In Ongoing Email Exchange with Barbara Anderson....

by AK - Jeff 10 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    She made a few salient points regarding child-molestation, why many reject the claims, should they?, and the two witness rule that Jw's use.

    I thought I would post them for open discussion:

    Many JWs defend the WT's approach to child abuse accusations requiring two witnesses to the act of molestation because it is thought that most accusations are not true. This argument came up when I was in Bethel. However, the book, Sex Abuse Hysteria, Salem Witch Trials Revisited, by Richard A. Gardner, M.C. Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, states the following:

    "I wish to emphasize that I fully appreciate that genuine sex abuse of children is widespread and the vast majority of sex abuse allegations of children...are likely to be justified (perhaps 95% or more)."

    What we found so important about this statement is that the author directed his entire book to the discussion of the 5% of allegations that are not true, but he admitted that 95% are indeed true. In fact, he stated the reason he knew that 95% of all accusations are true is because THE 95% ACCUSED EVENTUALLY ADMIT THE ABUSE.

    On another note: For clarification, many XJWs and JWs assume that the Society's requirement of two witnesses mean two witnesses plus the victim to the crime. But, in fact, two witnesses include the victim and one other person.

    If you are engaging any Jw's in discussion on this issue - perhaps the quotes and references will be of assistance.

    Jeff

  • MidwichCuckoo
    MidwichCuckoo

    But, in fact, two witnesses include the victim and one other person

    In my opinion, the 2 Witnesses are the victim and God (as 'God is my witness')

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    I agree the majority of child abuse claims are true; ritual abuse is another kettle of fish as any research into the subject will reveal.

    I would however advise caution in assuming the fact the large percentage of people admitting to abuse as part of the trial process is indicative of a similar percentage of accusations being true. In a legal system where plea-bargins are everyday and mundane it is not an assumption one can make.

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    Yeah - there is this mindset among a lot of JW elders that lots of people lie about about being sexually abused. Someone mentioned that when they discussed this with an elder at the door recently.

    Abaddon - yeah Satanic Ritual Abuse is a whole other story. I realized that when, while I was still an elder, a sister in Massachusetts, the wife of an elder who was working with depressed sisters, told me that she had helped half a dozen sisters in her congregation recall SRA from their childhood. I knew the odds were about a billion to one against that!

    S4

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Some - like me, might have asked immediately; What the hell is SRA? It was not a topic that I ever gave intentional thought to - though I had heard a little about it I suppose over time. Here is an overview of what Seeker and Abaddon are talking about;

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra.htm

    Overview:

    Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) can be defined as the psychological, sexual, and/or physical assault forced on an unwilling human victim, and committed by one or more Satanists according to a prescribed ritual, the primary aim of which is to fulfill the need to worship the Christian devil, Satan.

    Whether or not SRA actually existed was a high-profile controversial topic between 1980 and the mid 1990s. A survey by Redbook magazine in 1994 found that 70% of American adults believed in the existence of abusive Satanic cults. Thirty-two percent explained away the absence of proof by believing that "the FBI and police ignore evidence because they don't want to admit the cults exist." 2 There is a near consensus among investigators today that SRA is either nonexistent or occurs at an extremely low and undetectable level.

    It is important to realize that the above definition is relatively restrictive. It excludes a number of behaviors which are known to exist:

    bulletAbuse by non-Satanic, abusive pedophiles 3 who pretend to be Satanists in order to gain better control of their victims through fear.
    bulletMass murderers by a person who claims to be a Satanist and who tries to use the "Devil made me do it" defense when arrested. They are generally found to have little or no knowledge of Satanism.
    bulletAbuse and murder by psychotic individuals and psychopaths who are primarily motivated by their mental illness, not by any religious belief system.
    bulletAbuse by non-Satanists who engage in behaviors like SRA but are motivated by Christian or other beliefs.

    Other sources define SRA much more broadly. For example, some use the acronym SRA to refer to "Sadistic Ritual Abuse" by followers of any religion or none.

