Comment please.
Should the Watch Tower Corporation Be held Legal Responsible if it Sends A Known Pedophile Knock on Unsuspecting People Doors Preaching Their Propaganda?
by frankiespeakin 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
karter
The answer is YES it's not up to the Elders to decide who calls on some strangers door.
Put it this way your wife starts a study with him and his wife and the children sit in and her husband finds out he is a child molester....go figure.
They should NOT be able to go from door to door....EVER!!!
The Elders seem to think it's up to them to decide who is fit to call on your door.
-
mind blown
YES. ABSOLUTELY.
WTS Headquarters hands down rules and regulations to the entire world wide orginization. It's not only an ethical issue, but a legal one.
(Legal) it is the law, pedophiles who are have been convicted are to stay away from schools, parks, (so many feet away) etc. where children are in arms way.
(Ethical) Even if a pedophile has not been convicted, just knowintg and not protecting children, is not only a moral issue but a future legal one.
-
smiddy
That is a good question and needs to be thrashed out a lot more .
Does the congregation have a duty of care to the people that witnesses call on in their door to door ministry ?
Does the field service overseer have a duty of care to the people that witnesses call upon in their door to door ministry ?
Does the acting presiding overseer have a duty of care to the people that witnesses call upon in their door to door ministry ?
Can a child of the public / family member or a child of a congregation/family member sue each and every one of these people for their failure in their duty of care ?
Remember each and every one who is a baptized jehovahs witness is classed as a minister of religion and is required to go door to door spreading the message .
smiddy
-
WTWizard
They should be held responsible because they insist that everyone, including pedophiles (including pedophiles that do it explicitly because they get their kicks out of ruining children's lives) to go knocking on doors wherever people (including children) live. Including going on calls, which include the possibility of going on calls alone with households with children the lives they seek to ruin.
-
mP
Why does the WTS continue to defend the pedophiles.. i mean that has to be the dumbest policy ever, your just asking for trouble.
-
Chaserious
Should they? I think so, if the pedophile were to actually molest or harm somebody. Are there any known instances of this - of a pedo assaulting someone he met through D2D? Just curious. I suspect they are way more careful with the public than with their own flock. They probably tell the pedo he is never to go D2D without another approved brother present. I'm sure they are much more fearful of being sued by the public than by their own. They can't control them and try to suppress it, plus it looks worse from a PR standpoint since they can't spin it as a disgruntled former member. It's perverse really that they care more about outsiders than their own kids.
-
punkofnice
YES!
...and the GB should be given the death penalty for crimes against humanity!
-
frankiespeakin
Maybe it will take a lawsuit from somebody not a former JW who has had their child molested by a JW door knocker before they comply.
I'm thinking the Governing Body's position which in effect sponsors a pedofile to go door to door to be a terrible mistake and it is just a matter of time before they have to pay up on a very serious lawsuit. I bet these guys on the Governing Body are not listening to the counsel of the legal department at head quarters on this one.
-
konceptual99
Of course the WTS should be held responsible. They are the ones who determine if a person is considered as a risk. They determine the level of warning (if any) that will be given to the congregation. The elders just do what legal tell them without considering that they have a responsibility too.
How long would an elder remain on the body if he broke ranks and warned parents or prevented a pedo from going door to door if legal had said to say nothing?