Dateline Followup

by Kenneson 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Kenneson

  On Dateline NBC there is a brief followup today on last night's
  program. I can't get the link to come up, so you will have
  to do it on your own. Scroll down to More Coverage. After
  the brief on Chandra Levy, check the one entitled "For More
  Information."

  Anyway, the following is what it states once you click on
  For More Information":

  "On Dateline Tuesday, correspondent John Larson
  investigated what Jehovah's Witnesses members take when
  allegations of cases of child molestation occur in the
  Church. To learn more about what the groups say, log on to
  their Web sites at the official Web Site of Jehovah's Witnesses or
  Silent Lambs, a support group for Jehovah's Witnesses who are victims of child abuse."
• 

  AngryXJW

  . http://www.msnbc.com/news/758391.asp

  When an organization arrogates to itself un-Scriptural powers and authorities and then threatens people who do not submit to it with un-Scriptural punishment, then that organization becomes a racket. --Fred Franz (1943)
• 

  CornerStone

  I found it extremely irritating that the society did not accept an interview with Dateline to defend accusations against them, but then, I know why.

  They, the society, has utter CONTEMPT for the rest of humanity!

  They have surpassed the Pharisees in this respect: When offered a choice to be like Jesus or to be like the Pharisees, the society has chossen the latter!

  CornerStone
• 

  bchapp

  Hear! Hear! Cornerstone, I found it very interesting that in six months WTS could only come up with 2 cases where child molestation had been prosecuted, and then both were against non-witnesses. They sure shot themselve in the foot this time.

  "If the truth hurts most of us so badly that we don't want it told,
  it hurts even more grievously those who dare to tell it." (Judge Ben Lindsey, 1869-1943)
• 

  ThatSucks

  CornerStone said:

  :: I found it extremely irritating that the society did not accept an interview with Dateline to defend accusations against them, but then, I know why.

  IMO, the 'society' declined a camera interview because they would not be able to fabricate a legally-viable response to cover their butts later when more of this crap comes out in the papers. The gave dateline the PR video because their lawyers were already well-trained to defend it.
• 

  amac

  I believe the society has a blanket policy on not responding to news programs like that without some guarantee on editing. Since news programs will never give that guarantee, the WT will not participate because they don't want their interview to be edited so as to misrepresent. This is completely understandable, given the media's history of doing this. However, on a sensitive issue like this, I'm not sure if a "no answer" is better than a chopped up, edited answer. It would be really nice to see a press release on their site stating what their plans are with the current policy of not reporting and not ENCOURAGING witnesses to report.
• 

  patio34

  It seems to me that for a corporation not to reply to answer the charges against them automatically raises the suspicion that they are guilty. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that that's the immediate reaction in people watching it.

  So, it was a tactical error on the WT's part not to agree to a live interview, imho.

  Pat
• 

  Farkel

  The Governing Body will no doubt soon be getting a knock on the door and hearing the three most scary words in the universe:

  "I'm Mike Wallace."

  Farkel
• 

  SYN

  Or even worse "I'm Jehovah, and I'm PISSED!"

  "Vaccination has never saved a human life. It does not prevent smallpox." The Golden Age, Feb 4 1931 p. 293-4 - The Sacredness of Human Blood (Reasons why vaccination is unscriptural)