by mikepence 8 Replies latest jw friends
The Murderer at Your Door has been read *thousands* of times (probably > 10,000) on the prominent web site, Kuro5hin.org.
Check it out: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/1/1515/18246
Some articles on JW's and sexual abuse are coming (if only work wasn't so much...work!).
Peace,
Mike
Nice one, Brother!
It really is such an amazingly beautiful series of interlocking systems that comprise what a human is. It's too bad we're working backwards from the object code, everything would be simpler with the source and a comment or three thrown in.
I'll defend the confidentiality of confessions, including those by Jehovah's Witnesses to their Elders.
TexSham
Confessions has nothing to do with it. You didn't read the whole thing through obviously.
In one case I know, four girls came forward to accuse one elder of molestation. He should have been reported, on the basis of the first or second girl's accusation; it would have saved the other two. As it was, he went on to molest the other two and it wasn't untill the police came for him---finally--that the church even took action against them.
The elders were practicing medicine without a license. That's what it boils down to. They were 'treating' a known pedophile with nonmedical treatment, not under a licensed professional. It cost some children their childhood.
By nature and definition, pedophiles rarely confess, so it's not an issue. And if a murderer did not go to the authorities and turn himself in for a murder, then how can this person be accepted for baptism? For appointment as an elder? To go door to door?
When a woman who was raped did not scream, she is considered a danger to the spirtuality of the congregation, expelled and shunned, and it is considered inappropriate to even pray for such a one. She certainly would not be considered suitable for the door-to-door work; but a 'confessed' pedophile/murderer would?
Beware that person at your door....
Dung said:
"Confessions has nothing to do with it. You didn't read the whole thing through obviously. In one case I know, four girls came forward to accuse one elder of molestation. He should have been reported, on the basis of the first or second girl's accusation; it would have saved the other two."
The right of confidential confession has everything to do with it. The above example is not an example of confession. The girls should have been instructed to contact the authorities. I realize that this is not done by elders in practice, and should be. Nonetheless, confession this is not.
And Dung said:
"The elders were practicing medicine without a license."
I guess they do practice medicine on the blood issue in a sense, but how this point applies to the question of confessional confidentiality is unclear.
Dung further said:
"They were 'treating' a known pedophile with nonmedical treatment, not under a licensed professional."
Well, I'm sure most Priests and almost all elders are poor psychiatrists, but you can't stop them from treating the souls and emotions of their rank and file just becuase the soft sciences (Psychology, Sociology, etc.) have come up with a better way to do it.
Dung explained:
"When a woman who was raped did not scream, she is considered a danger to the spirtuality of the congregation, expelled and shunned, and it is considered inappropriate to even pray for such a one."
Yeah, well, that sucks, however it's difficult to see the connection to the issue of confessions.
Taking confidential confessions away from the clergy erodes the rights of individuals, and increases the power of the state. I should be able to talk to my lawyer, my priest, and my doctor freely and openly knowing that the information I divulge will be kept in secret, and only used to my benefit.
I don't have much respect for the JW organization, but when defending individual rights one must often defend unlikable people. Have a nice day.
Tex,
Welcome to the board.
I *do* support the clergy privilege, namely, that you should be able to confess sins and have it kept in a confidential status.
But ask yourself this:
Don't JWs always blather about how 'clean' their congregation is?
What sets them apart from a Catholic priest who has heard a confession, if neither of them use it to cleanse the congregation?
In addition, perhaps you didn't know the WBTS own position on their elders. JR BROWN (their professional spin doctor) calls them "untrained volunteers." Now ask yourself, are a bunch of untrained volunteers able to serve the best interest of the Christian congregation?
If there is no clergy/laity division as the JWs *constantly* claim, how can their elders invoke the clergy laity privilege?
So, I support EVERY religion's privlege to have someone who can hear your confession and keep it private. Every religion which calls clergy clergy. Which would exclude the JWs.
Lisa
Thanks for the welcome, Lisa.
You are exactly right about this:
"If there is no clergy/laity division as the JWs *constantly* claim, how can their elders invoke the clergy laity privilege?"
My guess is the JW legal team would argue that their elders are the SAME as clergy in terms of the legal definition, that to subscribe one set of rules to the Dubs and another to the Catholics would be prejudicial. My guess is that they would be right in this argument. No matter how you style it, if there is a group of senior titled members in a religious organization that lower members reveal their sins to, with an expectation of privacy, for the purpose of soul cleansing or what have you, then this is a confidential confession.
I think you are right on the mark in identifying the disconnect between what the Watchtower will argue in court and what they will argue in their publications.
I remember seeing that the Watchtower joined in a suit with Jerry Fallwell as a plaintiff, regarding taxation of video tape sales, I believe. This makes a lot of sense from a tactical point of view. The lawyers by working together don't duplicate research, are more powerful as a team, etc. However, it is hard to understand them availing themselves of these practical benefits considering their view of other religious organizations. I guess that it is ok to work with The Harlot as long as it saves money and you have a common interest.
Keep in mind... each and every "baptized publisher" is considered to be an "ordained minister" and can claim clergy laity privilege.
That is how they get around the legal requirements.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
Okay, so we don't bang our heads on teh wall any more than necessary, here is the article...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/1/1515/18246
In a 1992 letter to a Florida Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, recently leaked on the Internet, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the principle legal entity behind the Jehovah's Witnesses, addresses the concerns of a congregation in dealing with a new member with a nefarious past. This man had "committed several murders and crimes before his baptism," and the local elders were inquiring as to their legal obligation in the state of Florida in dealing with such an individual. Moral and ethical considerations in such a circumstance are not even discussed. The proliferation of Biblical references that typify Witness publications are notably absent here.
The Watchtower Society responds that the elders have "no obligation to reveal information of this type to the authorities," and rather than encourage the man in question to face the consequences of his actions, the elders are told that "What he does about paying his debt to Society is largely up to him and his conscience."
Jehovah's Witnesses appoint as elders those older men in the congregation who have an established record of adhering to organizational rules and requirements. These men receive no additional schooling, and are even discouraged from reading "worldly" psychology and sociology texts. Still, they are the ones that Jehovah's Witnesses members look to in providing counseling and guidance in dealing with sensitive issues such as sexual abuse, depression, and, apparently, murder. Among organized religions in the United States, Jehovah's Witnesses have the lowest percentage of college graduates among their adherents.
So, men with religious authority, but no training and little education, are authorized to conceal the egregious acts of a murderer whom they have judged as repentant. No concern is expressed for the families of the victims. No warning will be provided of this person's violent past to the congregation, or the community at large. Like all Jehovah's Witnesses, he will continue to be required to go from door to door, evangelizing.
Concern is expressed for the confessed murderer and his family. "If the elders inadvertently reveal his past wrongdoing, undoubtedly it will result in major repercussions to him and his wife. So, handling this case calls for good judgment and discernment." One wonders what good judgment and discernment have to do with covering over such acts.
At its best, religion can serve as a moral compass to its adherents. Increasingly, we are seeing that religious authority is instead being abused, providing a haven for molesters, murderers, and the like. We should ask more of religion, legally, and religion should ask more of itself morally.
____________________________________________________________________
The word 'confession' is not even in the article and doesn't enter into the author's work. We don't know how the elders got the info.
If what you are saying is you back the clergy/laity confessional, and it's a natural outgrowth and a separate issue from this author's piece, well that's a different subject.
That's where my confusion originated. I couldn't figure what TS comment about the 'confessional' had anything to do with the article. I guess it doesn't. That's okay.
To get back to the author's piece, tho; in this world of electronics and identification and forensics and whatever else, the poor criminals are not having an easy time of things. They are running out of havens, many seem to be fleeing to religions as a last sanctuary.
Whether religions let themselves be used in this way remains to be seen.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not seem to mind.
