WT PR Statement - silentlambs march

by silentlambs 84 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  zev

  Trauma_Hound and Mulan.

  i'm with you all on what your saying. when i was "in" and very close to the elders and servents, even up until last year, what is contained in those letters that goes with people when they move is subjective. evasive. and at times down right mean.

  take for instance a friend of mine that switched congregations 6 months before leaving for florida where he was moving. he wanted to spend a little time with the friends he had made over the years.

  those elders wrote a nasty letter about him, and recommended he not be retained as a servent.

  when he found out, and questioned it, they denied it, but still the elders in his new congregation told him what it said, and maybe showed it to him (not to sure about that) but he was very sure of what it contained about himself regaurdless.

  i dont trust for one minute what that letter will say if a known pedofile moves from one congregation to another. not for one second even.

  the reporter who came out of the wts and said, "those men are pure evil" said it right on the money.
• 

  blondie

  What about being around non-JW children? Don't they matter? What happens when that known, forgiven by the elders, molester gets frustated because the JW children aren't easy targets and he goes after the neighbor's child?

  I'm no psychiatrist but I see the thinking of a sociopath behind the WTS news release, "The WTS (reputation, etc.) is most important and must be protected at the cost of all others."

  (no speller either)

  Edited by - Blondie on 1 October 2002 17:6:5
• 

  Cygnus

  Hi hawkaw,

  : So you are telling me that the "confrontations" are okay? Even though I have been watching a court case for two plus weeks that clearly showed just how wrong confrontations (ie. Judicial Committees) are and how these children/teenagers are basically re-raped?

  I think such "confrontations" can and should be handled with tact and tenderness. It is not the fault of the WTS' policy if idiot elders "re-rape" children.

  : So you are telling me it is okay for a known sicko to come to my door without my knowledge?

  If it is his constitutional right to do so, yes. If it is against the law, no. If you go to the local Kingdom Hall and tell the Service Committee that you do not want anyone convicted of or even accused of child molestation to come to your door, then hopefully they would comply with your wishes.

  : So are you telling me it is okay that they don't share a database of known molesters with the authorities?

  If the law requires that such records be turned over, then they should do so. If not, I see no reason why they should feel compelled to volunteer that information.

  : So are you telling me their reporting is okay even though it still to this day violates Ontario law (ie. all ordain ministers (all baptized JWs) must "forthwith" report and no tjust the elders)?

  I don't understand this question. Of course I believe that JWs should follow the law.

  : So are you telling me it is okay not to report the abuse in the 34 states that don't have a "special" reporting law?

  If an elder or anyone else who hears an allegation of abuse is not required by law to report to the authorities, then it is their decision to report or not. That is the WTS' policy. I would rather see the elder or whoever allow the parents or guardians of the child(ren) to make the decison.

  : So is it okay to support convicted molesters like Fitzwater and keep him as a JW in good standing all because the society refuses to believe he took part in 17 child rapes?

  I can't read the minds of those who have not been persuaded that Fitzwater is guilty of such a terrible thing. Personally, I would rather know what accusations are made about an alleged child molestor if he is in good standing and make my own decisions regarding the person. I would rather not be told by the congregation who I can and cannot associate with based on other peoples' consciences.

  : So you are telling me it is okay to df Bill Barb and the other advocates for speaking out over this issue and any one else who does?

  No. However, that has nothing to do with protecting children. Their DFing is a separate issue. And I was not there to hear every word in Bill's and Barb's judicial hearings.

  : So you are telling me it is okay to keep the congregation in the dark about the case?

  I wouldn't want to run a JW congregation, or any association based on the Bible. However, if I did, I would follow the Bible's directives to the best of my ability. The Bible says an accusation against an older man must be corroborated by two witnesses.

  I think the elders should judge whether to inform the congregation of a child molestor on a case-by-case basis.

  I am not saying these things to minimize the damage done by past WTS directives, idiot, negligent elders, or even the acts of wicked people disguised as upstanding, moral Jehovah's Witnesses. I am saying that running a Bible-based organization with 80,000 elders and well over 6,000,000 participants with all sorts of backgrounds, weaknesses, and troubles is not easy. The WTS is learning from their mistakes, and I do not believe that their motives are malicious and designed to hurt people.
• 

  Cygnus

  As I said, I am glad I don't have to run a JW congregation.

  I would like to ask 2 questions.

  1) If a parent believes his/her child was molested by a fellow JW, what is a reasonable course of action he/she might take to speak to other JW parents in the congregation about the molestor?

