What Are They Really Saying Now?

by Englishman 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • kat7302
    kat7302

    Good point Matt, these journalists are ruthless arent they!!!!!!!!

    Having said that, was it possible to make the guy look MORE sinister? Lets be honest here, this is a man who is only used to getting off the platform and being rushed by people wanting to tell him how the JW's have helped their lives or how his talk moved them to tears blah blah blah, now he walks confidently down the steps and is confronted by tv cameras asking him about the organisations way of covering up child abuse!!!!!! What a difference! Shame I dont have a slow play video cos the way his beaming smile dropped was well worth a second look!

    You go reporters, use whatever tactics are necassary to show up these people for what they are....Im not talking about the innocents like you Matt, who were brought up to believe it all, we've all been there and paid the price but these ones who are top of the food chain and are directly responsible for the policies which are now being questioned.

    Sinister? damn right

  • SYN
    SYN

    Here is what one Dub said on JWZone:

    While I wasn't able to peruse Panorama's "rendition" of the child-abuse issue, I did get the "Dateline" version.

    Here we go with the comments on programs these people haven't seen!!!!!

    Judging from the comments posted on this thread, both the American and British versions were handled the same way -- the same format, the same setup of the story, the same conclusion. Hmmmmm . . . does Dateline own Panorama? Or vice versa?

    Does it matter if children are being abused? Get a grip!

    While lots of information was given by Jehovah's representatives on the issue, Dateline chose to slant the program to make Jehovah's organization the "target" of their "sensational journalism".

    Really? How can it be sensationalism if the facts are quoted straight out?

    There has to be a "bad guy", one way or another, in sensational journalism -- which is something to get worked up about -- is what draws viewers and listeners -- and more viewers and listeners means MORE MONEY!!!

    Why is this woman so obsessed with money? Why not worry about the children?

    So while those providing the story in the first place were after some public exposure, the news media was after their "cut", as it were, and took the matter and played it up good. Using catch phraseology such as "they were going up against the most powerful religious organization in the world" and so forth just made the story even "tastier" to the public and Dateline, for one, went for the jugular -- in their effort to make a big buck off of this.

    OK, how much money is Bill Bowen and Dateline in general making off all this? LOL? Talk about dodging the subject at hand!

    Of COURSE Jehovah's organization isn't going to get involved in sensational journalism and interviews preset to make them look bad by their use of "loaded" or "biased" questioning, etc.

    Yes, you may not question your leaders! Doh, how could Bill Bowen even think of doing such a heinous thing as questioning the leaders?

    It was obvious this was NOT unbiased journalism at work here. It was a show, a prime-time show, which often nearly "cheapens" the profession of journalism.

    *cough* Yet again, the welfare of the children is not brought into play, only the image of the Society. Delightful!

    On a somewhat different angle, it reminds me of the incident involving my son. He was in an accident involving another car, wherein my son fell asleep and careened into the other vehicle, flipping the other vehicle over twice and spinning him off into a ditch. No one was seriously hurt, thank Jehovah, but it shook everybody else and left them with aches and scratches from the broken glass and bruises. My son was CRUSHED! He saw the other car and just "knew" he probably killed the other driver. The EMT's wouldn't let him see her, and he feared the worse, sinking to the ground, his head in his hands, crying. And wouldn't you know . . . that's when one of the local newspaper photographers/journalists shot the most effective (and I say that, as a writer and one-time journalist) journalistic photographs I have ever seen: My son crouching on the ground, his head down, held in his hand, sobbing, with the crunched up Ford Explorer behind him. It was POWERFUL! The caption below the pic was short and to the point: In one sentence it stated that David had hit the other car after he fell asleep at the wheel. But the PICTURE carried the weight! The picture alluded to the assumption that he had killed the other driver, when nothing could have been farther from the truth.

    What exactly does this have to do with child molestation and it's cover-up by the Society?

    Sensational journalism can be tantamount to slander. And I leave the matter in Jehovah's hands to clear His name from any reproach either of these two programs caused Him.

    WAIT ON JEHOVAH, BROTHERS AND SISTERS! EVEN WHILE THE ABUSE CONTINUES!

