by Dacke 36 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Dacke,
I fail to see where we are "entering different territory here" The case I related is a case of "abuse" and the elders orders to keep it secret. Sounds like the same old story to me.
If a person was under the influence of mind-control would he/she know it?
My answer is simple, all, or almost all, JWs are under the influence of mind-control. In my daughters case, I must take a large share of the blame for teaching her to trust a corporation that uses such tactics.
Borgfree
Hi Dacke. Welcome to the board. Although your post was a mite confusing, I'll try my best to answer it.
First up, why did you say it was disgusting that people here were laughing? Is it bad to be joyous when horrible truths are finally uncovered about an Organization that robbed you of years if not DECADES of one's life? I think it's only fitting.
You said:
"...one of the richest religious organisations in the world"what did THAT have to do with child abuse? (It indicates JW is a profit-driven institution that has financial reasons for protecting and hiding child abusers, without having to present any tiresome facts. Clever, eh?)
No it didn't. That was a FACT that the reporter was REPEATING. She did not at any point make YOUR assertion that the Witnesses had a financial reason for protecting and hiding child abusers. Show me one place where this statement was made, please. Thank you.
You also say that you think the guy who abused those girls is a SICKO - on this point I agree with you though. But don't you think it was also incredibly sick the way his wife and daughters were treated? How do you excuse the mother being told to "pray and be a better wife" when that monster was obviously not going to change his ways when she did that? According to the woman they interviewed, they went to the elders more than a dozen times. The Elders KNEW that there was a problem, yet they let it continue.
How do you explain that?
I find it very interesting to note that most JWs focus on the statement that a parent "may" go to the police, and that "occasionally" a JW has "taken his brother to court" as if this PROVES that the Watchtower's official policy is perfect.
The reality, however, is that those who do go against counsel and "take their brother to court" are looked down on as "troublemakers" in the congregation. Their actions are never applauded...they are censured.
While it is true that a parent "may" go to the police, it is also true that these parents are taught from Day One that the elders are Jehovah's representatives here on Earth and that any actions they take (or do not take) are guided directly by Jehovah Himself.
How many "good JW" parents will go against Jehovah's representatives? If the elders tell them that the molester is innocent, how many will go against the judgement of the Holy Spirit and seek out "worldly" authorities?
Not many. And those that do will again be censured for bringing reproach. Even if they and their child are both physically and emotionally scarred by these actions, they will comfort themselves with the belief that "Jehovah will make things right".
The policy of the Watchtower Society should be to protect the children first--not the Organization. Elders should be required to report the incident to the police and to assist the parents in doing what is necessary to follow through. THAT is what a real shepherd would do.
How far out in left field Are we going with this?
The privacy policy as far as I'm concerned isn't the issue here.
Or at least IMHO it shouldn't be.
Shouldn't we be focusing more on the policy of "shunning" the victims
for reporting their abusers to authorities OUTSIDE the congregation?
After all if it were not for THAT then Silent Lambs would not exist.
There would not be any silent lambs because of WT policy.
A lot of these arguments seem to be going in every direction except
the direction needed to HELP VICTIMS.
Remember them? The ones who remained silent out of fear of being "SHUNNED"?
Edited by - plmkrzy on 15 July 2002 12:58:16
//crawdad
What's your take on JW keeping a database of alleged or self-confessed offenders? :-) doesn't rhyme to me, mate.
//Sirona
"What about a situation where it is a family member who is abusing and the victim can't possibly approach a parent? The victim goes to the elders, often terrified, hoping for help....are you trying to say the elders should just say "oh I'm sorry little 9 year old girl, but I only deal with congregational matters" "
IMHO:
I'm not saying that if all the grown-ups the child trusts - as in friends or relatives - happen to be elders, they can't report (wait: little girl being molested trust other adult males and no-one else? likely...?) But i don't think reporting single allegation to the police should be part of elder's job description. A child would approach someone because of a personal bond, not because "they're an elder". An elder in that situation should act in the capacity of that personal bond, not in the capacity of being an elder. I mean, if the Society decide to do that some day - change the elder policy in this regard - fine with me! I'm not an elder and never will I wish to become one. (But certain people on this board would probably consider me a mind-controlled freak because of it ;-) )
Blaming the policy for the elders is a waste of time and resources. I just don't think that's where the problem lies.
Blaming the policy for the elders is a waste of time and resources. I just don't think that's where the problem lies
THats all well and good Drake but answer this,
Why do they have to SHUN victims for reporting the abuse to police?
You can not say that they don't because they do.
Can you answer that?
Is anyone capable of answering that?
It just so happens to be a very simple and relivant question.
Who would like to disagree?
//Borgfree
Mind-control: to me, that's different territory - and i think you're "paranoid" (not sickly so ;-), but conspiracy theories and that bag).
//plmkrzy
you're right, it was my fault - judging by the number of responses, this discussion is gonna take a lot of directions...
The fear of being shunned: THIS IS IMHO WHERE THE MAIN PROBLEM LIES. It's to easy to become a JW. If you're SCARED of the ELDERS - for crying out loud! Maybe it's easy for me to say, being a big fat mean man, bu these kids in silent lambs and other kids, have shown you don't have to take anything from a misconducting elder. But you don't have to leave the truth to achieve it!
//SYN:
"She did not at any point make YOUR assertion that the Witnesses had a financial reason for protecting and hiding child abusers. Show me one place where this statement was made, please. Thank you"
Quote from myself: "...It indicates JW is a profit-driven institution..." and this assumption has been acknowledged by at least one person it this discussion apart from myself, so it's not just me :-) but you ay disagree all you like, obviously. "Thank You." You're welcome, sarcy.
Dacke, In you desire to defend your religion, I think you are forgetting one thing. People both in the religion and out of it want the policy changed. You admitted that you, yourself, want it changed. If they had listened to the very reasonable demands made for reform from elders like Bill Bowen, none of this public exposure, both in the U.S. and UK, would have been necessary. It is clear to me that your leaders will only change when forced to, either by law or by the public outcry for reform. Dacke, thousands of people are not willing to "wait on Jehovah" to make things right. They are at the point of outrage over the severe harm that present policy has caused.
Hi Dacke,
And welcome to the Board - thank you for sharing your viewpoints.
If you are an active JW you would have been at the meeting and studied the June 1st WT. On p25. is the life story of William Aihinoria. In the article he wrote the following regarding his disenchantment with 'Christendom':
Certain incidents in particular shocked me....Another time, the principal of the Baptist school attempted to abuse me sexually. I learned afterward that he was a homosexual and had abused others. I pondered these things, wondering to myself, 'Does God approve of religions whose members and even whose leaders are not held accountable for gross sins'.
His disenchantment with the standards of this one member of the Baptist church, helped him to make a decision to become a JW, where he presumably still thinks such similar things do not happen.
Why is it that the WTS cannot survive its own methods of scrutiny, and when it does become a victim of its own standards its leaders and its adherents cry foul? Can you not see double standards at play here?
Of course it is true that many persons the WTS has labeled as 'apostate' do have grievances outside of the child-abuse issue and that they are using this issue as a weapon to damage the WTS. It would be foolish to deny that there are many agendas at play here. This however is not relevant. For example, before WWII the British press, recognizing a ground-swell of sympathetic opinion via Mosesley, tried to influence its readers opinion of the National Socialists in Germany by drawing attention to the sexually perverted activity of its leaders, including Hitler who himself had a proclivity for young girls. Of course their agenda was not open warfare, but did suggest to the reader that these people were thoroughly immoral and corrupt. The child-abuse issue, is just one of many serious issues that XJW's have against the WTS and its policies, and it will be used to the hilt to bring a public awareness to all the anti-social excesses of its leaders.
Referring to the interviewer who tried to pin Mr. Jaracz down on an issue as a 'silly cow' is not helpful. He had not answered the question clearly and still has not. If you believe that he did perhaps you might inform us exactly what he meant by his cryptic comments.
Best regards - HS
welcome dacke. nice to see a new face in the crowd
i'm not exactly sure who said this, but its important:
"I was born into this organization and we were always taught not to bring reproach on Jehovah's name. If we went to the police and reported our brother we would be bringing reproach on Jehovah's name. If we took our brother to court we would be bringing reproach on Jehovah's name."
you know....i was "born into" that religion. i was also taught the same thing. never bring reproach on "jehovah's" name.
what does that mean exactly? it means....do not bring reproach on the "organization". the two are the same, and cannot be seperated.
have things gone to far, to protect the "organization", that jehovah's witnesses are risking the saftey of childern, their health, well being and their rights as young and innocent humans?
i'm so glad to see dateline, and now the bbc doing FACTUAL shows about a serious problem.
in my opinion, the watchtower is in trouble.
their gonna pay for their lies.
