Quoting a few words from websites that provide legal info does not make you a lawyer. Your quotes remind me of the WT and Awake- deliberate lies. Most adults know child abuse is wrong. Jesus wanted children to come to him. Most religions teach that sacred standards a re higher than those mandated by govt. The WT only cares about money.Elders and children do not count. I spit on the assertion that they are Christian. I view Christianity, despite is flaws, as my personsl religion. All I have to do is imagine Christs wrath towards those who favor $ and door knockers over children. JWs control encourages abuse.
Open letter Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
by Prime 91 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
besty
@prime - make it simple for me
why are elders instructed to call the Watchtower legal department before doing anything else?
-
steve2
Prime deserves some credit - not for his rubber-stamped views but more for his audacious persistence in stirring up debate on a forum wherein he determinedly defends pro-GB policies knowing full well the GB warns the rank and file about supping with apostates and would not seek his endorsement.
In so doing, Prime (i.e., Ryan) sets himself apart and wins no one's approval. That individual-mindedness must count for something on this forum!
-
besty
does 'brazenly' debating apostates make the JW debater apostate himself?
-
punkofnice
besty -
does 'brazenly' debating apostates make the JW debater apostate himself?
Possibly. Or possibly a troll.............I said POSSIBLY..............before Prime uses another interesting comment like
Woman...
Uh oh. Here we go.
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.
Was this anger? I thought real JW's are told to ''let anger alone.''
what I have noticed is that fakers and trolls tend to post and comment on threads that are very controversial.
Open letter – Re: Mr. Bowen, Mrs. Anderson
Hmmmmm. A deliberate attempt to be offensive and get an active response???
This is a very controversial maybe even defamatory thread from Prime. It is as if Prime is trying to use the justification for the watchtower corporations defence of paedophiles to gain momentum.
These types of threads will always get mileage because we all should know that paedophilia is never justified, right or to be excused.
Could this be a deliberate attempt to stir up emotions and to get food for a troll?
You decide.
I for one have nothing more to say on this thread even if Prime decides to goad me with ad hominems or whatever.
-
AnnOMaly
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.
Deary, you confirmed the beliefnet thread was your thread. So you, 'Prime,' are 'Dream Weaver' and 'Tempest.' You announced on beliefnet you had changed your moniker from 'Dream Weaver' to 'Tempest.' You have confirmed here and elsewhere another of your names is 'Ryan.'
You have left an easily-followed trail of debris on the internet (including this site), at times recycling the same avatars and IP addresses between IDs, and you say the same things the same way, although on topix you do not keep your penchant for obscenities in check.
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.
Naturally, if the person has not been accused and reported to the proper authorities, it could result in a defamation lawsuit. However, you had said:
"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."
Divulging the type of information found on the national sex-offender registry would NOT result in a defamation lawsuit, no matter if it was divulged by 'authorized' or 'unauthorized' channels in the congregation.
-
Pistoff
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.
Forget spreading information in the hall; tell me WHY the WT can't just tell elders to send suspected abuse cases directly to the POLICE?
Waiting for your answer, Prime.
-
Prime
Forget spreading information in the hall; tell me WHY the WT can't just tell elders to send suspected abuse cases directly to the POLICE?
Waiting for your answer, Prime.
If you'll take a few moments and read the posts on this thread, everything you stated in this and your prior post on this thread has been addressed.
There are many civic based organizations with the same organizational structure as Jehovah's Witnesses. These organizations generally don't have a child protection policy aside from what is legally required of them. Unless an organization hosts a formal arrangement where parents leave their children under the care and keeping of the organization unsupervised by the parents themselves, a third party cannot be held accountable for child abuse aside from what is stipulated by state or federal law. At most, a person can be charged with a misdemeanor (not reporting), but a person or organization cannot be sued.
There is the circumstance where a person is in a leadership position and abuses his authority to try and access children outside of any formal arrangement associated with an organization. For that reason, a person suspected of abuse shouldn't be allowed to serve in this capacity even if an organization doesn't have activities for children unsupervised by their parents. This was the grounds for liability in 2007.
http://www.jw-media.org/gbl/20071121.htm
In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations. (Acts 20:28) During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts.
