Like Carl Olof Jonsson, this is the first time I have ever written to this forum. I have decided to do so, however, because I am saddened at what Bill Bowen has chosen to do in reference to Ray Franz. Let me say that I given Bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the Watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally. However, I am deeply saddened at his attack on Ray Franz; I think it is totally unwarranted. Like Ray Franz, I have long been concerned that the crusade against child abuse among Jehovahs Witnesses could get out of hand. So while I am quite prepared to act as an expert Witness in cases involving child abuse when I am convinced that (a) the charges are valid and (b) that there has been a real cover up, I refuse to get carried away with the suggestion that every charge made against the Watchtower Society, Witness elders, or individual Witnesses is valid.
Over the past couple of decades there has been a series of consistent attacks on religions and religion as such. The anti-cult movement and deprogrammers have claimed that many members of various cults or new religions were brainwashed into becoming members. As a result, numerous kidnappings, ruthless deprogrammings, and assaults on religious freedom took place. Now, in general, the anti-cult movement is in retreat in North America as solid scholarship has largely discredited the idea of brainwashing as a technique in conversion. However, the anti-cult movement is going full tilt in Europe today with France having declared some 173 different religions cults (sectes) and having passed draconian legislation against them.
Why do I mention this? Because, while many of the religions called cults are quite dangerous and deserve to be criticized (and in some cases prosecuted), the anti-cult movement became overly zealous and has become a great danger to civil liberties. In fact, it has become a cult-like movement in its own right. And I feel that the same thing may be happening with the anti-child abuse movement.
According to Common Law, a person is generally held innocent until proven guilty. But recently, as a result of pressure from radical feminists that tradition has been somewhat eroded in rape cases in certain jurisdictions in both Canada and the United States. Now too, following September 11, 2001, there have been further attacks on traditional civil libertarian principles as is well noted by the ACLU. Both biblically and in accord with Common Law tradition, the idea of having at least two witnesses to a crime has also been recognized as absolutely necessary in most cases. Of course there are biblical examples and Common Law examples where this has not been held to be necessary. So-called forensic evidence has always been regarded as significant and often conclusive. For example, when a woman is raped, there may be sufficient physical evidence to prove that a certain man was guilty. In many instances this may be true in child abuse cases, but in others it may not.
But we must be wary: There have been far too many cases of false accusation of child abuse. Many women use this charge against former husbands to keep them from having child custody or visitation rights. There was one notable case in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, some years ago where social workers and psychologists became convinced that an entire family was practicing child abuse in what amounted to an orphanage and fed ideas into the heads of the children. Only after years of litigation did it become evident that all charged were innocent except one.
On another tack, many others and I personally, have been terribly critical of the Watchtowers so- called Judicial System because it is nothing short of an inquisition in a dictionary and legal sense. Among other things, it does not provide for open hearings. But curiously, the Society (while throwing almost every other aspect of biblical fairness out the window) did preserve, in theory if not in practice, the two-witness rule. So I am hesitant to see that aspect of its policy attacked. In any case, I think Watchtower fault is far more with practice than with theory. As many of us have experienced, its leaders behave as the Pharisees of the 21rst century.
Now, specifically, let me address some of the charges Bill Bowen has made against Ray Franz. He asserts that there was evidence of child abuse with the Watchtower Society when Ray was on the Governing Body. Perhaps so. However, does that prove that Ray is lying when he says that the issue never came before the Governing Body when he was on it. Not at all. I attempted to do research at the Brooklyn Bethel, the Canadian, British and French Bethels when I was working on my history of the Witnesses in Canada and know that, frequently, the Watchtowers right hand doesnt know what its left hand is doing. The Watchtower is a great bureaucracy in which much information is often lost in the shuffle. Therefore, knowing Ray Franz as I do, I believe him.
Furthermore, I am upset at Bills unhistorical approach to the past. The noted Jewish American historian Peter Novick uses the concept of collective memory as developed by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs and shows, I think quite conclusively, that people tend to project present concerns onto the past. Thus I think that this is just what Bill Bowen and many who support him are doing. As someone who served as a servant among Jehovahs Witnesses from 1953 to 1972 and as an elder thereafter until I broke with the Witnesses in 1980, never once did I run into a case of child abuse; and I served as servant or elder in four American states, Puerto Rico, Alberta Canada, and Spain.
The fact is that we were not very aware of child abuse in earlier years, any more than we were aware of incest or a lot of sexual practices that almost everyone seems to know about today. Among other things, very few older Witnesses or even middle aged ones, knew about such things as oral and anal intercourse until the Watchtower decided that it had to educate us about them. We were babes to such badness, for the world was not so sex mad and violence mad as it is today.
On Silentlambs, Bill presents a lot of what he regards as evidence of Witness child abuse. No doubt that there is basis to many of the allegations presented there, but allegations remain allegations until proven in courts of law. Remember, under our Common Law tradition (which follows biblical principles in this instance) a person is innocent until proven guilty. Hence, we do not need any Salem witch trials, any sexual McCarthyism, or any frenzy about child abuse. Each case should be dealt with on its own merits, and if persons are guilty of such abuse, they should be punished according to secular law. But we must be careful not to be unjust in any way, and I take it that that is exactly what Ray Franz is saying. Of course, I do agree that the Watchtower Societys attempts at stonewalling, which I have witnessed personally, deserve to be exposed.
Bill seems to think that Jehovahs Witnesses are more guilty of child sexual abuse than members of other religions. I doubt that. I taught religious studies for some years at university level, studied many religions closely, and know that child sexual abuse has been and is rampant among Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and Mormons. So like Ray Franz, I tend to think that the Witness sexual abuse of minors fits the norm. Yet I cannot say this with certainly, and there may be one reason to suggest that such abuse is quite high among Witnesses; many come from marginalized groups within American society where such abuse is common. However, there are many marginalized persons among the other religions that I have just mentioned, and consequently it is not surprising that they too have lots of sexual child abuse. But the real point is this: Bills evidence is not the statistical evidence that any scholar or court of law would accept. He certainly hasnt done anything like a sociological study of Jehovahs Witness, nor has he done any study on any other religious community. So what is his basis of his comparison? He has none.
Finally, let me say a few things about Bills use of language. I dont like the way he has referred to Rays recent statement. His categorization of Rays remarks was less than gentlemanly and his use of the letters c.y.a., which I take to mean cover your ass, was simply crude.
Unfortunately, this whole affair has not been healthy or upbuilding, and if Bill thinks he is going to gain much by attacking a man who has been responsible for the liberation of thousands of Jehovahs Witnesses, he should think again. Whether Ray was right, wrong or indifferent to the issue at hand, there is no valid reason to attack him. Furthermore, none of us including Ray Franz - is required to do anything unless his or her conscience tells him or her to do so. For freedom Christ set us free.‑ Gal. 5:1
Jim Penton