Ray Franz And Things That Are Too Hard To Handle.

by Englishman 107 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  That is how I read things too Dutchie (after reading many posts on this topic)
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Dutchie:

  1. Ray supports the two witness rule.

  2. Ray never meant the two witness rule to be misused as it has in child support cases.

  Short answer: Yes. Ray supports the "P-R-O-P-E-R" use of the two witness rule in N-O-N C-H-I-L-D A-B-U-S-E issues or other issues where it does not make sense to require two witnesses.

  Longer response: Since you are more of a legal expert than I am, let me ask you: If my neighbor tells the police I am guilty of bank robbery, when I am not, then what should the courts do? Should the courts want more than his word against mine? Or should the courts send me to jail on the word of ONE accuser who might also lyingly claim to be a witness?

  In my opinion, there needs to be something more then the word of one person ... however, in child abuse cases, the law takes a slightly different approach ... the words of the victim child is important, but other factors do have to be considered ... other evidence still has to be factored in ... otherwise, anytime someone wants to cause somebody to be in trouble with the law, or cause them to be put in jail, then just accuse them of being a pedophile ... in fact, even if the accused person does not go to jail, their repoutation could be hurt for life by the mere allegation ... is that what we want in a civil society?

  The intent of the two witness rule, as Ray Franz considered it, was to limit needless allegations ... and because child abuse was not dealt with or openly discussed back in the late 1960s and early 1970s ... then it stands to reason he did not consider how the rule would be misused by Watchtower idiots of the late 1980s onward ... I don't see how much more plain and reasonable it could be.

  Also, the term "witness" does not have to be human eye-witnesses, but could be other acceptable evidence ... and this too is reasonable.

  Edited by - Amazing on 17 November 2002 17:31:44
• 

  Dutchie

  Thanks Amazing,

  I appreciate your comments. In a civil legal matter a whole slew of people could come forward and say they saw me rob a bank and it would hold no weight without other evidentiary consideration. They might just have a vendada against me.

  That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about Watchtower society justice and that is an entirely different matter. The bottom line is that Ray Franz supports the two witness rule. Whether he is justified in doing so, or did not consider its long reaching affects is of no consequence, nor does it change that simple fact. I am not condemning the man I am trying try to sort the matter out.

  You are really a good friend to Mr, Franz Amazing. I would want you on my side in a brawl, as my friend, because I know that you would come to my defense no matter what.
• 

  BB

  Ive seen several persons rise to the defense of RF on the basis that during the time he was a member of the GB, little if anything was known of child abuse cases within Jehovahs Witnesses organization.

  As further weight to this argument, it has now been postulated that this same individual finds perverted acts of oral sex so disgusting that he wonders why few if any would find this type of behavior appealing?

  I suppose that the idea behind this line of defense is to paint a picture of a righteous, reclusive and sheltered man, who in the exercise of his duties, was so engrossed in being Mr. Wonderful that he was totally unaware of the depths of perversion that humans could stoop to, especially Jehovahs Witnesses in good standing.

  Some could say that such ignorance in view of the possible facts to the contrary, is convenient in the very least.

  Do any of the documented cases of child abuse uncovered by Barb Anderson and others, fall within the same time frame that RF served on the GB? If so, how could RF remain unaware of these activities if such documentation existed at that time?

  BB
• 

  Englishman

  suppose that the idea behind this line of defense is to paint a picture of a righteous, reclusive and sheltered man, who in the exercise of his duties, was so engrossed in being Mr. Wonderful that he was totally unaware of the depths of perversion that humans could stoop to, especially Jehovahs Witnesses in good standing.

  All I know is that I was an "elder",aka a "servant" in the 60's, and that the only time I ever came across deviant behaviour was when a obsessive father would cut his daughters hair so that she would be less appealing to him.

  I do feel empathetic towards Ray in this because I know that anyone who brought a case of child abuse to light would have automatically been assumed by the JW's to be in some way mentally deficient. Yes, in hindsight this was indeed a most damaging mindset to have. Horrendous even. However, the mind can only cope with so much change at once, and for Ray to have to take on board what would then have been a virtually unheard of allegation is simply asking too much of him. I know that we can all point fingers in retrospect, knowledge is a wonderful thing, but until recently most claimants to abuse were regarded with suspicion in the majority of circles. That's where Ray would probably be coming from. Apart from the victims of abuse, how many people here would have believed such a thing was possible when THEY were JW's? So why should Ray be any different?

