by COJ 113 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
allegations of conspiacry to aid and abet and harbor child abusers (that's where Ray Fraz and many others come in)
Gsark said the above. Is there any legal process against RF? If not those that make allegations like Gsark have a free hit at someones character.
ISP
To Christina Boucher:
I find your post calm and sensible, and your questions reasonable. Hear are my answers:
You ask:
"Wasnt the initial reason for these campaigns to publicise the faulty WTS policy"?
Answer:
Yes, and if this policy is understood to mean that a crime, such as child molestation, can or should be concealed, this is criminal. Please notice that I never accused Bill Bowen for his attempts to change such a policy, nor have I ever dissuaded anyone from supporting him in this. My criticism referred to Bowens questioning of the motives of those who decline from joining in with him in his media campaign. His questioning of the motives of Ray Franz was also a questioning of the motives of thousands of other former Witnesses, including Rud Persson and myself, who have taken the same position as Ray Franz.
Your illustration with my study of the Societys chronology is excellent. Suppose I asked Bill Bowen to join me in a media campaign to reveal the Societys errors in this area, but that he chose not to join in with me in this. Would that give me any reason for attacking him and publicly start to question his motives? Of course not.
Because I stated the we have found no evidence to show that child molestation is more common among Jehovahs Witnesses than in the community at large, you ask:
"What data do you and Mr. Persson based your conclusion on?"
Answer:
On the lack of data to the contrary. If such data exists, I am not aware of them.
Finally, you ask:
"Must the percentage of molestations be as great as, or greater, than in other organizations or general population before a faulty handling of molestation is addressed?"
The answer is obviously No. If just one such case came to my knowledge, and I had any kind of evidence on the case, it would be my responsibility to reveal this to the police.
As to your statement about a childs ability, or inability, to take action, you are quite right, of course. What I had in mind was what you say in the next sentence, that the child years later, as an adult, may be strong enough for seeking justice.
Best wishes,
Carl Olof Jonsson
I find it very unloving not to help in the campaign against WTS policy on child abuse. And very strange to say there is no more child abuse inside the witnesses when you know their child abuse policy.
Nordic: You have completely missed the point of the posts above. Did you read them?
I am not "involved" overtly in Silentlambs. Does that mean I don't support the cause in my own way, or that I am unloving?
No one person can become involved in every important cause.
All these are important causes. Are you involved in all of them? If not, are you "unloving"?
How many times must we repeat this before you get the point? The numbers or percentage of abuse among JW's in relation to the general population does not matter! What Mr. Jonsson said was, as far as he could determine the numbers are not necessarily greater. That may in fact be true. We probably will never know for certain.
perhaps I can give some answer to this debatt. I us to read on swed EXJW boards, and I now from ther that COJ, is wery close to what the bibel say, so perhaps he belive that this 2 wittneses thing is from the bibel and is good.
I must say myself that this is a very difficult isssu, the swed goverment have now a new polyci, it is not longer inaf widh experts testemony, they want also some proof. so they have in some way go over to JW attitud, thts beaucause some tragikal case, where fadhers was convikted wrong, and girls take back ther accusaition. It is very important that this not going to be any wichunt, condemd innocent peopel.
Because I stated the we have found no evidence to show that child molestation is more common among Jehovahs Witnesses than in the community at large, you ask:
"What data do you and Mr. Persson based your conclusion on?"
Answer:
On the lack of data to the contrary. If such data exists, I am not aware of them.
COJ,
August 11, 2002 NEW YORK TIMES by Laurie Goodstein :
"Jehovah's Witnesses like to say that we have one of the most crimefree organizations," Mrs. Anderson said. "But all problems are taken to the elders, and the elders keep them quiet." She said that the documents prompted an internal debate among church leaders, and that when there was no action, she left headquarters disheartened in 1993, after 11 years of volunteering.
Carl A. Raschke, a professor of religious studies at the University of Denver who has written about the Jehovah's Witnesses, said the group was no different from many other insular religions that aspire to theological and moral purity.
"Groups that tend to be very tightknit and in-grown historically have a higher incidence of sexual abuse and incest," DR. Raschke said. "That's an ethnological fact. When a religion tries to be thoroughly holy or godly, it's not going to acknowledge that people aren't living up to the ideals of the faith."
Wasasister:
You mentioned as one of your example causes:
Human rights violations in repressive regimes
A hypothetical situation for you. Suppose I was a high-ranking member of a repressive regime that crushed the freedom of millions and caused the death of thousands. Suppose further that I had a disagreement with other high-ranking members, and was thrown out of the regime. I then took the trouble of writing books to detail why I thought the regime was wrong.
Now, suppose a group of people trying to expose one of the most heinous practices of the regime came to me and asked for an endorsement (perhaps just a few words saying that I recognised their suffering and empathised with them) to help their cause.
Suppose I refused to give it.
That would be entirely my choice of course. I have the freedom to become involved (or not involved) in whatever I want. But, other people are also free, and this means that they are free to (a) question why I did not get involved even in a minor way, and (b) criticize my decision if they do not agree with it. No-one is above questioning and criticism. The day we start to feel that someone may be, is the day we replace one Governing Body with another.
If I was to respond to such questioning/criticism with a statement like "well I'm also not involved in Stop Poaching The Elephants", would it be a valid response?
No, because I have no prior involvement or significant connection to elephant poaching organisations, but I do have such a history with the repressive regime. Thus, such a response is irrelevant and a red herring. As it is in your post above.
