From: lucie (Original Message) Sent: 12/05/2002 23:08
I live on the east coast and tonight on Channel 9 news there was a story of a family who had been disfellowshipped because of a child abuse case. I am not sure what it was all about but they showed a Kingdom Hall and the family was interviewed.
Did anyone else see this. Does anyone know what they are talking about?
First Previous 2-9 of 9 Next Last
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 2 of 9 in Discussion
From: Robert Sent: 13/05/2002 16:08
Hi lucie ;
I just came across this and I think its what your looking for.-Robert
Jehovah's Witnesses Kick Out Couple
Saturday May 11, 2002 4:50 AM
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A woman said Friday she and her husband have been excommunicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses after speaking out against the church's handling of their daughter's allegations of sex abuse by another member.
Barbara and Carl Pandelo, of Belmar, N.J., had been awaiting a decision since Monday, when a judicial committee of the church met in New Jersey to consider ousting them, a practice which the denomination terms disfellowshipping.
``They've just made it official now,'' she said Friday night in a telephone interview.
They are among four Jehovah's Witnesses who were threatened with disfellowship for sowing discord in the faith by speaking out against the church.
One of them, William Bowen, a 44-year-old former church elder from Draffenville, Ky., has complained that child-sex allegations are generally not reported to secular authorities by the Jehovah's Witnesses because of the church's closed nature and insistence on handling problems internally.
Anthony Valenti, an elder in the Pandelos' church, did not immediately return phone calls Friday night.
But J.R. Brown, a spokesman for the denomination, said earlier this week that parents are not punished by the church for going to the police first in cases of child molestation. He said anyone found guilty of molestation by a church judicial committee is removed from all positions of responsibility.
The Pandelos' dispute with the denomination dates to 1988, when their 12-year-old daughter said she was molested by her paternal grandfather, also a member of the faith. The grandfather has returned to the denomination.
Carl and Barbara Pandelo have not been active in the church for some time, she said, but she regrets losing the friends they made.
``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said.
Barbara Anderson of Normandy, Tenn., has also been summoned to appear before a committee. Anderson has said she learned about the church's handling of abuse cases while working at its headquarters in New York City.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 3 of 9 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 18/05/2002 04:56
There have been several articles all over the country and now abroad as well. There was an AP story in our local paper a few days ago about it. I've even heard that Dateline is doing a piece on this which is tentatively set to air May 28 of this year.
These brothers and sisters have a problem with the way the Society handles cases of alleged child abuse. They want the policy to change.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 4 of 9 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 18/05/2002 10:15
I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this. It is unfortunate that this sort of thing happens in any denomination. But the Witnesses already have a way of dealing with persons who do not belong in the congregation, something the apostates and opposers criticize them for as well. The following link is the soceity's stance on this situation:
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm
The fact of the matter is, there will always be persons who seek to harm/take advantage of those who are weaker than themsleves.
I do not know if the term "brothers and sisters" applies to all these people (two of them who have been inactive for some time), and they seem to be overly critical of the organization, and thus critical of their "brothers and sisters". Now I am in no way condoning this, but personally I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 5 of 9 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 18/05/2002 15:57
** I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this.**
I don’t think we should be surprised at that. After all look how we jumped on the Catholic church when they first encountered that problem. We gave them no quarter and I don’t think we have a right to ask quarter of them.
** I do not know if the term "brothers and sisters" applies to all these people (two of them who have been inactive for some time), **
I’m sure they would greatly appreciate your giving them the benefit of the doubt and not judging them. Of course, we could just go ahead and disfellowship the other two and call them all apostates and not have to deal with the problem at all. (smile)
** and they seem to be overly critical of the organization, and thus critical of their "brothers and sisters".**
"Brothers and sisters" have been known to do some terrible things. Simply saying nothing about it does not make it right. Sometimes the only way to get something done is to air it out. I’m sure the Society will vindicate itself in this matter. The truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 6 of 9 in Discussion
From: Robert Sent: 18/05/2002 18:53
Hi Ben:
What does "no quarter" mean?
Christian Love-Robert
I used to listen to a Led Zeppelin song called" No Quarter", I've never heard that expression used anywhere but that song. And even then I didn"t know what it meant.