  • ignored_one
    ignored_one

    A post from Worldparadise Yahoogroup.

    Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:06 am
    Subject: Same slander...excellent response
    In a program apparently similar to what "Dateline" recently aired in North
    America, the BBC (British) program "Panorama" has asked the Society for answers
    on a number of questions. Here is the answer from the New York Office of
    Public Information for Jehovah's Witnesses.

    This is an excellent reply and outlines some scenarios that many of us may not
    have considered in the past, as to why the Society does what it does.

    Of course, we would not want to watch or participate in any program that
    promotes slanderous or false information about the organization, false brothers
    or apostasy.

    =======================================

    File on website is in .pdf format and you will need Adobe Acrobat to read.
    Below is a text version.

    http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm?content=bbc020509.pdf

    May 9, 2002

    Betsan Powys
    BBC Panorama

    Dear Ms. Powys:

    This is in response to your fax of April 30, 2002, in which you advise us that
    BBC- TV is preparing a program on the way Jehovah's Witnesses handle child
    abuse matters. You have kindly offered us the opportunity to be interviewed
    on-camera; however, we must respectfully decline.

    We are not opposed to giving interviews in general however, it is likely that
    among those whose views will be expressed on your broadcast will be some
    persons who are Jehovah's Witnesses. In our view, it would be neither proper
    nor Scriptural for us to place ourselves in what might turn out to be
    an adversarial position with our Christian brothers and sisters in a public
    setting. (1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Ephesians 4:2) We trust that you will understand
    our position in this regard.

    Although unable to participate in an interview, we are certainly willing to
    comment on the questions that you raised in your fax. We note that these
    center almost exclusively on the nature of the records that we keep on alleged
    child abusers. You tell us that it is vital that we answer your questions on
    our record-keeping procedures because of the "very serious nature of the
    allegations made to the programme," although you do not specify what the
    allegations are. First of all however, please allow us to comment on the way
    that child abuse accusations are handled by Jehovah's Witnesses. We realize
    that you did not ask us to touch on this aspect; nevertheless, it is essential
    that we comment on it to provide an appropriate, frank answer.

    In the United States, when any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act
    of child abuse, the local elders are expected to investigate. The procedure is
    as follows. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see
    what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the
    charge, the two elders may arrange for him to have the opportunity to confront
    the accuser in their presence. If during that meeting the accused still denies
    the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders
    cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not?
    As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say,
    namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or
    any sin ...at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the
    matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus
    reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17.

    When the branch office receives an allegation of child abuse, a check of the
    records might reveal that similar, uncorroborated allegations were lodged
    against the same person in the past, perhaps when he was living in another part
    of the country. When a second credible allegation by a different person
    is lodged against the same individual the elders are authorized by the
    Scriptures to handle the case.

    - Page 2 -

    However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are
    expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses
    in their country, if local privacy laws permit. Again, privacy laws permitting,
    a record is made at the branch office that the individual has been accused of
    child abuse. Each branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses keeps its own records,
    if that is allowed by local jurisdiction. In the United States we do not have
    records of child abusers who live in other lands. If privacy laws do not allow
    such records to be kept, the elders do whatever is permitted within the law to
    see to it that children are protected. The aim is to balance the right to
    privacy of the individual with the overriding need to protect the safety of
    children. -- 1 Timothy 5:19.

    In addition to making a report to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses, the
    elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated
    allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply.
    Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and
    it is his or her absolute right to do so. In the United States, reporting
    requirements vary from state to state. It can be quite a challenge to keep
    abreast of the reporting requirements, but our Legal Department makes every
    effort to do so.

    If, when confronted, the accused confesses that he is guilty of child abuse,
    the elders take appropriate action. If he is not repentant, he will not be
    permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant -- is
    cut to the heart, and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in
    the future -- what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower
    applies. The article said: "For the protection of our children, a man known to
    have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the
    congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of
    Jehovah' s Witnesses] or serve in any other special full-time service." (1
    Timothy 3:2, 7- 10) We take such action because we are concerned with
    maintaining Bible standards and protecting our children.
    Everyone in our organization is expected to meet the same requirements, namely,
    to be clean physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually. -- 2 Corinthians
    7:1; Ephesians 4:17-19; 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

    In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been
    appointed to positions
    within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for
    decades. All of the
    circumstances would need to be considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that
    a long time ago a 16- year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting
    15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdictions where he lived when
    this happened, elders are required to report this as an incident
    of child abuse. Let us say that twenty years have passed. The child abuse
    reporting law may have changed; he may even have married the girl! Both have
    been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the
    man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the
    congregation.

