be OK missing church?" and you say "I have no issue with missing church to help you out," but then I end up not needing your car, does it make you a "lying sicko" if you then go to church?

 

OP says they did this without permission and knowing the parents' previously-expressed philosophy. OP says "we discussed it and they had no issue missing church." OP does not say "they promised to not take my kids to church." Why not just say that if it is true? Why beat about the bush to build up a "sense" that the grandparents must have been devious? The only reason I can think of is that there was no actual promise made by the grandparents. The fact that the grandparents did take the kids to church and tell about it, to me, is further support that the grandparents did not make a promise. Maybe the OP assumed too much.

 

Those of you saying I must not know how to read, I'm thinking the same thing when I see statements like "they were OK going without" equals "they promised not to."

[Lovedtodeath]

A few months ago without our permission and knowing we were against involving the kids with religion until they are of the age to independently decide what they believe, my ILs took my kids to their Christian church for services. We had discussed it, and they said they had no issue missing church in exchange for 3 days with the kids.

 

Today during school we were discussing early Christianity in history when my 8yo pops up that "yeah, MIL and FIL tried to get me to say I believed Jesus was my savior and got mad when I wouldn't"

Oh I would have a hard time EVER letting them see the kids. EVER AGAIN! I would likely allow supervised (by me personally and carefully) visits. Edited October 12, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

This thread is very therapeutic. Deep breaths.

:iagree:

 

And SKL, I agree that it would be harmful to the kids to make a super-big deal about this, as if it's threatening for other people to have their own religious beliefs.

 

I would downplay the incident with the kids. I'd calmly re-state our family's convictions and say, "You know church is very important to Grandma, and that's why she acted that way." For the sake of the greater humanity I would mention that not all Christians would corner you and try to make you say things, that's just Grandma.

 

But to the grandparents, I would make it a big deal. I mean a sky-high big deal with a cherry on top. Taking them to church against the parents' wishes was pretty bad, but the business about trying to get the kids to make Christian confessions was so incredibly, amazingly without boundaries that Grandma and Grandpa would be off my childcare list permanently.

 

Plus, when I did let them be around the kids, I'd not leave them unattended. Ever.

:iagree:

Ah, I had only read the OP. YES... Thank you!

Edited October 12, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[AdventureMoms]

These people forced young children into an uncomfortable situation, disregarded the mother's wishes, and lied about it. And a Christian would consider this to be a good thing to do? :confused: :confused: :confused: Really? I can't wrap my mind around it.

:iagree:

 

:grouphug:

 

They would not be spending time alone with my kids.

 

:iagree::iagree: Supervised visits ONLY, and that only if I had an apology and an acknowledgement that they had seriously screwed up by disregarding my wishes and trying to coerce my kids.

 

Not every Christian would consider it good, but this couple obviously did. As has been pointed out above, some folks believe that if someone dies without believing Jesus is their savior, they go to eternal hellfire. My brother's Godfather believed that newborn babies who died before baptism went to Hell. (My parents did not agree and said so, but didn't keep us away from Godfather.) I'm sure some grandparents feel it's worth the wrath of the parents to "plant a seed."

 

I guess in that case the grandparents have knowingly taken the risk of being cut out of their grandkids' lives permanently. If you are going to stomp all over specific boundaries laid out by the parents, then that is the risk you're taking.

[PeacefulChaos]

I've only read the first page so far, but....

 

I think I'm getting the timeline confused. I was under the impression that you confronted them about what they did, but then you said, " Part of me just wants to look them in they eye and say, "I know what you two lying sickos did. Stay away from my kids."

 

Am I right that you confronted them about a past issue (the Sunday school thing,) but that the part where they tried to get your kids to say that Jesus was their savior, was something more recent, and that you haven't said anything to them about it?

 

Sorry to be so clueless!

 

As I understand things thus far, though, I would say that I think it would be way out of line to call them "lying sickos." Their beliefs are different from yours. That doesn't make them sickos. BUT... as far as I'm concerned, your kids' religion or lack of religion is 100% up to you and your dh, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that your ILs should keep their mouths shut. But I have a feeling that they mean well, and that their religious beliefs are leading them to worry about your children's future if they never accept Jesus as their savior.

 

Again, they don't have the right to interfere with what you're teaching your kids, but I don't think anyone will be well served by calling them names, unless you are absolutely certain that they have malicious intentions toward your children. As far as I can tell, they aren't child molesters; they're just very religious people who don't want to accept the boundaries you have set for them. I think you may be viewing them as being far more sinister than they really are, because you had such horrible experiences, and rightfully want to protect your own kids. I'm just not hearing any evidence that your dh's parents want to abuse your kids. Overzealous? Quite possibly. Abusive sickos? I seriously doubt it.

 

But I do think that your dh needs to lay down the law with them -- and I don't think you can leave your kids alone with them any more, if you feel so strongly about this issue, because it will come up again.

:iagree:

:grouphug:

 

Well, for myself, I would find it difficult to keep my grandson on a weekend and not take him to church with me. My adult children know this, of course. One of my dsils claims not to believe in God; I might have more "problems" with him over it, but it is what it is: I would take my grandson to church if he were in my care on a Sunday, and I'm going to sing "Jesus Loves Me" to him, and for Christmas this year, I'm sending him a Golden Book of Children's Prayers and one that tells the story of Jesus. (He's just 2½ yo, BTW, and lives in Seattle.) That is NOT forcing my religion down his throat.

 

Also, I believe that giving children some sort of religious training when they are young is important, rather than giving them nothing at all to work with so they can make their "independent decisions."

 

Nevertheless, I would not have snuck into my daughter's home looking for dressy clothes for my grandson, nor pressured my grandson into saying or doing anything. That's just wrong on so many levels, and I am truly horrified that your ILs did it. I don't know if it would do any good to talk to them, though, but it should be your dh who does the talk, if that's what y'all decided to do. They are his parents, after all.

and :iagree: again.

:grouphug:

[PeacefulChaos]

I just found out about the whole "saving" thing yesterday. The incident happened a few months ago.

 

They're lying sickos not because of their religious beliefs but for their use of intimidation and guilt tripping towards a child that did not wish to join their group. Apparently she was promised ice cream and pizza after church if she'd just say it so they didn't have to worry about her soul any more. My girl stood her ground, and it explains a lot as to why the younger 2 are willing to go to the ILs but ever since the visit where they took the kids to church oldest does not want to go. She holds stuff in and just tries to deal with it herself. It isn't surprising that she would only just now admit to me what happened.

 

Perhaps lying sickos is harsh, but how do you trust people after a stunt like that and after realizing it went a lot farther than they told you? How do you even answer the church's assertion that the Holocaust didn't happen? Apparently they told the kids it was their only shot not to go to hell because we refuse to tell them the truth.

:confused: What on earth does the Holocaust have to do with anything? :lol:

I could see visiting a less extremist church. My brother is a dean at quite a lovely church that we would have no problem with them visiting mainly because my brother understands parental boundaries. It's a mix of those people with that church...and it's just impossible to peacefully say, "Leave my kids out of your religion." If you're not on the boat with them, you're against them. No way around it.

:glare: It is REALLY hard to deal with people like that. I'm very sorry that they aren't more compromising. :(

 

:confused: I'm a bit confused by this post. The vast majority of those who have posted are completely aghast at what these grandparents did. There are only a couple of posters who are in any way arguing a different viewpoint, and even they agree that the grandparents overstepped. I haven't seen one post that even remotely implied that what the grandparents did was okay, and even those who posted that they could understand where the g-parents were coming from faith-wise said that the g-parents violated the parents' authority.

 

:iagree: I haven't seen anyone saying what happened was okay.

[Leav97]

To me, "had no issue missing church" means they were willing to do so if necessary but it does NOT mean they promised to do so. There is a difference.

 

For example, if I say "I might need to borrow your car on Sunday morning, would you be OK missing church?" and you say "I have no issue with missing church to help you out," but then I end up not needing your car, does it make you a "lying sicko" if you then go to church?

 

 

I think a more apt comparison would be:

if I say "I might need to borrow your car on Sunday morning, would you be OK missing church?" and you say "I have no issue with missing church to help you out," then you pick me up take me to your church, attempt to covert me, get pissed when I refuse, then let me use the car.

[Galatea]

To me, "had no issue missing church" means they were willing to do so if necessary but it does NOT mean they promised to do so. There is a difference.

 

For example, if I say "I might need to borrow your car on Sunday morning, would you be OK missing church?" and you say "I have no issue with missing church to help you out," but then I end up not needing your car, does it make you a "lying sicko" if you then go to church?

 

OP says they did this without permission and knowing the parents' previously-expressed philosophy. OP says "we discussed it and they had no issue missing church." OP does not say "they promised to not take my kids to church." Why not just say that if it is true? Why beat about the bush to build up a "sense" that the grandparents must have been devious? The only reason I can think of is that there was no actual promise made by the grandparents. The fact that the grandparents did take the kids to church and tell about it, to me, is further support that the grandparents did not make a promise. Maybe the OP assumed too much.

 

Those of you saying I must not know how to read, I'm thinking the same thing when I see statements like "they were OK going without" equals "they promised not to."

 

So what you're saying is that it's okay to lead the parents to believe that they've promised not to take the kids to church, but they don't really mean it as a promise, it's okay? Is this like me crossing my fingers behind my back when I made promises as an 8 year old?

[phathui5]

Did the kids mind going to church?

[Jennifer3141]

So what you're saying is that it's okay to lead the parents to believe that they've promised not to take the kids to church, but they don't really mean it as a promise, it's okay? Is this like me crossing my fingers behind my back when I made promises as an 8 year old?

 

Exactly. So as adults, I guess we all just get to not do what we say we are going to do until or unless we PROMISE. That, we can take seriously. So next playdate scheduling, make sure you get the mom to PROMISE or the whole thing won't happen and it will be your fault. :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

They were totally out of line and i'd be angry too - but also be cautious that you dont get stuck reprocessing old stuff without realizing it, kwim? I mean, your past will make you extra-sensitive to the specific kind of manipulation they are displaying here.

well, that might be true. The first time my daughter went to church with her friend I was angry for a good while over what the church did. In retrospect it wouldn't have been that bad if my dd and I had a different history. (This did involve the sinners prayer... I really dislike that doctrine.)

 

OPs situation sounds different though.