  Englishman.
• 

  teejay

  ... how could RF remain unaware of these activities if such documentation existed at that time?

  
  In the same way that Bill Bowen could be raised in the truth and ascend in the ranks to the level of elder where he served for many years and not know.
• 

  Dutchie

  All I know is that I was an "elder",aka a "servant" in the 60's, and that the only time I ever came across deviant behaviour was when a obsessive father would cut his daughters hair so that she would be less appealing to him.

  Englishman, you were one elder in one congregation in one country.

  You and other elders did not have access to the worldwide problems in the brotherhood that members of the Governing Body did.
• 

  Amazing

  BB: You must be very young and ignorant of history as well as ignorant of how child abuse affects the victim. So, let's look at your concluding thought:

  Do any of the documented cases of child abuse uncovered by Barb Anderson and others, fall within the same time frame that RF served on the GB? If so, how could RF remain unaware of these activities if such documentation existed at that time?

  I witnessed my sister being raped by my father ... circa 1956 ... we did not run to the police. We did not go to the priest or church elder ... we kept our mouths shut ... as was the case in that era ... people did not TALK about being a victim ... it was just not done ... so, the religious elders and leaders, unless they by chance happen to get involved as a perpetrator or a victim would not necessarily know about or think about child molestation ... this was true until the 1980s when sociaty at large started dealing with this issue ... help organizations came of age ... and the laws began to change to make it easier for victims and their parents to seek justice in thge courts ...

  I have known Barbara Anderson for some time and discussed her material ... none of it that she shared with me predates 1990 ... about ten years after Ray Franz left the Governing Body ... this is not to say that some mater she has does not go back farther ... you will just have to write to her and ask for yourself ...

  Notwithstanding ... even today the various states are just now changing laws on reporting requirements, etc. ... the State of Illinois where I live just made some significant changes this last summer ... other states, like Oregon, where I also used to live have actually weakened some earlier tough laws as late as 1998. Your can check the Oregon Revised Statutes. California and New York states earlier made some significant changes to increase the statute of limitations and make it easier for victims to seek justice through civil litigation ...

  Public Schools, Day Care centers, etc where children are tending to have come under increasing scrutiny in the last ten to fifteen years ... better screening of employees, and better training to enable teachers and administrators to know what to do and when to report a problem ... because through this all, many serious mistakes ahve been made, and many innocent people have been ruined for life ... i.e. the big case in Washington State where confessions and allegations were cooersed from defendants and victims ...

  ... so, by no means is this a clean issue where the courts are going to easily go into the Watchtower and nail all the GB and other leaders for a 'two witness' rule policy ... rather it is going to be long and difficult and fought by convicting perpetrators and then seeking monetary damage awards in civil litigation ... that is until the Watchtower finally cracks and crumbles ...

  I am all for this seeking of justice ... but not at the expense of harming the innocent ... for then those seeking justice can become as bad as those they seek to hold accountable ... yes, seek and obtain justice ... but let the lawyers do it, and stop trying to play lawyer and hang people in public who are and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty - that is unless you want to live in a nation where law does not rule ... then, in that case, you won't mind when you are accused of being a pedophile, because after all some one said it, so you must be guilty!
• 

  larc

  BB, you are a young person aren't you. So, you don't know what life was like in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, now do you? If you would like to know, I will explain it to you, but even then, you won't really understand, now will you?
• 

  Buster

  People who are criticising RF's personal opinions are mislead. They seem to think that RF is holding hiimself out as some example to be followed, someone that has found a higher and is looking to show others. For those looking too deeply into his writings I say several things:

  • It is very JW of you to try to dig into specific comments and discuss them as if they stand alone
  • You are ignoring his adsmission that he is somewhat embarassed by the fact that he participated so long in the org. and that he is not holding himseld up as some kind of leader
  • I took his books to be primarily autobiographical - a gentle, fact-based explanation of the events
  • He has some of his own opinions in there, but I never got a sense that he was trying to influence anyone

  I read his books with fascination and an ever-increasing respect for the man. I thank him for the insight into things about which I have been curious since I left. But I wouldn't follow the man to McDonald's, let alone to the lord. It took him almost a whole lifetime to understand what I figured out shortly after high school.

  But in fairness, to see in his writings some kind of 'directive' against which its oposers should protest, is to read way too much into small pieces.