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 7 of 9 in Discussion
From: the_Crime_Doctor Sent: 18/05/2002 19:25
"Sometimes the only way to get something done is to air it out"
I agree, but that is only a last resort. This can be done without criticizing their brothers and sisters. Something these people did not do. 1 Cor. 5:12 says we are to judge in the congregation(s) it does not say to critisize as well. I think their comments were unjustified. Furthermore, I do not recall suggesting that we label them apostates, I merely stated "I'm sure the apostates and opposers are all over this". "Judging" some of your comments you have posted in the last while, I assume you know what kind of things these people post/preach/teach/tell others. By the way I am not suggesting you are an apostate. (smile)
``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said.
This sounds like criticism to me. Not only that but it was an ignorant and selfish comment to make. I would think getting abused by a family member would top this. Obviously these comments were made out of spite. Spite directed to all those who choose to serve Jehovah in the way they do. Disfellow-shipping is done in the best interest of the congregation. If the other two are also causing dissention, and being critical of others, I think DF'ing is the obvious choice to make. Why should the Witnesses be any different than others? Even in the workplace I can not see how taking shots at others via the media would make for a good working environment.
I am well aware of the imperfection of others, including myself. I do not remember suggesting that the matter should be ignored. I merely stated "I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation". Comments I still stand by.
Respectfully,
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 8 of 9 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 19/05/2002 05:32
** I agree, but that is only a last resort. This can be done without criticizing their brothers and sisters.**
Maybe this is their last resort and if pointing out wrongs and injustices is criticism then so be it. I don’t believe either Jesus or Jehovah would sacrifice right and wrong for the sake of maintaining someone’s reputation.
** By the way I am not suggesting you are an apostate. (smile)**
Well, thanks for small favors. (smile)
** ``To take someone and shun and abandon them is the most psychologically damaging thing you can do,'' Pandelo said. **
That is a true statement, in my opinion. You say it’s criticism and in a way it is. But that does not change the truth of the matter.
** Not only that but it was an ignorant and selfish comment to make. I would think getting abused by a family member would top this. Obviously these comments were made out of spite. Spite directed to all those who choose to serve Jehovah in the way they do.**
You are judging where you have no authority or even sufficient information to do so.
** Why should the Witnesses be any different than others? Even in the workplace I can not see how taking shots at others via the media would make for a good working environment.**
Witnesses ARE different from others in many ways but what, specifically are you talking about? We, as witnesses, take shots at people all the time. Have never read "Watching the Word" in the Awake! ? Articles from the media are reproduced there all the time which are derogatory toward other religions. Now what I am saying is this…one should not condemn another for doing what he, himself, is also doing. Do you see it differently?
** I do not remember suggesting that the matter should be ignored**
How would you suggest it be handled?
** I do not see how going on a smear campaign through the media is the best way to handle this situation**
Please answer me this: Our own criticisms of the Catholic Church, published in our journals and distributed by us door to door about their policy, was that a smear campaign? What about honest hearted Catholics that stood up and protested until they were heard and action was taken? Was that a smear campaign?
If what these people are saying is not true, then that truth will come out. If they are out just to hurt others it will become manifest. But if there is but a tiny grain of truth in what they say and we ignore it…do we not share in the sin? Do you not think it was difficult for Samuel to approach Jehovah’s anointed one and point out his sin? If these people (and I don’t know them at all) are witnesses I know how difficult it is for them to do this.
As an elder I many times had to listen to allegations of wrongdoing against my brothers and sisters. And many was the time when I knew these allegations were not justified. But I felt an obligation for both the accuser and the accused to delve into the matter and find out exactly what happened. Guess what, there were times when I was wrong and there was just cause! I had misjudged the situation AND the person. Justice was served in the end because I saw it through.
It’s not wise to shoot the watchman until AFTER you have established that he has lied! (smile)
Reply
Recommend (0 recommendations so far) Message 9 of 9 in Discussion
From: Ben Sent: 19/05/2002 05:46
Hello, Robert:
**What does "no quarter" mean?**
I don’t listen to Led. (smile) But this is an old term that was used on the field of battle mainly. To give quarter meant to extend clemency or mercy to the enemy when he became very vulnerable. To give no quarter is take advantage of the vulnerable state of the enemy and inflict further damage. It was considered proper battlefield etiquette for a knight to give quarter when asked of his opponent on the field of honor. It’s just another one of those delightful terms so rich in tradition and meaning that has slipped back into obscurity.
Join the Watchtower or you will die.
Only Jehovah's Witnesses have the TRUTH all other religions EVIL and from the Devil.
You must beleive the Watchtower or you're going to die a painful death forever, isn't that really GOOD NEWS?