Thats because dubs aren't concerned with the moral issue, they just want to be right
Open letter Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
by Prime 91 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Vidiot
Well, one way or another, it's pretty clear Prime's never gonna budge.
If he's not a troll and genuinely believes he's defending WTS ideology, policies, and decisions, then I suspect one of his main problems is an attitude that's common among JWs and fostered at every level of the WT hierarchy…
…he proceeds from the assumption that the world around us is a fundamentally shitty place and couldn’t possibly do a better job at dispensing justice, fairness, and decency than the WTS, and therefore WT methodology (however flawed it may be) can still only be - by default - superior in every way.
If I'm correct, that worldview is going to bias him against every argument we could possibly make, no matter how compelling it is.
Besides, we all know the real reason the WTS is resisting disclosure and secular scrutiny via law enforcement and the courts.
The more public exposure institutionalized child abuse gets, the worse it's gonna make them look, because the WTS's policies - as an authoritarian high-control group and a marginilized ultraconservative religion - have created an internal environment where the problem is inevitable, unavoidable, and completely endemic…
…i.e.; the problem is imbedded andwidespread, but the WTS's fundamental nature makes it virtually impossible to adequately solve it using solely internal means, and they know it.
Not to mention that - no matter how flawed it may be - the developed world is largely democratic in nature.
If and when public awareness reaches a tipping point in today's society, the Justice System may well feel compelled to mollify an increasingly outraged citizenry and make a public example of one of these organizations.
Like it or not, big outfits like the RCC (due to their wealth, influence, and membership size) have a much stronger degree of protection against that sort of thing…
…however, the WTS - being relatively small and having fostered no friendships or alliances in the "world" - could easily be viewed (for all intents and purposes) as socially expendable. In addition, accusations of egregious negligence with regards to institutionalized child abuse are fully justified.
The WTS has therefore made itself, quite frankly, a prime candidate for a legitimate legal spanking and an "object lesson".
-
Justitia Themis
What authority gives this woman or the administrative position of Jehovah's Witnesses the right to require more from the elders than the federal government? This woman is not above the law and neither is the Watchtower Society. The Watchtower Society doesn't have the right to ask more of the elders than what's legally and scripturally required of them.
First, reporting requirements are governed by state law, not the federal law.
Second, any organization can hold itself to a higher moral standard by internally adopting more stringent reporting requirements than those of its state, but it cannot establish a less stringent reporting requirement because that would violate state law.
The WTBTS is content to do the moral minimum required by Ceasar's law.
Prime's never gonna budge.
Correct. He's promoting an agenda, but it's good for posters to see all sides.
-
Vidiot
Justitia Thomas - "He's promoting an agenda, but it's good for posters to see all sides."
Or (more accurately) just how wrongheaded one side can actually be.
-
wha happened?
This is where dubs, (and also certain family members in law enforcement), fail miserably. If you advertise yourself as holding to a higher standard, you are going to be held to a higher standard. Shocking isn't it? Prime and others can't get their head around it. They want to hide behind gaps in the law, but at the same time, look down their noses at the immorality of the world.
-
Prime
This is where dubs, (and also certain family members in law enforcement), fail miserably. If you advertise yourself as holding to a higher standard, you are going to be held to a higher standard. Shocking isn't it? Prime and others can't get their head around it. They want to hide behind gaps in the law, but at the same time, look down their noses at the immorality of the world.
This has nothing to do with adhering to a "higher standard."
w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked
And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.
Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.
In certain states, a sex offender can't even legally enter a church. If a person has this type of sanction associated with their conviction, Jehovah's Witnesses won't allow them on the property of a Kingdom Hall.
As for a "higher standard," would it take any effort to formulate a policy that bans any person with a history of abuse from entering a Kingdom Hall regardless if the state prohibits such a thing or not? No. Would it take any effort to formulate a policy that supersedes state or federal law for any reason? No.
A person is allocated civil rights on the basis of what the secular authorities allow. That's all this has to do with. Because of the fact that these acknowledgements are openly made in the Watchtower (the possibility of the congregation having to address the actions of a person that commits this crime), there's nothing to cover up.
So what are you left with? Nothing.
All 50 states have requirements for the mandatory reporting of child abuse, so there's nothing to complain about. You can always go back before the legislation of any statute and find a person that didn't adhere to the law in its present state, because the statute was nonexistent. You will not however, be able to hold anyone accountable for such a thing based on anything ecclesiastical ("higher standard") in a secular court of law. It's illegal.
-
-
Pistoff
Prime has the same attitude about accountability as the men on the governing body.
They do the legal minimum only and that only when they might get caught.
Prime's attitude is, you can't make the elders do the right thing, which is to REPORT SUSPECTED ABUSERS TO THE POLICE. Really?
The WT can't just say, Brothers, this is not your obligation, let the police handle this, this is a possible crime.
Why won't the society do this?
Because they care more about the possible bad publicity that an active witness might be publicly accused than they do that a child might be molested.
This is a astoundingly stupid short sighted policy of course; this is the policy that has resulted in the largest award to a single victim of abuse in US history, because a witness girl was the victim of the abuser AND the policy, and she refused the WT's hush money. Had the elders turned the case over to the police AS SOON AS THE ORIGINAL VICTIM BROUGHT THE ACCUSATION, the abuse would have stopped and the WT, the elders and the congregation would have had no liability.
But the society has demanded that elders call the society first; the society tells them to drop it if the man does not confess, or if (!!) there are not two witnesses.
This is what happens when A) the GB believes their own press that God speaks to them and 2) the men who make it to the top get there by pleasing the previous men at the top.
Watchtower's child sex abuse policy has not changed; it is a legal nightmare, a public embarrassment, an unforgivable moral breach of faith with membeship and now a financial disaster.
But hey Prime, go ahead, defend it.
-
Prime
She is alice.in.wonderland, Spade, DreamWeaver, Tempest, Ryan, among other aliases, and has had a long history of posting here, on topix, beliefnet and even on cedars' blog. She has said in the past that she needed to get her life back in order before resuming meeting attendance. I do not know whether she is currently associated with a congregation. Wherever she goes she seems to play the same record. I hope that goes some way to answer your question Hortensia. Perhaps Prime can fill in some details for you ;-)
What's stated in the 10/01/2012 BOE obviously applies to anyone on the national sex-offender registry. Divulging this type of information into the congregation through an unauthorized channel can result in a defamation lawsuit.
So you're saying that spreading true and publicly available information about a known sex offender among congregants would result in a defamation lawsuit? What planet are you on?
Woman... My name is Ryan. You have no evidence whatsoever that connects me to the monikers you have stuck in your head aside from your imagination. I damn sure don't keep up with anything like that. This seems to be an anonymous forum for the purpose of keeping things somewhat impersonal.
A "known sex offender" is above all, a convict on the national registry. Beyond that, it would be a person with a prior conviction that is not on the public registry. Outside of this legal channel, yes, anyone spreading information about a crime punishable by law, without a charge or conviction to back the claim, is subject to slander statutes.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law
California Defamation Law
In cases involving matters of purely private concern, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant.
The superior authorities don't ask anyone to publicize the presence of a suspect, they mandate that a suspect be turned over to them and they'll make that determination. Inasmuch, elders comply with reporting laws.
I was somewhat skeptical about saying anything on this forum, but I'll have to say, I'm justifiably surprised that persons I've spoken to here aren't as ignorant and dishonest as you are.
-