by Anders Andersen 85 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Then, there’s the question of how old these cases are.
Are they digging back from the 80s, 70s, 60s, when the world at large was ignorant of child abuse?
Its worth critically analyzing the context of these alleged 300 cases. How old are the victims? Are they adults, or children?
RC needs to have their already dubious claims scrutinized.
What does that have to do with anything? Your 'arguments are nothing more than unfounded hypothetical and empty speculations.
Doubter's patriarchal-protecting views require the oxygen of disagreement to survive.
More ad hominem attacks. This is how I know my arguments are valid.
If my arguments are speculation, RC can easily clear this up by disclosing at least the age range of the claimants, or if they are children or not. Or if there are any children making any claims at all.
How old the cases are tells us if “coverups” are going on now, or in the recent past. This is absolutely critical to the claims of RC, and they flatly say these alleged “mishandlings” are currenly happening. It will validate or invalidate their claims.
You are LYING if you say someone is covering up child sex abuse now, and then as evidence, cite Regan-era child abuse complaints.
Since then, government and organization policies have changed dramatically, and hence, no one can be judged for what happened in the 80s, based on modern day standards that simply did not exist back then.
As pointed out before, the habit of people like them are to cite outdated and replaced policies, and say they are current practice. That is done for the specific purpose of attempting to make old claims appear to reflect modern practice.
RC needs to have their already dubious claims scrutinized
If I recall correctly, Reclaimed Voices petitioned the JW to cooperate in an investigation of these report.
JW refused.
RV then the petitioned the government to put the spotlight on their claims. The government asked JW to investigate.
JW refused.
RV really wants their claims scrutinized.
The only ones who want to avoid any investigation are the JW.
You do not cooperate with what you feel is an unjust investigation.
At any rate, when the alleged abuse happened, how old the claimants are, and who the perpetrators were/are is basically the linchpin to the validity of RV’s assertions.
my arguments are speculation, RC can easily clear this up by disclosing at least the age range of the claimants, or if they are children or not.
(Sorry but I can't help this 'ad hominem' ) - You utter goof ball...of course most of them are not children...how on earth could children go to RV with Witness parents?? It doesn't make them any less victims!!!!!
Since the burden of proof is on them, if they have not produced any children, and are apparently hanging their hats on 30 year old cases, then they have not met their burden. It is not the responsibility nor obligation of the organization to produce anything to dispel unproven claims.
This is even more a problem for them if the abusers weren’t even jws, or if the abuse took place in their homes. We know the vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by relatives, and trusted friends and family, and in the home.
Since jws have literally no programs that inherently put children under the care of the organization, or under the care of non-related adults, the opportunity to abuse while involved in an organization-sponsored activity is slim to none. During the meetings/assemblies/conventions, families sit together.
This is why no one in the 140 year history of jws have been able to legitimately prosecute in court, the organization as an organization, for their alleged coverups.
Its simply not set up in anyway that separates children from parents.
These truths will come to light if an investigation is honest, and transparent.
Bobby, I mean, Doubter, said the following: "they have not produced any children, and are apparently hanging their hats on 30 year old cases, then they have not met their burden."
Not true. As Dio said, kids with JW parents would not be allowed to go to RV.
Also, the age of the victims does not matter. They are still victims, and collectively potentially a sign that at some point there might have been a systemic problem within the org. Something that the investigation will look into.
Speculative language such as “potentially” and “might have been” is exactly why the age of the victims, if the abuser was a witness, and where it happened, matters.
If the abuser was a non-witness family member and it happened in the abuser’s home, then how can the organization be held liable at all? They can’t.
If the victim is 60 years old and is recounting abuse from his teenage years, then how can any government scrutinize any group based on standards that were non existent at the time? Historical context matters when you are accusing folks of breaking laws that didn’t exist.
These are the fruits of critical analysis — questions that need to be considered and answered.
