Are you satisfied?

by dmouse 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • dmouse
    dmouse

    I have spoken to some Jehovahs Witnesses who are not aware that I no longer believe in the religion. There was shock and unhappiness about the Panorama program, and concern about what they would have to face in the door-to-door ministry. Those that have been out report no real problems. The only comment related to me was that one householder casually remarked that child abuse is everywhere, why should JWs escape?

    The general consensus of opinion in our neck of the woods is that child abuse had been a problem caused by some Elders not following the Societys directions. The Societys policy has been refined over the years and is now very strong and these problems should now decline. They view the situation in a similar way to God using surrounding nations to chastise His chosen people the Israelites. (BTW, is there a link somewhere that deals with the JW argument that some faults in the Organisation dont mean that God doesnt use them, because Israel had faults but God still used them?)

    The old JW conditioning came to the fore one-sided reporters twisting things due to influence from apostates, and victims who are suing the Society just for money or spite. I was told that the Society tried to give their side of the issue in letters and such but the reporters werent interested, they just wanted to get a juicy story.

    What came over very strongly was that the opinion that the Organisation has always tried to do the right thing; it was some isolated brothers who failed. The conversation several times turned to doing things Jehovahs way, and they always equated that with following the Organisations policies the two things are the same in their minds, the Organisation = Jehovah. The failure came from some Elders not doing things Jehovahs way.

    So, some very good things have occurred over the last few months. The societys policy on child abuse has been strengthened and a much more realistic attitude to the problem is disseminating through the congregations. The problem is out in the open so paedophiles are going to find it much more difficult to hide. It seems that child abuse will now almost certainly be reported to the police for their investigation. I hope that this spirit of Glasnost prevails. If it does then I think that their policy is as effective as it can be under the circumstances. The two witnesses rule is now only relevant when it comes to handling discipline within the congregation. I dont give a hoot if a paedophile loses his privileges at the hall as long as the bastard goes to prison for his crimes and children are protected.

    Obviously the Society has some culpability in this issue; after all it was their agents, the elders, which screwed up. But we all know that they will slip away from the problem and allow the elders to take the fall. I am angry that once again the criminal masterminds at the head escape justice yet again. BUT heads have rolled, changes have been made, and advice from bethel seems to encourage the elders to do the right thing. It also appears that there may have been new letters to bodies of elders, the elders in my hall met to discuss something from the society after Sunday's meeting. Does anyone know what these new letters might contain?

    I would like your opinions on this:

    Bearing in mind that regular Jehovahs Witnesses are just as disgusted at child abuse as the next person and zero tolerance is setting in, what are our reasons for pursuing this issue now? Have we not achieved what we set out to do? Are you or are you not satisfied that children are now as safe as they can be in the congregations?

  • Nanoprobe
    Nanoprobe

    Is that enough you ask? What about the victims? What about responsibility for the actions? What about removing all elders involved?

    The catholics got a Charter for the protection of children, where the bishops acknowledge our mistakes and our role in that suffering, and we apologize and take responsibility for too often failing victims and our people in the past

    The witnesses got JR Brown saying: "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"

  • dmouse
    dmouse

    What I'm asking is - are children as safe as they can be in the congregations NOW? Have we succeeded in our primary objective of ensuring children's safety?

    And, have our reasons for pursuing the scumbags reponsible for all the pain they have inflicted changed?

    I'm not suggesting that we drop the issue, only that the issue has changed?

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Has it changed? Elders are now required to report these accusations to the Branch Office. They are still not required to report things to the police.

    Perhaps some will be more vigilant, but the basic problem still remains. I don't see how all of the blustering being done about "strengthening the policies" is anything more than mere blustering.

    Additionally, the victims of prior abuse are still suffering, and many of them have been disfellowshipped and branded as evil. What does the Society intend to do about them?

  • Matty
    Matty

    Your findings exactly match mine Dean, these are the reactions I've been getting as well. A lot of damage has been done, and the incompetence of the elders concerned just reinforces the viewpoint that they are not God's spirit directed organization, they are just like any other secular organization, with a mix of good and bad people just like any other, apt to make the same kinds of slip-ups. It's very sad to see them so confused.

  • Nanoprobe
    Nanoprobe
    What I'm asking is - are children as safe as they can be in the congregations NOW? Have we succeeded in our primary objective of ensuring children's safety?

    I don't know but it seems to be missing a few protections........

    In my former congregation a registered sex offender was allowed complete anonymity. No talk from the platform, no gossip allowed, no warnings to other parents. Why? The courts convicted him without "two witnesses". The courts only used DNA, the victim's account and the pedophile's confession, that was not good enough for the elders. (he recanted confession to the elders) Remember Paul Giles says that WTBS will not accept a court conviction unless it meets WTBS standards.

    So if they are not notified of registered sex offenders than how safe can they be ?

  • nita6368
    nita6368

    The root problem has not been changed, it has not been fixed. JW's still feel they are above the law on this issue.They are not qualified to handle the issue of child molestation, Jehovah is not going to make this all better, the pediophiles need to be stopped and punished!

  • dmouse
    dmouse

    I agree Matty, many witnesses are VERY confused. This is made worse by the attitude that nita6368 mentioned, that they feel above the law. The talk on Sunday, which preceeded the reading of the letter, was all about how Jehovah's justice was superior to man's! I was speaking to an old JW friend about the peadophile elder in Warwickshire who had been found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to two years prison. She said that she knows someone in the congregation involved and the brothers are still convinced that he is innocent!

    I could see the conflict in her face. Basic human instincts to protect children are being subjugated to protect the good name of their religion.

    No wonder they are confused!

    I'm not saying the fight is over, but that we should shift our balance to respond to the enemie's tactics.

    To win this fight we must analyse and adapt!

    Edited by - dmouse on 18 July 2002 17:8:20

  • searchfothetruth
    searchfothetruth

    just a few points.

    In my old cong they had a problem. An elder was accused of abusing 4 girls and taken to court by the girls when they got old enough to have the courage, which was 4 months ago.

    The elders were in court every day and saw that their former colleague lied blatently in court that he hadn't even come into the org when these girls said he had abused them.

    They knew he was lying and did not offer any evidence to the prosecution i.e. publisher record cards dated at that time.

    But the question remains: If he abused these girls BEFORE he became an elder then did Jehovah appoint a child abuser as an elder?

    Or did Jehovah have no say in the matter and was it purely based on a mans decision? more likely

    Oh, he got of with it due to the fact that they couldn't prove when he became a witness.

  • Nanoprobe
    Nanoprobe

    dmouse

    And, have our reasons for pursuing the scumbags reponsible for all the pain they have inflicted changed?

    I think you make a very good point. Before Dateline we wondered if we could ever get any attention directed to the Watchtower, would the press ever do a story? Just think how much has changed in the last month and a half, lot's of press, BBC Panaroma, and now even British MP's looking into the matter. If the BBC Panaroma is shown in the USA then I would expect more fallout.

    So what have we accomplished and where do we go from here? Very good question, it is time for a reassessment.

    I want accountability, I want the truth of the situation explained so clearly that even the humblest JW knows what actually happened and is able to assess the matter for themselves. No more lies.

    Hope I didn't get your thread off the subject earlier, but the Catholic charter has some very good points to consider.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit