Response to Pathofthorns

by silentlambs 50 Replies latest jw friends

  • silentlambs
    silentlambs

    I have watched the intentional effort by Pathofthorns to defend WT Policy and create misinformation regarding the silentlambs effort. As you continue to attack with lies and misinformation a meaningful effort to protect children I have to wonder do you have any conscience at all? Are you being paid by wt for your lies? Why do you continue to attack a position that simply does not exist? Why do you create boundaries for silentlambs and question them when you know as well as I that we do not stand or take that position?

    In your last post you wrote the following:

    “I would agree that the authorities should be contacted if any child IS being abused or in a dangerous home environment.”

    This is a contradiction from what you have stated in the past, you have always held the position wt policy was the right course in letting it be a personal decision. WT makes no distinction between current and past molestation it is always optional to report the crime to authorities. Now you want to have it both ways-busted.

    You wrote:

    “But I think we need to keep in mind that most of these people who have been molested or abused had this occur several years in the past when they were children.”

    This also is a misleading statement, a large portion of molestations are reported when children tell their parents in real time, not when they became adults. “Most” is a dead wrong statement and implies that the majority of reported molestations involve adults. If that were true then why do we have child services in every county in this country? It is mainly children who report molestation, NOT adults.

    You wrote:

    “At some point these individuals attempt to come to terms with what happened. They may confide in someone and begin to talk about what happened to them. What the Silentlambs group appears to be suggesting is that if an elder were to hear this information he should immediately report the matter to the authorities whether the victim wishes this to be done or not.”

    This is an outright lie and this thought has never been part of the solution to wt policy. Silentlambs requests on any report of molestation that the victim be encouraged to go to the police first BEFORE reporting to the BOE. This avoids the elder investigation clouding a real police investigation. If this step was enacted there would be no need for WT Legal or elders to even have to worry about reporting, the family would now be empowered to take appropriate action. Now that power is taken away from them.

    You wrote,

    “From what Bill posted earlier on this thread, it would seem that in actual practice he takes exactly the same position as the WT in leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to go to the authorities. Unless Bill Bowen reports all crimes that come to his attention I would be mistaken.”
    ---------------------
    quote:

    I have talked to many victims who have never reported their abuse, I simply encourage them to talk about it to counslers, close friends, or report the matter on the sl website. The more they learn they can speak out the more likely they are to report the crime.
    ---------------------

    Once again lies and misinformation, elders are authorized to conduct extensive investigations into child molestation allegations to determine wrongdoing. This should not be done before a police investigation as elders are totally untrained when it comes to knowing how to conduct an investigation of child molestation allegations. WT does not encourage a family to go to the police unless they live in a mandatory reporting state, of which there are few. In cases outside of this scenario JW’s are clearly DISCOURAGED from reporting the crime. They cannot tell anyone in the congregation with the risk of being charged with slander, if they report to the police they are viewed as not “waiting on Jehovah” and going outside the organization for help. To infer or imply that I take the “same position as WT” on reporting is a flat out insult to everything silentlambs stands for. WT policy is and continues to be proven wrong, for anyone to represent it otherwise means they are either extremely stupid or have an agenda in WT interests.

    In the hundreds of cases that have been brought to my attention each person is always encouraged to report the matter to the police, each person is always encouraged to get needed counseling and therapy. We are willing to help provide any material or assistance to prosecute child molesters. I am not charged by home office to conduct a judicial investigation and examine every detail of what happened. Elders do not do what I suggest to victims, they cover for WT Legal. To suggest any comparison is also an insult to the silentlambs organization as it is not true.

    You wrote:

    “The fact that many states don't have mandatory reporting laws is proof that the matter is not black or white.”

    Lies, Lies, Lies, ALL STATES HAVE MANDATORY REPORTING OF CHILD MOLESTATION IT IS A CRIME. IT IS BLACK AND WHITE.

    You wrote:

    “Why leaving it to the victim to go to the authorities is wise in the majority of these cases where the abuse happened in the past is because it is the victim's testimony that will be required to build a case. It is the victim who may indeed be 'victimized' again in the courtroom through harsh cross-examinations.”