  2) If a baptized person who is guilty of molesting a child in the past has paid his debt to society and wishes to participate as a JW, and it is right to inform the entire congregation of this person's history, what sort of language ought to be used to accomplish this? And in what setting and circumstance would be most appropriate to explain his standing and the restrictions placed on him?

  I would like to see these questions answered by those who call for such by the WTS.
• 

  coffee_black

  Cygnus,

  If the watchtower was truly going by scriptural precident, any and all hearings would be out in the open for all to hear, not behind closed doors. Families would hear for themselves if there was an accused pedophile among them, and they would hear all sides. There would be no secret files.

  If a child of mine was molested, I would move heaven and earth to get all the facts. I would warn every family the perpetrator was in contact with. I would go to the authorities. I would get my child counseling. I would not keep my mouth shut to protect the image of an organization. That's now....after I have removed the watchtower berka (sp?) It is what ordinary people do in our world. It's not what witnesses are taught to do. It is, however what they should do.

  If a pedophile returned to the cong. after serving his/her time, every effort should be made to make sure children are safe. His feelings don't count here. Frank, honest language should be used, not watchtower double speak. Anything less won't do. Very few if any child molesters stop molesting on their own. Even with treatment, there is no cure for this sick behavior. Children will always be at risk around such an individual. The damage is never fixed. The victims will always live with that. Whatever payment was made to society, it can never make up for that. Why should the society have a problem with announcing this from the platform? We hear the names of pedophiles on the news all the time. The society doesn't have a problem disfellowshipping people who try to protect children who have been damaged by watchtower policy. Their priorities are twisted.

  You said that you're glad you don't have to run the watchtower organization. That's just it. If it truly was God's organization, then God would be running it...not arrogant men. The watchtower doesn't let God run it. They're too busy with their huge team of lawyers, and numerous corporations. It is about as far from Christianity as one can go. How many lawyers did Jesus have? How many corporations or printing presses did he control? Just what do you think Jesus would do?

  cb
• 

  morrisamb

  The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses have on how to handle cases of child molestation is without equal in the religious community.

  Say what? That is so self-serving, arrogant and flat-out not true. The best policy is a no tolerance policy. A more accurate translation:

  The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses have on how to handle cases of child molestation is found in too many religious communities. New light has been shed on this issue daily. In the future, notwithstanding such groups as Silentlambs, Jehovah's hand will continue to direct us.
• 

  silentlambs

  I would like to ask 2 questions.
  1) If a parent believes his/her child was molested by a fellow JW, what is a reasonable course of action he/she might take to speak to other JW parents in the congregation about the molestor?

  Inform anyone who has children and is unaware of his/her past history.

  2) If a baptized person who ;is guilty of molesting a child in the past has paid his debt to society and wishes to participate as a JW, and it is right to inform the entire congregation of this person's history, what sort of language ought to be used to accomplish this?

  Yes, ______is a child molester.

  And in what setting and circumstance would be most appropriate to explain his standing and the restrictions placed on him?

  To anyone who has children and is unaware of his/her past history.

  simple questions, simple answers.

  p.s.-you asked three quesions not two...

  silentlambs
• 

  Cygnus

  Bill and coffee,

  Thank you both for your answers.
• 

  DJ

  Bill,

  I have a question, if a molester has paid his debt to society and has repented as in your above Q&A, would it be more reasonable to announce that _________ has molested chidren. Please don't throw rocks at me, people.......I just think that the impact would be just as great on all who hear that instead of speaking in the present tense. If he/she has paid their debt to society (meaning jail!) Is it a terrible mistake to give that person another chance, while remaining on guard and warned about his/her past?

  I remember the airing of Dateline. If I recall correctly, the WT was unable to give any evidence of instances where they notified any authorities about a molester in any congregation. In fact, they only handed over one name to Dateline and it was a 'wordly man.' Is my memory right? Because if it is, then everything that they said is a LIE. Not that I'm surprised or anything.

  They have woven a tangled web of deceit for as long as they have existed on many issues. IMO.

  Dj
• 

  Mary

  "..........However we know that some who are marching here today have been victims of abase and their heartbreaking stories deeply sadden us......."

  Yes, I'm sure it really, really bothered them to see all these victims of WT policy DISFELLOWSHIPPED for reporting their abuse to the police.

  ".....There are no congregation sanctions against anyone who reports an allegation of child abuse to the authorities...."

  What a bunch of filthy liars.......then perhaps they could explain why so many Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for going to the police after being instructed by their locals elders not to, because it would "be a reproach on Jehovah's Organization." While we're all totally disgusted at this latest round of lies by the GB, does anyone here think for one second that the media actually believe anything these slimeballs say?

  Just keep on puttin' both feet in your mouths, boys........you're hanging yourself