JW Fundies write a "JW Child Abuse" page in Wikipedia

by Gerard 20 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Gerard

  The Wikipedia page entitled Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse is oozing with lies and JW propaganda. It presents the policies through the JW filter that ignores its pathetic inneficiency and reality. The article's tone is that of "look how good we are compared with other religions. We don't even need police intervention!" Some examples:

  Child victims are not required to face their abusers to make an accusation.

  Congregation Discipline

  Unlike most religious bodies, Jehovah's Witnesses have a disciplinary system that applies to all congregation members. [...] Numerous Jehovah's Witnesses who have committed child molestation have been subjected to disfellowshipping, a strong sanction that is virtually unknown in most other faith-based groups. Those judged repentantby a committee of elders are given "public reproof".

  As a safeguardagainst false or malicious accusations, the formation of a judicial committee requires either (1) a confession, (2) statements by two eyewitnesses or (3) strong circumstantial evidence (DNA evidence presented in a court of law would likely be accepted). [...] If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case.

  Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin.

  And the most outrageous of all:

  To date there have been no known cases where Witness congregations have been found by a court to be in violation of reporting laws.

  Level-headed editors are needed to fix this surreal presentation of the reality!!!!
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  What a bunch of lies and bullsh!t. Where do I even begin to expose the hypocricy of this one statement:

  "(3) strong circumstantial evidence (DNA evidence presented in a court of law would likely be accepted)."

  I believe police routinely direct rape and abuse victims to go immediately to the hospital to check for any physical, forensic evidence.

  However, if a child has just been molested by a congregation member, the elders are first instructed to call Watchtower Legal Department. ...blah, blah, two witnesses, blah... Elders are given no proper direction on pursuing forensics. If the child/parent/guardian waits for the elders in the congregation to tell them, "we won't tell you not to report this to the authorities," any physical evidence is probably long gone.

  Additionally, a search of Watchtower Library for "forensics", bring up these top two articles criticizing the subject, based on very old cases:

  ***

  g983/8p.6ScientistsDivided?***

  Take forensic science, for example. A court of appeal made the point that forensic scientists may become partisan. The journal Search notes: "The very fact that the police seek their assistance may create a relationship between the police and the forensic scientists. . . . Forensic scientists employed by the government may come to see their function as helping the police." This journal also gives the example of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombing cases of Maguire (1989) and Ward (1974) in Britain as bearing "eloquent testimony to the preparedness of some highly experienced and otherwise reputable scientists to abandon scientific neutrality and view their responsibilities as helping the prosecution."

  Another outstanding example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia (1981-82), which became the basis for the film ACryintheDark. Evidence submitted by forensic experts apparently swayed judgment against Mrs. Chamberlain, accused of murdering her baby Azaria. Although she claimed that a dingo (wild dog) had killed the child, she was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, when the baby’s dirty, bloodied jacket was found, the previous evidence did not stand up under close scrutiny. As a result, Lindy was released from prison, her conviction was quashed, and compensation was paid for wrongful conviction.

  ***

  w986/15p.28TrueJustice—WhenandHow?***

  Moreover, the magazine Nature notes that not all scientists agree on the interpretation of forensic evidence. "There can be genuine disagreement between forensic scientists." Sad to say, "faulty forensic evidence has already been responsible for more than its fair share of faulty convictions."

  Basically, the WTBTS policy of ignoring evidence, 'forgiving' the 'repentant', and requiring "two witnesses" is ancient crap that is being used to safeguard pedophiles from accusation and re-victimize the victims.

  Excuse me while I go barf !!
• 

  erynw

  Those judged repentant by a committee of elders are given "public reproof".

  Well, no, we don't actually report them to the police.

  Uhm, no, we advice the victim to not go to the police either.

  Why? Well, it would be a bad mark on Jebubba's good name.

  And the lawyers say we ain't gotta do it.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Numerous Jehovah's Witnesses who have committed child molestation - at least this is truthful and a dynamite admission
• 

  Hortensia

  I spotted that too: "numerous jehovah's witnesses..."

  The only one I've ever seen handle anything like this with anything approaching maturity is Oprah - she was very open about the whole thing, she fired a bunch of people, she worked with the police. She was publicly distressed about it. The GB and many other organizations hide behind their lawyers - no one stands up and says "we're terribly distressed. We don't support this at all and we want to help the police as much as possible to arrest these people and prevent them from doing more harm." It would certainly gain them some respect in the world, although they don't care about that, do they?
• 

  hamsterbait

  PLEASE -

  Somebody who knows how should edit the reaference with a link to the judgements in California.

  Especially pointing out that the WT argued the Elders have no "duty of care" to the children in the congo.

  BARF

  HB ( heaving buckets)
• 

  Gerard

  Hamster, I will do it. Please send me the information.

  Gerard
• 

  Awakened07

  Wikipedia is only as good as the people contributing to it. Anyone can add anything to it - - but of course Wikipedia has some rules as to how an article should read. I would think this article isn't up to Wikipedia standards, for instance when it comes to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and original research.

  If anyone here goes there and edits this article anonymously, it will probably be reverted back by whoever created that page. But perhaps the neutrality and original research can be challenged, and they thereby will have to change the contents.
• 

  Burger Time

  If someone will show me what needs to be edited and how to word it in a non biased way, I would be more then pleased to change it. I am going to add a "Scandal" section.
• 

  Tuesday

  It's about as non-biased as you're going to get from a JW, the challenge I would put forth is no mention of the CA settlement and no quotes from outside sources like Silent Lambs. The whole thing with arguments needs to be completely re-worded, it's pretty ridiculous.