    Your comments are made simply scare victims from coming forward. The police determine how strong a victim is to testify. The courts are very sensitive to not allowing a victim to be revictimized before a jury. Also in the outside event the judge allows a defense lawyer to be abusive it causes the jury to rule for the victim and works to the accused disadvantage, again to imply otherwise smacks of misinformation.

    You wrote,

    “A victim may have made much progress in moving on from what happened and this fragile recovery could be set back as they are forced to relive the events that happened for the court in the often slim hopes of a conviction. Sure, a victim may have done their civic duty, but at what price?”

    What a wicked assumption! Coming forward is a healing event, facing down and reporting the molester is a positive outcome that makes a person stronger. When they speak out they find they do and will have support. They for the first time often feel they are able to move on from the molestation affects on their lives. The “price” is to their advantage and healing yet you would encourage them to not take this important step, shame on you.

    You wrote:
    quote:
    when you do not report a child molester and he or she molests another child you now share in the crime.

    “How does a statement like this make the majority of victims feel who have not reported the crime committed against them? Are the victims criminals now?”

    That statement helps victims to see the real issue at stake and the importance of protecting children who will be future victims. Your statement encourages them to keep the matter hidden, that is wrong and it protects the pedophile.

    You wrote:

    “I would venture to say it is families that are more often than not covering over abuse while it is occuring and indefinitely after it has occurred. I think it is unacceptable for any parent to cover over for abuse on the part of a mate or another relative or anyone. Why have we been overlooking the parent's responsibility in all of this?”

    Your implication is once again false. "Families" do not cover up abuse when they are Jehovah’s Witnesses, WT forces them to cover the abuse by the exercise of WT Policy. To try and blame it on the parents now is much like when the Society blamed us for 1975. That dog won’t hunt. If parents were empowered by WT policy to report the crime of child molestation then silentlambs efforts could be better placed in simply supporting victims of molestation. Wt refuses to make any adjustment but to hold to present Policy. The fault is with the GB who directs the organization, they know children are being hurt yet they refuse to take proper action. When they are exposed Jw’s and the whole world will see them for what they have proven themselves to be. “By their fruits you will recognize these men.”

    Your fruits put you in much the same category. You create positions that do not exist, accuse silentlambs of things they have never said, provide twisted arguments that defend the current WT Policy on child molestation. Then you cut and run saying you hate WT. Your fruits prove otherwise.

    You wrote:

    “Because we hate the WT. Run WT, Run”

    Yet another lie, I nor anyone else who works with silentlambs hates WT or Jehovah’s Witnesses. We hate the fact they protect child molesters and hope policy will change to protect all JW children. “Run WT run” is what WT Legal will do when brothers and sisters as well as everyone else are educated to how WT Policy is hurting children, they will require the proper policy to take effect. When needed changes come JW’s have the freedom to practice their religion as any other recognized religion in the USA. As stated earlier silentlambs remains neutral with regard to doctrinal issues, we simply stick to helping victims of child molestation.

    The long posts that you make to the innuendo and twists of logic have a strange similarity to “friend” who stopped posting several months ago. I encourage anyone to review the exchange between “friend” and “focus” that went for several hundred pages. The reasoning and logic of “friend” closely follows your current posting and challenges to silentlambs. I wonder if there is not a link? You have never contacted silentlambs privately but only challenge publicly, you never respond to clarifying explanations, instead, continue to attack positions you create that simply do not exist. I refuse to waste further time and effort to argue with your insipid logic, but I think the time taken to answer your recent post will help most readers to form their own conclusions as to what your “real” agenda is.

    In the future when you try to restart misdirection posts on silentlambs issues I will simply repost this thread.

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    yeah....what Silentlambs says. I'm tired of Pathofthorns as well.

    And while I'm at it, I'm going to start with some other things that have been bothering me about this poster.

  • siegswife
    siegswife

    Pathofhorns...interesting name

    Revelation 17:12 "And the ten horns that you saw mean ten kings,who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority kings one hour with the wild beast. These have one thought, and so the give their power and authority to the wild beast. These will battle with the Lamb, but because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also those called and chosen and faithful with Him will do so."

  • waiting
    waiting

    What? Path can't express his opinions? You don't agree - then you post your argument....it's a discussion forum. We all learn that way, and we learn not to take either side as literally black or white. And, sometimes, we learn to read a discussion better, able to see valid, or non-valid, points more succinctly.
    ____________________

    WT does not encourage a family to go to the police unless they live in a mandatory reporting state, of which there are few. - bill

    ALL STATES HAVE MANDATORY REPORTING OF CHILD MOLESTATION IT IS A CRIME. IT IS BLACK AND WHITE. - bill
    Which is it?
    ________________________________________

    Path: "Why leaving it to the victim to go to the authorities is wise in the majority of these cases where the abuse happened in the past is because it is the victim's testimony that will be required to build a case. It is the victim who may indeed be 'victimized' again in the courtroom through harsh cross-examinations.”

    Bill: "Your comments are made simply scare victims from coming forward. The police determine how strong a victim is to testify. The courts are very sensitive to not allowing a victim to be revictimized before a jury. Also in the outside event the judge allows a defense lawyer to be abusive it causes the jury to rule for the victim and works to the accused disadvantage, again to imply otherwise smacks of misinformation."

    Me: Both statements hold truth.....and are too far off the center mark. A victim can, indeed, be revictimized - as morrisamb/Donald brought out in one of his posts today. To say don't report out of this fear is irrational - I was under the impression that most therapists will tell the victim to weigh the consequences of court carefully - at least, that's what I've read in current literature.

    Path is erroneously lumping "to go to the authorities" with "victimized again in the courtroom." Reporting to the police/authorities is entirely differently than taking a person to court. Just not the same issue - and it's being lumped together wrongly.

    However, to determine that all police, lawyers, courts, professionals, are "sensitive to not allowing a victim to be revictimized" - whether before a jury or not - is absolutely an unproven fact. Some victims, indeed, have been revictimized - just as rape victims have found at times. Some victims must also weigh losing their families, their friends, etc. To speak out does empower - but much can be lost. It happens.
    ___________________________________________

    Bill: "Families do not cover up abuse when they are Jehovah’s Witnesses, WT forces them to cover the abuse by the exercise of WT Policy."

    Yes, families - inside and outside the WTBTS - cover over abuse. This is statistically proven. Yes, the WT discourages - in many ways families to cover over abuse.

    It is not an either/or issue. It is both.
    _____________________________________________

    Bill: "Silentlambs requests on any report of molestation that the victim be encouraged to go to the police first BEFORE reporting to the BOE. This avoids the elder investigation clouding a real police investigation. If this step was enacted there would be no need for WT Legal or elders to even have to worry about reporting, the family would now be empowered to take appropriate action. Now that power is taken away from them."

    Imho, a great request. Elder encourage victims to go to police BEFORE reporting to the BOE. Why? Allow a hopefully professional investigation to take place - BEFORE an elder investigation by less than amatuer PI's. If no evidence found in police investigation......at least a paper trail has been started, in case the person's name comes up again from another child. (and that paper trail point was given to me by a Sgt. Det. working in child abuse, Indpls, IN)

    Great point, Bill.

    waiting

  • waiting
    waiting

    Is it ever ok not to expose pedophilia?
    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26611&page=2&site=3

    "Every case must be judged individually. Because I went public with my case, scores of people who have been raped or sexually abused ask me my opinion on disclosure. I do not give pie in the sky, flippant answers for such a personal and important subject. One of the reasons I wrote my book was to help people who are considering using the justice system...In a perfect world, every child who discloses their abuse receives love, support, protection, justice.

    Time for a reality check: people have been disclosing -- to teachers, police, ministers, parents, friends -- how many of these do you think have positive experiences? From my experience, few and far between.