What about the response: "leave Expatbrit alone. He's an old man, he doesn't have to get involved"? Well, it's not a question of not getting involved, I am already involved simply because of my past. What we do earlier in life has consequences, which may last the rest of our lives. We cannot just say, "I've changed my mind, nothing I did before matters anymore, so leave me alone." Age does not change that.
You also said:
The numbers or percentage of abuse among JW's in relation to the general population does not matter!
Quite true. It does not matter, and is therefore not a valid reason for either getting involved in a cause, or not getting involved in a cause (as specifically stated by Mr. Jonsson in his initial post):
Neither I nor Rud Persson have any wish to become involved in it. Why not? Have we done or do we know about something that we are "covering up", something we "do not wish to reveal"? No. The simple reason is that we have no evidence to present against anybody, nor do we have any evidence to show that child abuse is more common among the Witnesses than in other organizations or in the community at large.
Expatbrit
Expat:
Your points are valid, but please keep in mind my words were in direct responce to Nordic above where he said:
I find it very unloving not to help in the campaign against WTS policy on child abuse...
At that point, I was not speaking primarily of Ray Franz, but of any concerned person who is not actively supporting Bill Bowen through Silentlambs.
As for your example of you being a former high-ranking member of a repressive regime: Yes, you would have an obligation to speak out if you had specific knowledge which would be helpful to victims or survivors. If you knew where bodies were burried, if you had copies of execution orders, if you knew where political prisoners were being held....
In Ray Franz' case, he claims he does not have such knowledge and I have no reason to disbelieve him. From what I have read of him, and from testimonials from respected individuals who know him personally, he seems to be completely honest.
I think it all comes down to what the real goal is. Are we trying to help victims/survivors of child abuse (and prevent any future abuse) because of unreasonable JW policies? Or, are we - either primarily or as a secondary effect - trying to bring down the religious body known as Jehovah's Witnesses?
If indeed we are trying to help the victims and prevent future abuse, could we not argue that by writing and publishing two very influential books, Franz and Jonsson have done just that? How many families either left the JW's or were dissuaded from joining in the first place? We cannot know how many children were spared this trauma because of what their parents read.
My point was simply that each of us helps in our own way. Bowen and Franz are two very different personalities. There is room for more than one approach to this very important cause, and one can certainly do much to prevent child abuse outside of the Silentlambs organization.
Wasa
PS: can I still be thrown across your camel and become your 17th wife?or will it have to be 18 now??
Hello Wasa:
Thanks for your reply (and thanks for the civility of it, too).
I recently read about a court case in Canada involving child access. In the judgement, the Judge said that the over-riding consideration must be the welfare of the child. All else must give way to that requirement. You are right that in all of this, the most important aspect is to help victims/survivors of child abuse. I agree 100%. I think that should be the case even if it means questioning/criticising in a non-abusive way the actions (or lack of) a highly respected former JW.
That really is my whole point here. No-one is above questioning and criticism. If that is done in an abusive or rude way, an apology is appropriate for the manner in which it is done. Not for the simple act of questioning or criticising.
If I was a former high-ranking member of a repressive regime, I personally would feel obligated to at least give a few lines of public encouragement to victims and survivors. If I didn't, that would be my choice, but I would understand the existence of questions as to why I hadn't.
Mr. Franz and Mr. Jonsson have no doubt helped many people out of the cult, and thereby prevented much suffering. Never can it be said that this is not true. Given their effectiveness in doing this, perhaps a little curiosity/frustration is understandable when they choose in a certain case not to?
As for:
Are we trying to help victims/survivors of child abuse (and prevent any future abuse) because of unreasonable JW policies? Or, are we - either primarily or as a secondary effect - trying to bring down the religious body known as Jehovah's Witnesses?
Whoooah! Whole different thread of truly epic proportions! Is it even possible to accomplish the former without the latter?
Expatbrit
p.s. by all means. I'll have to do a harem recount. There have been a few unexpected vacancies lately due to the local Rolling Stones concert. Mick Jagger shall taste the blade of my revenge!
Mr. Jonsson,
I thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.
Please notice that I never accused Bill Bowen for his attempts to change such a policy, nor have I ever dissuaded anyone from supporting him in this.
This, (above) was what I was most concerned with clarifying. If you personally did not want to involve yourself in this issue, or if you felt it inappropriate for anyone to involve themselves in this issue.
Your illustration with my study of the Societys chronology is excellent. Suppose I asked Bill Bowen to join me in a media campaign to reveal the Societys errors in this area, but that he chose not to join in with me in this. Would that give me any reason for attacking him and publicly start to question his motives? Of course not.
I believe if Mr. Bowen declined to join you in a media campaign, it would be only because, to my knowlege, he has not studied the chronology of the Bible in depth. Mr. Franz, however, to my knowledge, is sufficient in his knowledge of the Watchtower Society's two-witness rule. (I only make this point to show why Mr. Bowen may have asked Mr. Franz to join him.) But I firmly hold that one is under no obligation to involve oneself in an activity that one does not wish to spend one's time in. For this reason, I, along with others, tend to give credit to the ones like yourself, that do take the time and energy to involve themselves, and in the process aid others.
Child molestation is a criminal act, and I agree, all too common among society as a whole. And I don't believe a revised policy on the WTS's part will abolish this crime against children in the Witness community, anymore than laws against it have abolished it in the general community. But a revision would lend some common sense to a policy regarding a secretive act, and in the process lend some support, strength, and peace to these children, who rely on adults for just that. I believe if they were shown that to begin with, there would be no need for court cases against the WTS.
Best Wishes to You Also,
Christina Boucher
edited to delete bolding
Edited by - deddaisy on 28 October 2002 5:0:47
