I stand by what I said on the Candace Conti thread. Kudos to you girl .
smiddy
Candace settled and she deserves the peace.
by snare&racket 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DwainBowman
My elder brother in law, has hinted that there are some changes coming down the borg drain, dealing with the Sick-O's!
So I would guess all these lawsuits are changing things. We'll see whenever it hits!
-
tim3l0rd
Fisherman,
There have been changes probably because of Conti. The 2012 letter included some changes.
As I've stated before, you can't put a corporation in prison. Punishment by money is the only way to punish a corporation. The government does the same thing by imposing fines to corporations who break the law. With secular corporations you can impose oversight, but with religious organizations it is very difficult due to the First Amendment. I'm not against the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion, but it does make it difficult and/or impossible to punish religious organizations.
It's obvious that the congregations were negligent in handling a known child molester. Sending a letter of recommendation stating that Kendricks was good with kids when it was known that he molested his own daughter is an obvious mishandling of the situation. This is just one way that the congregation and the WT corporation (which legislates the BOE) were negligent.
You can feel/say what you want, but MONEY TALKS. We live in a free market society and money is the way business is run, how the people decide which businesses prosper, and how the WBTS and all religions continues to operate.
Do you have any examples of how other religious organizations have been punished in the US besides money? I'm asking because I know of none and would be interested to read about them.
-
Vidiot
Fisherman - "The 2012 letter included some changes."
Sure it did...
...if staunchly reiterating the two-witness rule constitutes "changes".
-
flipper
SNARE & RACKET- I agree with every word you state in your opening thread. Couldn't have stated it any better or more clearly. Well written my friend, Take care, Peace out, Mr. Flipper -
Vidiot
Fisherman - "It's obvious that the congregations were negligent in handling a known child molester. Sending a letter of recommendation stating that Kendricks was good with kids when it was known that he molested his own daughter is an obvious mishandling of the situation. This is just one way that the congregation and the WT corporation (which legislates the BOE) were negligent."
This is the first thing you've ever said here that sounded halfway human.
There may be hope for you yet.
-
tim3l0rd
Vidiot,
I said what you quoted and not Fisherman. I was replying to Fisherman.
-
Dagney
To me part of the win with Candace's case is the spotlight aimed at the WBTS which reveals their motives, something rarely seen. They hide behind the Wizard's curtain appearing to be good. But in the end, the defense of the corporation is to protect itself at all costs, including the disregard for the victimization of a child.
No one will be signing up to be one of JW's if they have ever read any of the court transcripts. That's a victory.
The lack of concern, empathy, sympathy for abuse victims is appalling to the normal human being. It is not for somebody in a cult. Nor is it unusual for 8 million JW's who gleefully anticipate the destruction of 9 billion human beings so they can have a swiss chalet over looking a vineyard populated with their own pet lion and panda bear.
The joke is on them, the poor saps...loyal to a fantasy.
Oh no, Candace won BIG time...as will ALL the others that follow. Money is important, but not as important as the truth coming out about this vile corporation. Nobody in their right mind would ever want to be a JW. Nobody with children should EVER be a JW.
-
Vidiot
tim310rd - "I said what you quoted and not Fisherman. I was replying to Fisherman."
Whoops, my bad.
Shouldv'e known it was too good to be true.
-
Nitty-Gritty
Just FYI
Silentlambs has a list of towns where alleged Jehovah's Witness sex offenders were reported to silentlambs. My town was listed.
I wrote to silentlambs:
"I was looking at the list of cities where alleged sex offenders were reported to silentlambs to see if anyone was reported in my town. I would like to know why there are no names? It would be more helpful if one could actually know who these sex offenders are. "
This is the answer I got:
"Thank you for writing Silentlambs and we hope the list is helpful. The reason names are not used is due to legal reasons. I some cases the molester was not convicted for various reasons, in others investigations
were underway. In many cases allegations are hard to prove but that does not mean that they are not true. If we published every random name we were given it could cause litigation issues or perhaps impede a police
investigation. For those reasons we simply list the community to help the public and members to be aware".
Now you tell me, how is that supposed to really help me? I already know I should be aware of child molesters. The WT has published a multitude of articles on that subject. The point is, if Bill Bowen won't disclose the names of these child molesters,(although he knows them) for the reasons he specifies, then why can you not understand that the WT does not disclose the names for the very same reasons??