Thirdwitness has made it clear that only one kind of proof will convince him (and I doubt even that would), is the WTBS's on words in print. That reveals that he is not honest since he has put forward a demand for a standard of proof that he knows cannot be met since the WTBTS has been very careful not to put anything in print which can come back to bite them in the butt since they lost the Oline Miles case back in the 1930's. So it is a waste of time to bother with him and his propaganda.
That being said, I will contribute one thing I am suprised nobody mentioned which is about as close to that standard that can be found as we'll ever see. When Ritchie posted that elder's manual online, it included one tibid from heaven which was priceless from the stand point of this particular discussion. Page 74 included a notation which the PO who'd owned it had been directed to make in the manual at the Elder's school. The note said concering the letter sent to a new congregation when a publisher moves:
"the letter should be sent within one week. It is imperative that a letter be sent promptly if the person is, or has been a child-molester. If Society determines that a brother could be used again after having been a molester in the past, they will direct the congregation to destroy previous records."
Since the elder was directed to make that note by the Society it is official Jehovah's Witness policy and says it all as far as I am concerned Thirdwitness. That is all the proof needed to blow your thesis out of the water. And however much you blather and try to squirm out of it, you can't. I know you'll try. You'll probably say that since it is a handwritten note it cannot be trusted, but that argument will be just as bogus as you are. Have a good day!
Forscher
Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?
by listen 149 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
Forscher
-
happy man
"Also from the "Flock" book (pages 110-112 if memory serves as I cannot find my copy right now), please note that this important word "may" is used in connection with accepting the testimony of minor children. Elders do not have to accept the testimony of a child regarding their rape.
This word "may" is again used when it comes to non-believers. Elders may accept them as a witness, or they may not. It's up to them. Why is that? "
Just this i know is the truth, we can do this but we dont do it, it was the exakt words to the elder in my cong have when asking society about a case where it was children 12 years old and also non JW youth as was ´giving testoemonie about that one of ther parents was kissing and huging unother man not the man she was married to, no punishment fore the man as doning this beacuse we dont use non jw, or children as wittneses was THE ANSWER FROM hq.
-
parakeet
keo:
***I don't know the other side of the story and I can't find that out, therefore I remain neutral.***
***I just hope people who feel they have been victimized can find some inner peace and not have to live a life suffering because of what others have done to them over which they had no control.***
keo, the problem with remaining neutral until you have both sides of the story is that potential abuse continues until a determination of guilt or innocence can be made. In the case of children, they must be removed from the abuser's control AS SOON AS an accusation is made. The potential damage to a child victim is so great and the child's ability to alter his/her circumstances is so small that IMMEDIATE action must be taken, and only THEN both sides of the story can be heard.
You say you just hope victims can find some inner peace. Just hoping is NOT good enough. A "neutral" wait-and-see attitude lets child molesters get away with their crimes far longer than they should. You don't seem to appreciate the seriousness of this kind of crime. -
DannyBloem
Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?
This is such a difficult subject, to be objective about.
As for me, since I have never had any experience related to this, I would say "no" to the question above.Not that everything is alright, but IMHO is the level of child molestation in the WTS not much higher then other churches or groups. By creating a more or less absolute authority they do create the possibility of miss-use of that authority, which will cause higher number of these crimes. Same is true in any place with that kind of authorities. (for example you can find it in non religious militairy groups).
In the past there was not much done about it, and some rules are in favour of the child molesters. The two witness rules.
On the other hand, I do know of a case where someone was wrongly accused of molestation (because of jealousy) It would be very wrong to just believe anything without any investigation. Which should be done by authorities which are knowledgable.I know from the letters from the society that we recieved, that the society takes these metetrs seriously, and is trying to do a lot to change the situation. Of course they are as unhappy as we with the negative publicity, and do not want to have child molesters in their midst too.
Danny
-
keo15929
If you had a job which involves children and you were falsely accused of molestation should you immediately be fired and have your reputation destroyed by others "warning" every one that you are a child molester? Would you resign from your job and give every one the impression that you are guilty? If you ever get into that predicament and you still feel the same then I would accept your point of view. Just because someone is accused of being a molester doesn't mean they are nessesarily guilty and should be stoned to death. This is a very hard matter to deal with and no matter how you handle it someone will critisize you. I understand the seriousness of the crime but I also understand the seriousness of accusing someone falsely so you better know both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions and being rash.
-
Odrade
If you are a gas station attendant or a grocery store clerk, maybe you shouldn't immediately be dismissed. But if you are an elementary school teacher, or a youth pastor, you absolutely without question should immediately be put on a paid leave of absence while a competent LEGAL investigation takes place. It all depends on the circumstances and vulnerability of the children in such events.
A basic wrong assumption is being made here: Since it cannot (according to the apologists,) be proven, that the WT is doing something wrong, it must be assumed that they are doing what is right. That is patently incorrect, and has resulted in additional harm being done to scores of youngsters. Another erroneous assumption is being made, that the elders, (who have no more training than any random person pulled off the street,) are competent to perform this investigation and decide what should be done regarding accusations. Furthermore, they are hobbled by a religious administration who may have the concern to protect children, but whose concern is being overridden by their even greater concern with protecting their reputation.
This is exactly the issue that got other churches into hot water with the legal system. The difference is, the WT still instructs elders to handle matters internally, unless doing so is specifically in violation of mandatory reporting laws or other legislation. Specifically preventing an individual from going to the authorities with abuse allegations is definitely against the law, so the WT will never tell someone outright that they cannot do so. However, in States where clerical confidentiality supercedes mandatory reporting, it would neither be surprising, nor unusual for an elder body to "encourage" the would-be reporting individual to "consider the reproach that YOU will be bringing on Jehovah." Such admonition would have the effect of being imperative instruction, given the position of authority and oversight by the elders that the WT has ingrained in the average publisher. Consider also the fact that anyone "encouraged" to not report, where it is not explicitly required by law, would be seen as rebellious and in need of correction, if they defied the instruction to not report. Regardless of the official policy, (which, it must be pointed out, is so poorly stated as to exactly what to do in these situations, as to be practically worthless,) each elder body acts autonomously regarding each event, as has been repeatedly stated in court by the WT.
This insistence that each elder body acts independently, and testimony from WT attorneys that the WT cannot be held responsible for the reporting or non-reporting of incidents by local BOEs, effectively negates all "official policy" set in place by JW-media or other public/private statements. Therefore, it could be stated that practically speaking the WTS does NOT have an "official policy," since it refused to either impose those standards unilaterally to each and every congregation, regardless of State legislation, or to take responsibility for the uneven application of the Society's "policy."
These factors and more, make the WTS entirely reprehensible for any subsequent assaults on children that occur after even a single congregation servant is aware of allegations of abuse.
Fortunately, even the courts are beginning to see it this way, and there will almost certainly be monetary and punitive damages awarded in the near future as these ridiculous policies are shown to be what they really are, simply legalistic maneuvering and posturing, to protect the reputation and financial resources of a religious publishing agency. -
Big Tex
Which is exactly why a bunch of untrained and inexperienced elders have no business determining guilt or innocence. Especially based on something as arbitrary and deliberately obfuscating as the 2 witness rule. Let the police, and people who are trained in child abuse investigation determine whether the accusation has validity.
If the elders get involved at all it should be in helping the victim as they struggle with very serious spiritual issues. There should be kindness, patience and love shown, not the harsh, cold and arrogant anger which is the reality.
Chris
-
parakeet
keo:
***If you had a job which involves children and you were falsely accused of molestation should you immediately be fired and have your reputation destroyed by others "warning" every one that you are a child molester?***
That's the problem, isn't it? Only the alleged victim and the alleged molester know for sure. I don't believe the accused should be fired all the evidence is in, but the safety of the child MUST COME FIRST. The accused must be removed from contact with children FIRST. I would favor suspension from a job involving children, and then, if later warranted, job termination. As far as the accused's reputation, an investigation or arrest for other crimes will also cause tongues to wag. That's human nature. An alleged burgler/drug dealer/car thief/murderer/child molester all must deal with the bad publicity. That's an unavoidable side effect of any matter involving the authorities, but it should not be a reason for delaying a child's protection.
***I understand the seriousness of the crime but I also understand the seriousness of accusing someone falsely so you better know both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions and being rash.***
How long would you wait if a child is the accuser? If a child tells you that an adult has been "touching" (or worse) him/her, would you say, "OK, dear. Now run along home until I can talk to [the accused] to see if he/she really did that"? NO! You call the police, child protective services, and whoever else is trained to deal with this. And you do this whether or not you believe the child. It's too big a gamble of the child's safety to wait until you hear both sides of the story. When it comes to children, you act first; ask later. Children can't protect themselves; they need you and me and everyone else to protect them. -
thirdwitness
odrade said: However, in States where clerical confidentiality supercedes mandatory reporting, it would neither be surprising, nor unusual for an elder body to "encourage" the would-be reporting individual to "consider the reproach that YOU will be bringing on Jehovah."
However this is not the policy of the WT. This is your view of the policy and your view is absolutely and positively wrong wrong wrong and is no doubt based on false information gleaned from enemies of JWs. The WT's policy is this: In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.
Elders are told time and time again that they should never discourage anyone from going to the police since child molesting is a crime.
And also this from the 1992 letter to elders: As members or the community in which Caesar still acts as God's minister and hence still has a certain authority, all in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type (see ks91, page 138) In child abuse cases such authorities might include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police.
-
DannyHaszard
And also this from the 1992 letter to elders
The Watchtower has legal subterfuge Pharisaical 'oral traditions' that super-cede any cover documentation they have in print.
Anytime the elders meet for their ecclesiastical court judicial committee kangaroo courts they hold to one standard only and that is don't embarrass mother,
They don't give a flying fuck about righteousness.