    Our procedures have been refined over time. Our policy over the past several
    years has been that at least twenty years must have passed before an individual
    who committed an act of child abuse could even be considered for appointment to
    a responsible position in the congregation, if ever. The Bible teaches that
    individuals can repent of their sins and "turn to God by doing works that befit
    repentance," and we accept what the Bible says. (Acts 26:20) Still, the safety
    of our children is of the utmost importance, so we realize that the local
    elders must be very careful when recommending
    individuals who may have been guilty of an act of child abuse in the distant
    past.

    You have been told that here in the United States we have compiled a list of
    23,720 names of child abusers. That is false. First of all, the total number of
    names in our records is considerably lower than that.

    - Page 3 -

    In addition, it is not meaningful to focus on the number of names we have in
    our records. This is because our figures include the names of many persons who
    have only been accused of child
    abuse whereas the charges have not been substantiated. We keep these records to
    document our
    compliance with what the law requires in many U.S. jurisdictions. Also included
    on our list are
    allegations made on the basis of so-called "repressed memories," the validity
    of which many
    authorities challenge. Then there are the names of persons who have been
    accused of abusing children before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses as well as
    individuals who have never been baptized Witnesses but whose names we are
    obliged to keep because of their association with the Witnesses. (An example
    of this would be a non-Witness father or step-father who is accused by his
    Witness children or step-children of abusing them.) To be safe, we also list
    the names of persons who may or may not be considered as child abusers,
    depending upon the jurisdiction where they live (for example, that 16-year-old
    boy who had sexual relations with the consenting 15-year-old girl). The name of
    an individual who was guilty of voyeurism or involved with child pornography,
    as further examples, would also be included on the list. And, to be sure, the
    list also includes names of persons who are actually guilty of child abuse. We
    do not apologize for keeping such records here in the United States. Apart from
    being legally needed, they have been very helpful to us in our efforts to
    protect the flock from harm. (Isaiah 32:2) Christian parents can rightly feel
    secure in the knowledge that such efforts are made to screen out possible child
    abusers from appointment to responsible positions within the congregation.

    Ms. Powys, please do not conclude that we believe that our system is perfect.
    No human organization is perfect. But we do believe that we have a strong,
    Bible-based policy on child abuse. Anyone in a responsible position who is
    guilty of child abuse would be removed from his responsibilities without
    hesitation. We certainly would not knowingly transfer him to serve elsewhere.

    Child abuse is abhorrent to us. Even one abused child is one too many. At east
    since 1981, our
    journals, The Watchtower and Awake!, have featured articles to educate both
    Witnesses and the public regarding the importance and need to protect children
    from child abuse. Among others, there was the article "Let Us Abhor What Is
    Wicked!" published in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower; "Help For
    the Victim of Incest" in the October 1, 1983, Watchtower; "Your Child Is in
    Danger!", "How Can We Protect Our Children?", and "Prevention in the Home," all
    in the October 8, 1993, Awake!, as well as "Child Molesting - Every Mother's
    Nightmare" in the January 22, 1985, Awake! Over the years, as we have noted
    areas where our policies could be strengthened, we have followed through. We
    are continuing to refine them.

    We trust that you will find the information in this letter to be helpful. As
    you will note, we have responded to the broad issues you raise rather than
    providing specific answers to your detailed list of questions. We note that you
    sent a similar list of questions to our offices in London. We understand
    they are answering your questions in accordance with their procedures and
    adherence to British law.

    With every good wish, I am,

    Very truly yours,

    (Signed)
    J.R. Brown
    Director
    Office of Public Information


    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    Typical ignore the facts response. Did the NOT SEE the elder walk away?

    Ignored One.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit