If every individual who endeavoured to tell his story of his WTS experience had to meet your standards of proof and a pre-requisite to "win you over with the facts", no story would ever be told. There is not a single abused child who can prove what happened to them . . . not without witnesses or an admission from the abuser . . . both of which are about as rare as rockinghorse shit.
Again, you are mixing the "public"and the "private". Firstly, I have never ever suggested that an individual who comes forward to tell his or her story of abuse should be doubted and questioned as if s/he were before a court of law. Never ever - so don't equate my questioning of the writer with that kind of assertion please. On the other hand, if an unknown spokesperson comes forward and claims - probably with total good intent - to proclaim that sexual abuse is not only rife among South African JWs but, by the Watchtower's 2 witness rule, allowed to continue, I need to know the basis of such a claim. Notice, I am not saying it is not happening. I am merely saying to the writer - who does not identify as a victim of sexual abuse, but he could be - "on what basis are you making such a significant claim?" Yes, my language did not help - but I am weary of the ease with which groups here and there loudly condemn the Watchtower's approach to sexual abuse and do not follow minimum standards of reporting... and that does not mean naming names and identifying congregations.
For too long, "experts" who really are not experts at all make sweeping claims that this issue or that issue is more prevalent among the JWs than in other groups. We had it with Jerry Bergman's unsubstantiated claims about the incidence of mental illness being significantly higher among JWs than in the general population. He buried his well-intentioned passion for helping unwell JWs in a plethora of scientific language about surveys and percentages. No one questioned him, Everyone said, "How impressive.We thought it was that bad". Sorry, not good enough by minimum standards of well-designed research.
Now I could be accused of doubting any relationship between the Watchtower and mental illness. But, again, that is not my point. Nor is it my point with sexual abuse.
Collapsing my position into cheap shots about not believing victims is reprehensible. While my language can be passionate at times, try to look beyond the language to what I am actually saying. I never said it would be acceptable if the incidence of abuse among the JWs was the same as other religions. Remeber who made the comparison: The write from South Africa. Nor did I ever state that a victim had to stand before a judge and provide the evidence. I said people making collective claims about what is going on in the organization needed to. Finally, what particularly got me to suspect the writer was not as concerned about fairness was his equally hyperbolic claims that JW parents in South Africa closely monitor their children's omputer use and associates - making it appear cultish and as I said in an earlier post, pathological. We get the point: The writer thinks JW parents can't do anything right: They abuse their children (or allow it to happen), they neglect them and, presumably not at the same time, are excessively protective of their children. That combination of acussations does not sit well with me. That it was picked up and disseminated without a smidgeon of inquiry tells me that, to some people, it doesn't matter what you say about the JWs- as long as it's negative they'll print it. That's fine. It's the internet. But to then roundly accuse anyone who questions the account of all manner of views on sexual abuse is nothing short of mischeivous.
