Joe Grundy,
I work with a youth group and I am a Certified Adult Volunteer trained to recognize emotional, physical and sexual abuse we are told to report to authorities without any questions. You are 100% correct.
Anthony Morris III goes on an eight minute rant over child abuse
by Richard_I 98 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Joe Grundy
As I understand it, JWs do not have specific childrens' activities/groups as some other religions do (e.g. 'Sunday schools' 'youth groups' etc.).
It is reasonable to argue, I suggest, that therefore all those in 'a position of authority' in a congregation have responsibility for the children in a congregation.
On that basis I believe that each congregation should have a written (and published) 'Safeguarding Policy' signed up to by all 'persons in authority', that all such persons should be subject to full disclosure CRB checks, and that they should receive documented training in that policy.
If done properly this might help to ensure that cases are dealt with properly - at the least it would bring home to the 'persons in authority' that they have a specific duty and are personally responsible for the way they act. No more 'Nuremberg Defence' of 'I was only obeying orders of WT HQ'.
-
Finkelstein
The WTS adherence to the two witness rule has been detrimental in getting people off from prosecution or discipline from the congregational elders in situations where the accused does not admit to the accusations and it would be a valid assertion that certain sex predators have exploited that rule to their own advantage.
I wonder how many of these sex offenders left the area where they were living to move to another location and start over again. It is known that these kind of sexual abusers have a tendency to reoffend, thats why usually when they are taken out of prison , they are not to be social where children gather.
It is even stated in the letter to all congregations (2012) that a single witness isn't enough to carry through with a JC to disfellowship.
-
Vidiot
Joe...
Ten bucks says that the WTS will never do it (or will try and put it off as long as humanly possible)...
...because I suspect that if they instituted a policy like that all at once, everywhere, they'd suddenly find themselves with a significant shortage of otherwise "qualified" brothers to keep the congregations functioning properly...
...not because they'll walk en masse in protest, but because there won't be enough JW guys willing to "serve" who can pass the background checks.
-
dubstepped
Re: The 2 witness rule
I know that people hate this rule, but are they really supposed to act on every accusation without any evidence? I'm all for them going straight to the authorities and letting people with actual experience and investigative tools (the police) make determinations based on what they gather, but I just don't see how they can go from accusation to df'ing automatically in the congregation.
I see problems with going to calling the organization before the police. I see problems with them not letting the next congregation know that someone was previously accused. If a person is accused on more than one occasion or by multiple people, I can see the need to act. However, one accusation unsupported is difficult to act upon no matter how awful that might be. Am I missing something about the two witness rule? I'm all for protecting kids, but I don't know how anyone can convict whether in the congregation or a court of law without some corroboration somewhere.
I also just don't think that the elders should be in on these cases whatsoever. To me they should recuse themselves based on lack of ability and training in such cases and immediately refer them to the proper authorities and stay out of it.
-
Joe Grundy
Finkelstein:
I take your point, but I think the sooner that the WTBTS realises that its internal rules are irrelevant in the wider world, the better
Vidiot:
You no doubt know more about elders than I do (I never was a JW). The few I have met tended to be ignorant, arrogant and tell lies (sorry, practice 'theocratic warfare). I suspect that increased personal liability/responsibilty of elders - it's already happening in court cases, Charity Commission enquiries, etc. - will reduce the number of people putting themselves forward. Courts and other enquiries seem to be doing quite a good job of cutting through WT smokescreen crap and pinning responsibility where it belongs.
.
-
steve2
They still haven't rescinded the two witness rule though.
Splash has perfectly nailed the hypocrisy of the PR machinery. The two witness rule remains in place.
In backgrounding the prevalence of child sexual abuse, TOMO described the world as having been naive about the magnitude of the pedophile problem in the past and that it was government (i.e., secular) legislation that caused a monumetnal shift in attitudes towards child sexual abuse.
Isn't that amazing? It was not Jehovah's organization that paved the way towards an enlightened and protective policy on child sexual abuse with truth and light but worldly powers (which the Witnesses teach are) under Satanic control.
But I give TOMO credit: He dare not make even one cheap shot towards the churches of Christendom over their shameful legacy of tolerating and minimizing child sexual abuse for he knows perfectly well - but would never acknowledge - his own religious organization's track record is shamefully stained.
Who'd have thought that a member of the GB would acknolwedge, though, secular powers exposed pedophilia in a world that, until fairly recently was "naive" about the magnitude of child sexual abuse.
-
Joe Grundy
Dubstepped:
Re: The 2 witness rule
I know that people hate this rule, but are they really supposed to act on every accusation without any evidence? I'm all for them going straight to the authorities and letting people with actual experience and investigative tools (the police) make determinations based on what they gather, but I just don't see how they can go from accusation to df'ing automatically in the congregation.
I see problems with going to calling the organization before the police. I see problems with them not letting the next congregation know that someone was previously accused. If a person is accused on more than one occasion or by multiple people, I can see the need to act. However, one accusation unsupported is difficult to act upon no matter how awful that might be. Am I missing something about the two witness rule? I'm all for protecting kids, but I don't know how anyone can convict whether in the congregation or a court of law without some corroboration somewhere.
I also just don't think that the elders should be in on these cases whatsoever. To me they should recuse themselves based on lack of ability and training in such cases and immediately refer them to the proper authorities and stay out of it
I take your points, but I'm speaking from an outsider's point of view. I think it's necessary to separate the WT internal club rules (dfing etc.) from the real world.
Yes, they should act immediately on receipt of an accusation (or suspicion) by reporting it to the authorities and then getting out of the way. Then they can report it to their HQ if they wish.
Corroboration is always sought - but it's rarely in the form of a personal 'second witness' and is available more often than perhaps you might think if you know what you're doing.
Please don't conflate or confuse court action.with internal WT action (dfing etc.). The latter is only relevant within the 'club'.
-
dubstepped
@ Joe Grundy
I think you and I are on the same page regarding the separation. I think that attacking the 2 witness rule is going after the wrong thing. In my opinion, we should all be attacking why the elders are even trying to handle these matters in the first place. Child sexual abuse is a CRIME, not something that elders should even be hearing. If someone in the congregation murders someone, do they take it before the elders who then refuse to report it and keep it all in house? It should all be taken directly to the police as a criminal matter.
It is a shame that people give the organization such power and esteem. They give up their mental faculties to those men and let them tell them how to think, how to feel, and what to do and how to do it. Even something as private as sex between consenting married adults can become a judicial matter in some cases. Sometimes things that go on are none of their business. Something as serious as child sexual abuse should never go to them in the first place.
-
done4good
Joe Grundy - I know that people hate this rule, but are they really supposed to act on every accusation without any evidence? I'm all for them going straight to the authorities and letting people with actual experience and investigative tools (the police) make determinations based on what they gather, but I just don't see how they can go from accusation to df'ing automatically in the congregation
To my knowledge, no religion even has a "judicial committee", for behaviors. WT does this for self-serving purposes, mainly to control and keep the R&F in line, as well as make the organization appear "clean". That is why they draw no distinction between illegal harmful activity, (such as child sex abuse), and any other so-called "sin".
The real problem is judicial committees altogether need to go. Then parents can openly go to the authorities without fear of retribution from WT and its localized free labor force, (aka the elders).
d4g