Do you ever detect a difference in the way people make evaluations of an organization, as compared to an individual? How about a difference between the way people judge one who holds an office of some sort, compared to one who doesn't?
It seems to me that many people have a different set of standards for, say, "the people up there" as opposed to "the people down here."
Some years ago, on this forum, I told my multi-part story of having chaired a JW judicial committee that addressed charges of pedophilia leveled at an elder in our congregation. Before the entire story was told, quite a few people here were more than ready to condemn me for ever having been part of a system that had often been woefully ineffective (and sometimes intentionally so) in the area of protecting children from this danger. The comments usually centered around how disgusting it was that the organization wouldn't turn in those they found guilty to the law enforcement system.
While I did not understand that as my role years ago as a thirty-one year old, born-in, indoctrinated JW, I certainly had my eyes opened in this area (and many others) upon leaving and coming to understand that the sick cycle of pedophilia will not be stopped unless people are willing to take this legal action.
But during that time, I couldn't help but notice what I felt was an inconsistency of attitude. There were individual ex-JWs on this forum whose children had been abused who did not--either when they were a JW or since their departure--report it. I told the story of how the families involved in the case I chaired--many of them never having been indoctrinated JWs--chose not to report the pedophile from our congregation either. No one seemed to care about individuals who failed to report, but they were intensely inflamed about the Watchtower Society's failure to do so.
In fact, a few years ago, as this subject was being discussed on a particular thread, I asked the ladies there a personal question.
"If your female friend had been raped by a person you knew--but she decided not to come forward about it--would you go around her to the authorities and report it anyway?"
Every answer I received was that they wouldn't. But what about the likelihood that this perpetrator would rape again? If you have knowledge of such a thing, isn't it just as irresponsible for you not to prevent a future rape--as it is for an organization who also fails to do so?
Do we tend to excuse "the people down here," but angrily condemn "the people up there"?
Yesterday a dear friend told me that her three-year-old daughter had shown signs of having been molested by her 70 year old nanny. This is the closest this sort of thing has come to me personally, since she is the widow of my best friend who died this past August, a man whom I considered my brother. I was incredibly sad and upset to hear this as she told the story to me and another woman we work with. At some point, I asked, "Did you ever consider reporting her to the police?"
She shrugged her shoulders, saying that, despite the very strong evidence, she didn't actually have the abuse on video tape or anything. The other woman chimed in loudly that it would be a mistake to report her, since Child Protective Services could remove the children from her home, and it could cause a complicated mess.
While I can understand the reasons offered, I don't see how they outweigh a persons responsibility to try and prevent future sexual abuse. Further, I can't help but reflect on the difference in the way people judge individuals (whom they may identify with) and organizational structures (whose power they may feel alienated by.)
The Watchtower Society's failures in the area of pedophilia are indeed abominable. But if I'm going to be the righteous person I wish to be, I cannot comdemn any less an individual who similarly fails.
We are hypocrites to condemn "the people up there," if we do not also respond similarly to "the people down here."