    During the 1980s and 1990s, estimates of the number of SRA murders in the U.S. and Canada have ranged from 0 (among skeptics) to 60,000 (among some believers in the widespread nature of SRA). It was a unusual type of crime for which absolutely no reliable statistics were available.

    By the time of the last update to this section in 2007-MAY, belief about SRA has largely vanished from the scene. There are many adults who are still suffering from implanted false memories of abuse that never happened. There is always the possibility that a small percentage of these victims actually were abused.

    horizontal rule

    The importance of studying SRA:

    SRA is a very important topic to study. Consider:

    bulletIf there were 60,000 humans being killed annually by Satanists in the U.S. and Canada as many people believed in the 1980s and early 1990s, then there would have been about 3 such deaths for every known homicide. SRA would then have been, by far, our most serious social problem.
    bulletIf there were no murders, then the memories of SRA once held by tens or hundreds of thousands of people were not based on reality. All or almost all were victims of false memories created during recovered memory therapy. They were at least partly disabled by those beliefs. Some were driven to committing suicide. SRA would have remained a very serious problem.
    bulletIf the actual number of murders was somewhere between these two values, SRA would have remained a very serious problem.

    In the early 1990's, we analyzed reports on SRA from both believers and skeptics. We tentatively concluded that the skeptics are correct; there is no underground, internationally organized, inter-generational network of Satanic conspirators ritually abusing and murdering children. We have been tracking the SRA movement ever since, and have not seen any hard evidence that would convince us to change our conclusions.

    Approximately 300 years ago, almost two dozen innocent people in Salem, MA, were charged with witchcraft and executed by hanging; one was pressed to death. Between 1980 and 1995, a North-American wide panic involved beliefs in Satanic Ritual Abuse. Nobody knows when the next panic will occur. Our best defense against future panics is awareness of past panics.

  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    Yea SRA has pretty much been proven as modern quackery, just a way for idiot psychologist (small percentage) to make money. There is a really good BBC documentary about it. I believe there was a town in Kansas(?) where like 80% of the town had been talked into believing they were SRA victims. Some parents even lost their children because of allegations. Yet there was not one piece of evidence linking any of the people to real SRA. Also case studies showed that like a huge percentage of people could be persuaded into believing they had SRA experiences.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    To repeat

    The '2 Witness Rule" = child molested + one other person.

    In other words, the child can be a witness.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    To repeat

    The '2 Witness Rule" = child molested + one other person.

    In other words, the child can be a witness.

    Even though this technically is true, I wonder if it makes a difference.

    How many pedophiles bring an eyewitness or allow others around when doing their crime? I think this is problematic even if the pedophile molests 2 or more children on separate occasions, because at each occasion there was only one eyewitness (the frightened child). In a central Minnesota case that came to light in 2002, there were two girls molested by the same guy, and he was not disfellowshipped. Instead, the WT Society sent a lawyer to defend the pervert.
  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    I wish to emphasize that I fully appreciate that genuine sex abuse of children is widespread and the vast majority of sex abuse allegations of children...are likely to be justified (perhaps 95% or more)."

    What we found so important about this statement is that the author directed his entire book to the discussion of the 5% of allegations that are not true, but he admitted that 95% are indeed true. In fact, he stated the reason he knew that 95% of all accusations are true is because THE 95% ACCUSED EVENTUALLY ADMIT THE ABUSE.

    After reading the Canadian story about the elder who said that the sex was mutually wanted. I think some wrongly think that if the ex was mutually wanted, it's denotes sin by both parties & not worthy of being reported to police.

    I also think that some wrongly think that because some of the allegation are trumped up, they should not be reported to police.

    Thee people are wrong. Even if 5% are bogus, it is not an untrained elder's job to decide this. The elder is not trained in forensics, psychology, ob/gyn, etc.

    It's the police's job to ferret out the phony reporting, and the prosecutor's job to press trial. The accused can defend himself.

    Skeeter

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    bttt

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit