Molestation Policies in OTHER religions (page 3)

"When these concerns for abused children come from those who also seek the demise of the entire Watchtower organization, it is hard to determine if they truly want a reform to protect children or if they are simply using this as a tool to destroy an organization they bitterly despise."

Amac, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I really am concerned about the children and I want reform to take place. That aside, if this matter helps to bring down an organization that I bitterly dispise, then so be it!

Pathofthorns

Amac,

I agree with much of what you said with regard to present policies. I think they could still be refined further and certainly they could be made more clear to the members. I am hoping this will be the result of the publicity that the Silentlambs campaign as given to this issue.

The problem seems to be particularly with past policies and how elder's applied them and the general ignorance of the JW population as to how they should deal with abuse. Serious mistakes were made due to their "protect the organization at all costs" mindset.

I find the JW judicial process extremely disturbing and feel this needs severe reform as well. It should be noted that molesters are often expelled and this aspect of JWs and shunning might be one of it's only good points.

I think much of this discussion though should be reserved for a future time when things have calmed down. Discussions about Bill Bowen and his motives and character are not likely wise topics, whether you are right or wrong on your assumptions.

Path

dungbeetle

All I can say is:

If ANYONE has been told that Watchtower's child abuse policy is more strict than any other religion, you have been misinformed.

If ANYONE has been told JW's are singled out for their child abuse policy, they have been misinformed.

The next step I advise someone to take would be to go BACK to the place you got your information and re-check it.

That's what I did with the word 'rumor'. I looked it up in the dictionary. <gasp>

It said, among other things: "loud disapproval, clamor, protest, uproar".

But since it would have detracted from the 2 things presented in the thread opener that have since been answered more than once on more than one thread, I didn't get into that THEN.

NO CHILD MOLESTERS AT MY DOOR...

UADNA-US (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America-United States)

Dutchie

Hi Path, actually there is never a good reason for shunning.

If I knew a brother had been expelled from the organization because of being a child molester, I certainly would not need an organization to tell me to stay away from him.

I think this is true of most people. We can use our common sense and speak or not speak to whom we please.

daveyJones

As other people have pointed out, the witnesses are NOT being singled
out, and I don't appreciate you saying so. In case you haven't been
watching the news lately, I just want to fill you in on a few things.
The Catholic Church is all over the news with reports of a certain
priest molesting a little boy. And even if you argue about other
religions needing reform, I think you should consider that in the US
and in Rome, the Church is taking steps to reform its policy on this
sort of thing. As for the Witnesses, I haven't heard a thing about
the Society doing anything about pedophiles. I'm not trying to be a
critic, but I'd seriously advise you to get your facts straight before
just hurling accusations. I hope you take my advice.

Davey

amac

Dutchie/Path - points taken, thank you for your replies.

DaveyJones -

the witnesses are NOT being singled
out, and I don't appreciate you saying so.

I'm sorry. I assumed it was obvious that I was refering to the posts on this board when I mentioned the JWs being solely attacked for their policies.

I do find it ironic that you say I am hurling accusations when I am questioning the accusations of others.

Gozz

Dear Brother amac,

I, like others on this website and within the JW religion, would like to see the policy on molesters changed so that all accusations are placed in the hands of the authorities to let them investigate.

Fine. That deserves an applause coming from one of us. But that should also mean you're aware of the current policies. Do you serve as an elder or in a more responsible capacity in the Organization? What particular aspects of the current policies would you like to see "placed in the hands of the authorities to let them invstigate"? This admission seems to mean that you think that somethings aren't certainly being done right, no?

This aside, it seems that many are intent on attacking the JWs over their lack of such a policy. There is a big difference between reform and "tearing down."

The mix-up is almost always avoidable. While many apostates, opposers and those dissenting (like you are obliquely doing) usually mention "JW", what is really meant is the Watchtower Society machine, the organization behind the name of Jehovah's Witnesses.

It seems that the JWs current policy about dealing with cases of molestation are even more strict than many other religions. Check the article at http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2001/02/04/ky_chur.html

It may seem so. But dear brother, that is not the point. This is Jehovah's Organization, isn't it? Can the current policy stand the test of the words of our PR man, the one who said the policies are aggressive if favour of the protection of children and victims? This is not about numbers, brother; but then it's also about numbers. It's about those children whose lives have been ruined, the parents who cry for justice, the helpless and downtrodden, who, through thteir total submission to the dictates of our religion have come to harm.

If that is the case, why single out JWs? Why wouldn't you campaign for all religions to update their policies?

Let's say that is the case. There are others fighting this crime of religion in other places. The JW religion happens to be the primary constituency of Bill Bowen and others on this board. It must start somewhere. And why not in Jehovah's house?

When these concerns for abused children come from those who also seek the demise of the entire Watchtower organization, it is hard to determine if they truly want a reform to protect children or if they are simply using this as a tool to destroy an organization they bitterly despise.

It's probably hard to. But what's your concern here, brother? There must be persecution, not so? The ultimate liberation of Jehovah's people will result from a planned attack from those who wish to destroy it, not so? So this may truly be the time! If the organization will be destroyed by some allegations, like this one, then it must be Jehovah's will, not so?

When the concerns for the restoration of paradise come from those who seek the demise of 99% of the human race, it is hard to determine if they truly want righteousness or if they are simply using their religion as a tool to detroy a people they utterly despise.

Seeker4

A couple of quick points for this discussion.

First, the JWs are being singled out for criticism here because this IS, after all, a JW discussion board. And most everyone on this board is well aware of the JWs extraordinary claims of being the one true religion, the ONLY religion that has God's blessing and direction, that ALL other religions are false and deserving of destruction, and that because JWs are the ONLY true faith its adherents are happier, better people than all the rest of mankind. Witnesses teach that their religion is the only one DIRECTLY led by God himself.

Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Second, Dungbeetle wrote that "slander, by definition, must be a lie." That may be true as far as the dictionary is concerned, but that is definitely NOT the case among JWs. The "Insight" book, under 'gossip and slander,' defines slander simply as "defamation, generally malicious, whether oral or written." In other words, if the thing said or written defames a person, makes them look bad, it can be considered slander, EVEN IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

As a JW elder for many years, I know that most JWs do not understand this, but trust me, I also know of many a judicial committee hearing for slander that involved true statements.

How does this apply to the pedophilia issue? A body of elders could tell a JW family that they would be disfellowshipped for telling others that a person in the congregation was a pedophile. Even if this was absolutely true, and the person WAS TRULY a pedophile, those saying so publicly COULD be viewed as being guilty of slander and disfellowshipped.

Many times I have seen this used by elders to keep victims quiet.

S4

Molestation Policies in OTHER religions

Share this