silentlambs speak in editorial letter

by silentlambs 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SYN

  GRRRRRRRR~!!!!!

  It would appear to me that the Society's present policy is reasonable. I think they could do more to educate and inform their elders and followers about this subject and agree that past policies and attitudes fell short of what they should have been.
  BS! BS! REASONABLE? Are you nuts? You should re-read the accounts on the Silentlambs website a couple of times until the reality of this situation is hammered into your head. Children are being hurt, and the Society is DFing the whistleblowers left, right and center. How would you like it if somebody molested YOUR children and the Elders prevented you from 1) going to the cops, and 2) warning the parents of other children, merely because there weren't enough WITNESSES TO THE CRIME?

  According to the WTBTS, the evilness of the crime is in direct proportion to the number of people who witnessed it. 1 witness = NO CRIME!!! WTF? This is the most ludicrous BY FAR of their rules (the dishcloth-on-the-head thing for women is close, but only a runner-up to this monstrosity).

  The exposure of Silentlambs is merely something the Society has taken note of. Nothing is being done about it (apart from official-sounding proclamations on their site of encouraging people to go to the cops).

  Remember, the WTBTS places it's own reputation ahead of the mental and physical welfare of it's members, and thus we have all these things being hidden from the public in order to 'not bring reproach on the Congregation'. It's sick, sick, sick.

  Do you really think that the Society is going to allow people to go the police? I think somebody needs a REALITY CHECK.

  
  [SYN], UADA - Unseen Apostate Directorate of Africa - For Great Justice!
• 

  MadApostate

  Syn says:

  ... the Society is DFing the whistleblowers left, right and center.

  ... the Elders prevented you from 1) going to the cops, ...

  According to the WTBTS, the evilness of the crime is in direct proportion to the number of people who witnessed it.

  the most ludicrous BY FAR of their rules (the dishcloth-on-the-head thing for women is close, but only a runner-up ...

  ... (apart from official-sounding proclamations on their site of encouraging people to go to the cops).

  ...

  Do you really think that the Society is going to allow people to go the police?

  I think somebody needs a REALITY CHECK.

  YES, YOU CERTAINLY DO!!!
• 

  plmkrzy

  What Pathofthorns said

  makes a lot of sense.
  And subject matter like this has to be approached intelligently and with out personal bias in order for it to get in credible recognition.

  I personally know of two people who were molested by their priest when they were altar boys.

  I have also heard plenty of cases where Catholic Priests have been found guilty of molesting children, the same as everyone else has heard and have been hearing for quite a while now.

  Am I going to start running up and down the streets where I live or anywhere else for that matter and declare, "All Catholics are child molesters!
  Don't let your families go to Church! They will be molested!

  Not hardly.

  How would people view me if I did? Even though they are hearing the same news I am. I would still sound like a complete and total nut case.

  Well if your going to do that with JWs you can probably count on Magnifying that reaction at least two or three times.

  It's your choice though how you want to go about it is your business.
• 

  morrisamb

  It's always a challenge to write "The Truth", not rationalize our own painful experiences and remain objective - all at the same time. I know I never succeed in such a balance but I'll never give up trying.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  According to the WTBTS, the evilness of the crime is in direct proportion to the number of people who witnessed it. 1 witness = NO CRIME!!!

  Without something to back up an allegation of molestation, it is simply one person's word against another. How would you feel if you lived under a judicial system that operated on the basis that you were guilty if only ONE person merely accused you of a crime?

  I would really like to hear what all of these people upset over the Society's child abuse policy would like to have done differently. What specific objectives are you trying to achieve and how do you feel they will benefit JW children?

  For months I've been trying to understand and make sense of this issue and can't get any clear answers. If there is no clear and obvious goal, you will make alot of noise but see little in the way of results.

  Anyone?

  Path