    I think it is of utmost important to prepare victims who disclose to some real harsh possiblities..That some people are going to say the wrong things, that molesters rarely tell the truth unless it involves a plea bargain, that some people aren't going to want to listen to your pain, that sentences often don't match the severity of the crime, that some people will make you feel different, might suggest changing your name or moving away...finally that some people might consider you a whiney little brat that won't go away.

    How do I know? My siblings and I experienced every single one of these possiblities. There is no question, if anyone knows of abuse, report it immediately!!!

    But don't tell a victim what she or he should do unless you are willing to be there for them throughout the gruelling process that immediately follows disclosure."

    By Donald D'Haene (morrisamb)

    (bold added)

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Waiting: You pointed out a seeming contradiction:

    "WT does not encourage a family to go to the police unless they live in a mandatory reporting state, of which there are few. - bill

    ALL STATES HAVE MANDATORY REPORTING OF CHILD MOLESTATION IT IS A CRIME. IT IS BLACK AND WHITE. - bill

    Maybe this will help:

    1. All 50 States require doctors, psychiatrists, therapists, psychologists, child service workers, etc. to report child abuse of any kind as a criminal matter.

    2. Of these, 38 States disallow attorney-client privilege in cases where child molesters are represented by counsel. These attorneys may also be required to report this crime.

    3. These 38 States also require mandatory reporting by Clergy who hear confessions ... thus abolishing clergy-pentitent privilege.

    4. Of the 22 remaining States, some have varying rules about reporting, such as if a Clergyperson learns of a pedophilia 'outside' the 'confessional' then he must still report it. Some of these rules only strongly require reporting.

    5. In civil cases, such as a victim suing a perpetrator, many of the 22 States in the non-mandatory group may require that clergy testify.

  • waiting
    waiting

    Howdy Amazing,

    You wrote:

    “The fact that many states don't have mandatory reporting laws is proof that the matter is not black or white.” - path, quoted by bill

    Lies, Lies, Lies, ALL STATES HAVE MANDATORY REPORTING OF CHILD MOLESTATION IT IS A CRIME. IT IS BLACK AND WHITE. - bill
    I assumed that Path was referring to the fact that many states don't have a mandatory reporting law - for clergy - as that's what was being discussed - clergy. Since I assumed this of Path, I also assumed this of Bill - as his first quote said "WT" concerning mandatory reporting. Perhaps I assumed wrong, eh?

    If Path & Bill are speaking about two different subjects - elders and then all professional people who have contact with children - then the discussion misses as both are not on same point of talk.

    If Bill is speaking about clergy in the first instance, and then broadening his discussion to all the professionals you brought out in the second instance, then the change in subject was unclear, imho.

    I was under the impression that this whole discussion was the changing of the laws of the WTBTS - ie: clergy.

    Hard subject to discuss - thanks for the input.

    waiting

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    Pathofthorns isn't just posting opinion, which would be fine.

    POT is misrepresenting Watchtower doctines and procedures, consistantly and persistently, on several threads, over a period of time.

    When confronted with EVIDENCE from Watchtower itself, POT then runs and jumps on another thread with the same pack of nonsense.

    Here's POT's chance to explain...

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Bill,

    First of all, I will state that I in no way consider myself an authority on this subject. This is why I have been seeking to educate myself on the matter and understand the various positions of some on this board by asking questions, seeking clarifications and discussing alternative ways and angles of looking at this matter.

    I have no agenda and consider myself a work in progress, which means I am open to altering my position on this matter or outright abandoning it. While I dislike the WT and how they operate, I believe it is extremely important to be reasonable, fair and accurate when we discuss subjects that involve them. Unbalance, exaggerations and inaccuracies are counterproductive to any cause.

    The subject of child abuse is a sensitive one and often seems to draw an emotional response from many. I have endeavored to approach the matter in a respectful, dignified and sensitive way but have been less than impressed with the responses from you and some others.

    If I have been fortunate enough to recieve a reply at all, it is usually an angry one stating that I am lying or calling me a troll or a WT supporter. If I have been mistaken, I am more than willing to be corrected in a manner that kindly exposes where my reasoning has gone wrong. I believe many of the harsh replies have been uncalled for.

