by RubaDub 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
The JW's should have their own public megan's law that complies with the secular governments.
Sabastious ...
Yes, I agree. That could be a great "noo light."
But there were some lawsuits back in the 1960's when they used to disfellowship people and state the sin (take my word for it, my grandfather and father were elders, well connected to New York, and the lawsuits were the reason for not publicly stating the specifics of the sin as was done in the past).
Rub a Dub
For an organization that claims that the way they do things should be an example to the world on how to run things they are failing miserably.
In my old KH we had an elders son that tried to get in his babysitters (niece of another elder) window at her house. Some people in the congo
where priveledge to know about this but not me or my daughter, (who was the same age as the babysitter) He started hanging out at the pool
at the apt we lived in...and got out of my daughter her cell number. I mean hell, she thought of him as a "brother" not as a man, he was older, not Disfellowshipped, she was a minor.
He called her and wanted her to meet him at a bar. She told me immediately. Instead of the elders son being at fault, she was for giving him her
phone number....and this was when we found out about the babysitter incident. The guy is a predator, I don't give a rats ass about protecting his
privacy or how damn sorry he was/is....he can't be trusted and his father should not be in a position to protect his ass.
The guy is a PREDATOR. Protect the children.
Edited to add: He got her phone number saying he might need her to babysit.
As already mentioned we are talking about child predators and yes the congregation should be made aware if there is one among them. i'm sorry but too bad for the abuser. I could care less if he is made to feel uncomfortable or damned by the congregation. He/She certainly did not care about the innocent child/children's feelings when destroying their lives.
and yes the congregation should be made aware if there is one among them. i'm sorry but too bad for the abuser. I could care less if he is made to feel
uncomfortable or damned by the congregation.
Awaken ...
Not to pick on you, others have had the same thoughts.
I'm going to have dinner now, but my point has been how does a religious organization (JW's or any other) avoid slander for exposing and announcing the past sin(s) of a person without a lawsuit ?
I will check in tomorrow morning.
Rub a Dub
Paying damages for slander and libel is small compared to actual notice of a pedophile and not telling the congregation. First, truth is always an absolute defense to libel and slander. Competing societal demands are present. I would generally favor privacy. Legislatures have removed privacy for those convicted of pedophile crimes. Balancing the privacy of a sex offender vs. abuse of a child always ends with the doubt being thrown to vulnerable children.
The WT wants to run every aspect of its members' lives yet have no liability. The recidivism rate for pedophile is much more than murder, rape, or robbery. I feel the WT has the right to discipine its members according to its doctrine. Jesus said to pay Caesar's thing to Caesr. The authorites should be alterted. Alerting them is paying Caesar's things to Caesar. Also, I don't know all the contours of a priest/penitent privilege. It clearly developed when Roman Catholcisim was the only religion recognized by European states. Catholic confession is very different from Witness counseling.
None of these issues are simple. Which party is better able to protect itself? An adult pedophile, inept elders, or a vulnerable child? I always find for children. They are so vulnerable. Pedophilia is a special circumstance that calls for changes in policy. Society will convict or acquit in court. The WT is not a judicial forum. Simply stating the facts, "the certain acts have been alleged but not proven allows the KH to have the same notice as the elders.
Ha Ha you're right. This topic get my blood boiling especially because I was an abuse victim. I see your point. I guess if they are a registered sex offender then they cannot be held accountable for slander. But if the accuser is denying it and it has not been proven in a court of law then I do see the accused possibly suing for slander. I don't know the solution.
hmmmm I'm thinking . . .
Actually, this is a very good question, RubaDub. And I don't think we have seen a comprehensive answer to it. Couple thoughts:
We should not necessarily limit the question to cases of child abuse; the same principle holds for a wide array of anti-social conduct on a sliding scale. If a guy were reproved for adultery, maybe couples in shaky marriages would want the information so as to avoid working with him in service. That's a trivial example, but I choose it to make the point: there are all sorts of things that people might wish to know about another person because their past actions serve as a signal of all sorts of risk to others.
My view is that the problem centers on 1) the Judicial Committee structure and 2) the invasion of privacy concerns (which are separate, in my understanding, from slander).
The Judicial Committee is not primarily a penitent-minister activity, concerned with the work of the soul. It is primarily a fact finding structure. It finds a person guilty of some sin or not as a matter of fact. It establishes state of mind (repentance) as a matter of fact. It routinely shares its findings with other parties. It asserts it is acting in the interest of the congregation. All of these things make it the sort of thing that might incurr a set of responsibilities much different from those of penitent-minister.
As for invasion of privacy, there are lots of disfellowshipping offenses that may be entirely true but that fall into something that looks like a legal invasion. Fornicating, smoking, taking blood, etc. are precisely the sorts of thing that might be found to be "not of public concern," and this invasive whether they are true or not. For invasion of privacy, truth is not a defense (as I understand the matter).
I think the courts are setting a precedent for revealing pedophiles in any org.
Eccliastical protection/confidentiality laws should be changed. I read somewhere though,
that the law is for protecting the individual not the church or whatever.
I have copy of a court case that went to the supreme court of someone suing the WTBTS for slander.
The individual sued for 100,000 USD, but by the time the supreme court of the U.S. made their decision
it was reduced to 15,000. It was around 1940. Rutherford' time period they announced the sin as said,
but this person thought Rutherford was lying.
I think the problem lies with the witnesses world view. Witnesses put on this facade of being the ONLY 'wholesome, clean' group of people on Earth. They are 'God's chosen ones'. They don't associate with those outside their faith because they are 'worldly' (full of the most heinous of people). Yet, inside is a supposed spiritual paradise....good people who are trustworthy, people that ones would be willing to die for. Therefore, people who are zealous witnesses have a tendancy to trust each other without question, unless someone is just a total creep. Problem is...not all sex offenders are your typical 'chester's'...unless you were told, sometimes you would never know. If a 'situation' come to light, the Police are not called, but the WTS is on speed dial.
Churches from what I can tell know that within their walls are all sorts of people, they aren't as close as witnesses in their dealings with each other. Not that they aren't a close 'church family' but they aren't exclusive. Their world view isn't to trust each other with their lives. I'm not aware that churches would 'announce' anything should a sex offender go to church in their doors. But, the offender would not be in a situation where they would deal with or come into close contact with unsupervised kids...(criminal background checks) If a situation came to light about a pedophile situation, you can bet the authorities would be called immediately.
Witnesses have an open acceptance - once you are in the group it really is a 'you are one of us' attitude - no questions asked - the worst witness is still a witness...and on God's side. Once they know someone is a witness, walls go down and you are a 'brother'. 'Spiritual brothers and sisters' are viewed as closer than family. The amount of trust a naive witness gives to other witnesses is dangerous. People who are raised in and know no different are those who I call naive. They are told what to do their whole lives and haven't developed any type of street smarts at all....not necessary when all decisions are made for you.
The WTS is responsible for making a group of people who are susceptable to this...they have made their bed, and now they are sleeping in it.
There is NOTHING they can do now to change what they have created! They haven't focused on 'self-growth' with individuals, it was all about the growth of the organization. They are guilty of focusing on themselves (the organization) and not the people...and they are paying the price for only caring about the organization.
Money have and will change WT policies.
Personally I had never met an ax murderer or A
serial killer in all my time as A JW.If there are
ones in the borg. I guarantee those individuals
are meeting in the KH jail. If there are someone who
have spent time for having sticky fingers, the freinds will
find out as soon as they invite them over and find items
missing. The point, Child Sexual Rape is completely different.