This is where a line is drawn. No organization can be sued for their response to domestic abuse involving their overall church membership or any incident outside the perimeters of their facilities, officials and sponsored activities.
The elders I've been associated with take a very aggressive stand against domestic abuse, abuse in general. Most people do. They don't just do what's legally required of them. Not everything has to be stated verbatim if it's a matter of common sense.
In cases where there's not substantial evidence that abuse is occurring or has occurred, it's not always appropriate to automatically go to the police.
Take it out of the context of Jehovah's Witnesses for a second. If an adult was to make an accusation to a religious leader (a pastor for example) against a church member, they may take some action in response to the matter, whatever their church allows. Unless there's a legal requirement, they're not necessarily going to go to the police for you if you're an adult.
If you think I'm wrong, whether you're a new or longstanding member of a church or some other profit or nonprofit organization, start making accusations against someone in the church and see if anyone will repeat what you tell them to the police. The Watchtower Society doesn't put the elders in that situation.
There's been some debate as to whether the incidents in the Fremont, California lawsuit took place during church activities, but the case is being appealed because of the liability issues involved. You can discern that much from the WTS formal response to the case.
http://www.jw-media.org/usa/20120620.htm
This is the first time that an organization was found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority,” states James McCabe, an attorney representing Watchtower in the case.
-
Anony Mous
There are many civic based organizations with the same organizational structure as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Yet the WTBTS considers themselves 'better' somehow as these 'worldly' organizations, frequently raking competing businesses (Catholics especially) over the coals whenever they get involved in a child abuse scandal. Regardless, some of those worldly organizations have better child abuse policies than the WTBTS.
they cannot be held accountable for child abuse aside from what is stipulated by state or federal law
Yes they can, see Conti. Negligence and obstruction of justice laws are very broad. However, the WTBTS doesn't even adhere to state or federal law which clearly states in many places that ANY abuse should be reported to police by the elders. Instead, the instructions are to call WTBTS legal and await their instructions from them which are often to report anonymously (therefore only adhering to the letter, not the spirit of the law) or not at all unless an eye witness (or in some cases a second victim) comes forward.
Unless there's a legal requirement, they're not necessarily going to go to the police for you if you're an adult. AND No organization can be sued for their response to domestic abuse involving their overall church membership or any incident outside the perimeters of their facilities, officials and sponsored activities.
You're changing the premise of the argument from child to adult. Adults have the power to go to the police themselves (in most cases). In particularly heinous crimes however (child abuse, child pornography, murder, human trafficking...), if you hear a substantial account of or witness a crime even if it's adults vs. adults you may be considered (criminally) negligent, an accessory or obstructing justice if you don't report.
This is the first time that an organization was found responsible for the alleged misdeeds of a member who held no position of leadership or authority
You believe everything from one-side of the alley don't you? If you read the case, the misdeeds are no longer alleged, that person was a known, listed and convicted child molester yet no attempt was made to warn the parents of the congregation, that "member" was in a position of leadership both officially (he was a ministerial servant at that time) and even if he wasn't according to WTBTS doctrine, he is (CURRENTLY STILL) a man in good standing in the congregation therefore in a position of leadership to both children and women of the congregation. The elders knew the allegations and knew them to be true (he confessed to the elders) and even if he didn't confess, they are likely to be true since he was already a convicted child molester with a track record in that same and nearby congregations YET THEY DID NOT REPORT HIM! Therefore they found the congregation negligent and civilly liable to (part of) the damages. Mind you that the congregation's damages are like 1/3 that of the child molester's damages but because the child molester has no assets to recover, it really is pointless to try to pursue that as well.
-
DNCall
Prime,
I haven't engaged you before and really don't want to now. Besty is a good friend of mine (terrific guy, really). He asked a simple question to which I hoped you would provide a simple answer: " why are elders instructed to call the Watchtower legal department before doing anything else?" If you don't know why, simply answer "no." If you do know why, please share. A simple answer from you, either way, would prove most informative to this debate that you have initiated.
Thank you in advance.