    If you are holding to a position where you feel you are absolutely right and the final authortiy on a matter and there can be no other way of viewing a matter and are not willing to discuss it, I can only say that is a dangerous mistake and very much like the WT.

    As for your remarks about "Friend", I assure you he is in a league of his own, but I certainly accept the compliment Very much frustrating at times but one of the few that was able to be respected by both Witnesses and non-Witnesses. I understand that he was an older man and not well and his abscence is troubling. I would have liked to hear his thoughts on this matter.

    I have to thank everyone for their contributions to these threads who carried out the discussions in a kind and rational manner. Whether someone agreed with me or not or pointed out a mistake of mine, your contribution and perspective has been appreciated. (Much thanks to you too 'Waiting' )

    As for addressing Bill's breakdown of my post and his interpretation of it, I will simply repost my comments with no interruptions and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Feel free to review any of my other postings on this matter.

    Path

    I would agree that the authorities should be contacted if any child IS being abused or in a dangerous home environment. But I think we need to keep in mind that most of these people who have been molested or abused had this occur several years in the past when they were children.

    At some point these individuals attempt to come to terms with what happened. They may confide in someone and begin to talk about what happened to them. What the Silentlambs group appears to be suggesting is that if an elder were to hear this information he should immediately report the matter to the authorities whether the victim wishes this to be done or not.

    From what Bill posted earlier on this thread, it would seem that in actual practice he takes exactly the same position as the WT in leaving it up to the victim to decide whether to go to the authorities. Unless Bill Bowen reports all crimes that come to his attention I would be mistaken.

    I have talked to many victims who have never reported their abuse, I simply encourage them to talk about it to counslers, close friends, or report the matter on the sl website. The more they learn they can speak out the more likely they are to report the crime.
    The fact that many states don't have mandatory reporting laws is proof that the matter is not black or white.

    Why leaving it to the victim to go to the authorities is wise in the majority of these cases where the abuse happened in the past is because it is the victim's testimony that will be required to build a case. It is the victim who may indeed be 'victimized' again in the courtroom through harsh cross-examinations.

    A victim may have made much progress in moving on from what happened and this fragile recovery could be set back as they are forced to relive the events that happend for the court in the often slim hopes of a conviction. Sure, a victim may have done their civic duty, but at what price?

    when you do not report a child molester and he or she molests another child you now share in the crime.

    How does a statement like this make the majority of victims feel who have not reported the crime committed against them? Are the victims criminals now?

    I would venture to say it is families that are more often than not covering over abuse while it is occuring and indefinitely after it has occurred. I think it is unacceptable for any parent to cover over for abuse on the part of a mate or another relative or anyone. Why have we been overlooking the parent's responsibility in all of this?

    Because we hate the WT. Run WT, Run

    Path

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    I think waiting (Hi BTW and I miss you soo much) that you have hit on something that few others don't get.

    My thoughts deal with the reporting to the authorities thingy.

    Look closely at what Bill is saying.

    Reporting to the authorities has to deal with the elders reporting the abuse. It has nothing to do with the families reporting the abuse. Bill is trying to report (and correctly) that elders themselves are not going to report the abuse complaint except in those 16 States in the USA.

    The family going to the police is now supposedly not discouraged by the WTS (even though after hearing many a story - the Berry case - there will be cases where certain witness families will not go to the authorities). But my point is the family going to the authorities and the elders reporting are two completely different issues.

    The point is that when a person in authority (ie. elder) hears of such potential crime, he must report the incident to the proper people to protect innocent children who do not have the capability of protecting themselves. Families may or may not report the incident. As I said before, just look at the Berry case for crying out loud. It was a family member who actually did it and the mother was trapped and could not report the abuse. Thus 50 states require doctors (people in authority) in hospital and others to report the abuse. Also 16 States have priests and the clergy being required to report to the authorities any potential abuse occurrence so that the innocent get protected.

    hawk

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit