The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 182 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Finkelstein

  If you want to say that it is a legal issue then you have to stick with the legal aspect of it. If you want to say it is a moral thing than you have to stick with that.

  .......and that is the core heart of the problem in a nut shell.

  Its becoming public awareness now that religious institutions have been handling situations of pedophilia within their own organizations exclusively on their own Judaical accord and in becoming of that have created causative bad results for doing so, putting the general public at risk.
  
• 

  dubstepped

  Richard, you asked what I believe and that's what I answered. I made no claim to speak the the legality, nor did you ask that. I do not know Australian law. Maybe the WT gets off as far as that goes for the past, I don't know. From what I understood the ARC wasn't so much about punishment for the past as it was establishing the culture of religions that concerned them so that they could make things better for the future.

  I honestly don't care about the legalities unless somehow the WT is damaged monetarily. Nothing any legal system can do will get back the lives ruined due to their teachings and policies. They could win every legal case and still be a horrific paradise for pedophiles and immoral organization. Unless the legal system somehow shuts them down, which won't happen, it has no bearing on how truly awful they treated so many victims and they have pedophilia on their hands for allowing it to go unchecked.

  Moral and legal issues do intertwine as well. Often legalities address moral issues as a basis, but morals aren't based in legalities. You can't separate them entirely.
• 

  Fisherman

  Richard, if an adult child goes to his mother for help and confesses a crime to her; does the mother have a moral duty to report the crime to the police?
• 

  Finkelstein

  The court ruled that Watchtower nor the congregation had a duty to warn or a duty to protect.

  A little bit of spinning the situation ???

  So if Candace or her legal guardian was made aware that Kendricks had a previous conviction for Pedophilia, the WTS would be off the hook ???
  

  Maybe perhaps in a legal sense but on moral sense and that's why the laws need to be changed so that sexual predators don't use or exploit church environments where people are all deemed trustworthy and safe.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Finkelstein:

  I am not spinning the decision. That is literally what the court ruled. If you want to read the decision I have a copy of it I can send it to you.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  And I agree with you by the way. Things have to change but that involve new legislation. It involves getting the will in legislatures to make changes not just complaining and wishing things would get better.
• 

  Fisherman

  Costo has many members. If one of its members or employees punched you, also a member, while you were at a bar, can you sue Costco?

  Suppose you, a member of Coscto, got punched by another member of Coscto inside Costco, can you sue Costco?

  Suppose a Coscto employee working at the time inside Costco, punched you, can you sue Costco? Suppose he was outside the store having a lunch break when he punched you?

  Suppose a Costco employee inside the store banged a pallet jack into you and hurt you, Can you sue the store? Can you sue Costco if the store is owned by another corporation?

  Of course you can sue whenever you like, but is Costco liable?
• 

  Fisherman

  Things have to change but that involve new legislation

  And you can't take that to Court and sue for damages. The law is what it is and if you try to enforce your morality against the law, you are in trouble.
  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  That is literally what the court ruled. If you want to read the decision I have a copy of it I can send it to you.

  Not trying to debate that decision whats really important to all concerned is how select organizations in their self devised actions to internally handle situations of pedophilia within their own organizations exclusively by themselves .

  The question that remains is should publicly open organizations like religions decide upon themselves to make it known that a newly attending member has had a previous conviction of pedophilia among its existing members ?
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Finklestein:

  Would you only limit it to pedophiles? People who have abused drugs in the past can relapse and commit crimes against family and friends, should religions inform their members that a new member is a former drug addict? How about should a religion inform it's members that a new member is a schizophrenic, because they can cause harm to people around them at times? How about chronic gamblers because some steal from family and friends? Would you also limit it to just convicted people or people accused? How about people found innocent of the crime but some people still suspect it. If organizations are required to inform every member of what another member did, where does it end? There have even been constitutionality challenges against requiring sex offenders to register forever. Where is the limit for society to know what a person has done in their past.