Cedars proved that he is no paragon of truthfulness. The Witnesses have a First Amendment right to investigate for church purposes. The law enforcement branch and the religious one are very different. Evidentiary rules do not apply to the Witnesses. Why has no one raised the issue of why these girls.women showed up to the JW hearing? I find that the parents conduct is more odious than that of the Witness elders.
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy 74 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
konceptual99
I agree that a congregation does have a right to persue their own discipline process (the First Amendment does not cover the UK of course). I do not agree that allowing someone in the position of Rose a fair hearing as part of that process somehow makes one an apologist for peodophiles. I simply question that the process followed was appropriate and consistent.
The WTS approach in cases of child abuse favours the accused, allows ample scope for mismanagement by inadequately trained elders on the ground and, if not deliberately disingenuous, does very little to convince outsiders that the WTS is as open as they proclaim.
-
Teary Oberon
"Why has no one raised the issue of why these girls.women showed up to the JW hearing? I find that the parents conduct is more odious than that of the Witness elders."
With all due respect, I do not see any reason to put blame on the parents in this particular case. There were no "girls" involved here -- there were only grown women making their own decisions to attend the meetings, the first two of which apparently did not even involve Rose. I also highly doubt that Rose's presense was just suddenly dropped on these women at the last second as a surprise. More likely than not, they knew exaclty what they were walking into, and they chose to go through with it anyways.
In that sense, I am not sure that the term "innappropriate" applies. That word means that the methods employed do not fit the circumstances, but as outsiders we don't know exactly what the circumstances were (though we can say that they were certainly complicated). So I say, as long as everything is perfectly voluntary and everyone knows what is going on, then let people handle their own private business without being judged. It should not be our place to get involved if no rights have been violated.
"The WTS approach in cases of child abuse favours the accused, allows ample scope for mismanagement by inadequately trained elders on the ground and, if not deliberately disingenuous,"
And again we come to this confusion between Law Enforcement and Spiritual Counseling. It is not the job of elders to protect lay members from each other. They are not policemen, they are only spiritual counselors. The rules of proper 'case management' that apply to police do not apply to Witnesses. The rules of Law also do not apply to their Judicial meetings, because Law itself (real Law anyways) only deals with property rights and reparations for damages. The Witnesses are private parties engaging in voluntary discussion -- no property is damaged, no rights are violated and no force is used. They can and should be able to do as they wish so long as these conditions are satisfied.
But that is just my slightly Libertarian take on things. Take it as you will.
-
konceptual99
And again we come to this confusion between Law Enforcement and Spiritual Counseling. It is not the job of elders to protect lay members from each other. They are not policemen, they are only spiritual counselors. The rules of proper 'case management' that apply to police do not apply to Witnesses. The rules of Law also do not apply to their Judicial meetings, because Law itself (real Law anyways) only deals with property rights and reparations for damages. The Witnesses are private parties engaging in voluntary discussion -- no property is damaged, no rights are violated and no force is used. They can and should be able to do as they wish so long as these conditions are satisfied.
No! Please re-read my post. I concede that the congregation can do what they like. I understand your point that the rule of law does not have to apply. I agree there is no compulsion to follow the practices employed by the law enforcement agencies and the judicary.
In principle I agree that the elders are not police, are just spiritual counsellers and if that is how the WTS allowed the congregation to operate then I would accept more readily your latter points. The problem is that the elders do end up operting like police. Most Witnesses operate with free will bounded not just by bibilical principles but by the rules and regulations of the WTS, enforced by the elders. There is implicit control but the WTS wants it both ways. They want outsiders to take your viewpoint however the way the congregation is run gives the BOE far more influence over their flock than your description implies.
WT Legal pulls the strings. The elders dance to their tune in matters like this. Oh that it were really voluntary - whatever the context and agenda of the women concerned, the only way they could see that individual considered for disfellowshipping is to do exactly what the BOE (in reality WT Legal in Mill Hill) told them to do. There would have been no negotiation, no compromise.
You can argue that this is the right of the WTS and I, as a liberally minded individual, agree with the principle however there is a growing body of best practice and exprtise on handling these types of cases that the WTS seems hell bent on ignoring. JUst becuase they don't have to follow legal process does not mean they cannot adopt methodologies that should better suppot both the accused and victim.
-
Band on the Run
There are far too many "according to Cedars." Red flag should pop up.