If they didn't know it was wrong, why take all the trouble to cover it up? -
Love it!
As I said on another thread, give these people enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
"back in the day people didn't know not to abuse kids"- a jw explanation for their abuse scandal
by purrpurr 49 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
LoveUniHateExams
-
ToesUp
Back in the day they also said "no blood transfusions....none. NOW, you can take blood fractions (where's the scripture?). Years ago the said, "no organ transplants." Now they are saying we didn't know we were supposed to stay away from kids? You have to ask yourself, how many lives have been affected or lives have ended due to WT's changing doctrine? How many lives over the years were cut short that could have been saved? How many people's lives have been cut short (suicide) or ruined because of WT policy on child abuse? WT's nonchalant attitude will come back to bite them? It will be a pleasure to watch WT and the GB squirm when they have to answer for their "policies."
-
dubstepped
So let's roll with it and say that JWs, or religion in general, didn't really understand the severity of child sexual abuse at the time. Then what is religion for? Aren't they supposed to be directed by Almighty God? Shouldn't religion be the beacon of moral light in this dark world? Or could it just be that religion is a bunch of malarkey that is always a few steps behind the secular world, waiting for discoveries to claim as their own?
-
Phizzy
Nathan Natas has given us a couple of Awake quotes, thanks for those, but I distinctly remember an Awake that dealt directly with Child Abuse in the early 1980's, the time that the JW in the O.P seems to be referring to.
Did they know nothing of this before the that Awake came out ? Nathan N has shown they did.
Someone with access to the W.T Library could perhaps locate other pre-1980 Articles , please ????
-
Mad Irishman
It is true that 30, 40, and 50 years ago that child abuse was never talked about, people thought children were potentially lying, and that it wasn't the issue that is it nowadays. Western society has come a long way about child abuse the last 50 years, because it used to be hush-hush, it was never brought to the authorities, and it was something taboo and shameful; and even when kids came forward their parents would never go to the police. I have non-JW's relatives who were abused by parents and priests 40 years ago and none of them went to the police. It was considered shameful for the family to even let it be known that it happened. That's just the way society was. I think we often forget this. Nobody was talking about child abuse 30 and 40 years ago. Not like now.
-
darkspilver
Hi Phizzy!
Nathan Natas has given us a couple of Awake quotes, thanks for those, but I distinctly remember an Awake that dealt directly with Child Abuse in the early 1980's, the time that the JW in the O.P seems to be referring to.
Awake! 22 June 1982 pages 3 to 12
The New Morality - How will it effect them?
Many say that the morality of the Bible is not practical, so they follow what they call “the new morality.” Has it, then, proved to be more practical? or less practical? To find the answer, this series of articles looks at the crop the new morality is harvesting, especially as it relates to children
The New Morality — Harvesting Its Crop
- The New Morality - Its effect on children
- 'Chickens' and 'Hawks' - "Just as it occurred in the days of Lot" Luke 17:28
- 'Baby Pros' and 'Kiddle Porn' - Pimps and pornographers prey on the young and helpless
- Rape at Home - Now even incest clamors for acceptance
- To End Child Abuse - The remedy works when practiced, not when preached
Pages 9 and 10 reference the article "Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy" that appeared in Time magazine of September 7, 1981 - interestingly this appears to have been removed without trace from Time magazine's archive: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601810907,00.html
-
darkspilver
For context, see this interesting item from 'Watching the World' that appeared in the Awake 8 March 1980 page 30 regarding the Episcopal Church under the heading 'Churches Pushing Porn?', second paragraph:
A book titled "The Sex Atlas," produced by an official publishing arm of the Episcopal Church, is being sharply criticized by two Episcopal priests who feel that "it seems to be an apology for any aberrant sexuality." Among other things, they point to passages in the book that seem to minimize child molestation and sex with animals. The book says that molested children may be more "disturbed by adult hysteria about a gentle and friendly 'child molester'" than by the molestation itself. Also, it predicts that in the future "our society will be much less preoccupied with sexual contact between humans and animals. After all, as long as the animal is not hurt or mistreated, there is no need for social interference." Apparently this religious publishing house does not consider God’s opinion on such matters to be relevant. — Ex. 22:19
The text of this book is available online in it's 1983 revised version
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/ATLAS_EN/atlas.htm
If you can stomach it, it would seem that the relevant sections are 367 to 368 and 466 to 469
FYI the full paragraph that the above 'Watching the World' quote comes from states in the revised 1983 edition:
Studies have shown that by far the greatest majority of convicted child molesters are relatives, neighbors, friends, or acquaintances of their victims. It has also been shown that physical injury occurs only very rarely {in about 2% of the cases). Any potential psychological damage is difficult to assess, and, if it occurs, it may very well be caused more by the reaction of parents and officials than by the sexual act itself. While children understand that coercion, intimidation and physical assault are bad,, they may be puzzled and even seriously disturbed by adult hysteria about a non-violent "child molester." It seems, therefore, that it should make a legal difference whether the children are hurt, forced, threatened, or annoyed, or whether they act as willing participants. If the latter cases are to be prosecuted at all, they should obviously carry much lighter sentences. Indeed, it may very well be unfair to treat them as crimes in the first place, It also seems only realistic to reduce the age of consent at least to the beginning of puberty. For both sexes the age of 14 seems to be the reasonable maximum as in the state of Hawaii and in many European and Asian countries. In many cases even lower age limits may be justified. (Actually, the whole notion of age limits for sexual partners deserves to be questioned. Today many people are arguing with good reason that age alone should not be the basis for making otherwise harmless and legal sexual behavior a crime.)
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/ATLAS_EN/atlas.htm
Please note that, as with much on the internet, I can not vouch for the accuracy of the text as reproduced at the above website - though I've got not apparent reason to doubt it and it which appears to be run by the author himself - http://www.sexarchive.info
-
Vidiot
Mad Irishman - "It is true that 30, 40, and 50 years ago that child abuse was never talked about, people thought children were potentially lying, and that it wasn't the issue that is it nowadays. Western society has come a long way about child abuse the last 50 years, because it used to be hush-hush, it was never brought to the authorities, and it was something taboo and shameful; and even when kids came forward their parents would never go to the police. I have non-JW's relatives who were abused by parents and priests 40 years ago and none of them went to the police. It was considered shameful for the family to even let it be known that it happened. That's just the way society was. I think we often forget this. Nobody was talking about child abuse 30 and 40 years ago. Not like now."
This.
It's funny... you'd think it would have occurred to people that those kinds of woefully misguided social attitudes would obviously foster an environment where sex offenders would f**king thrive...
-
Nathan Natas
Nice work, darkspilver!
Hi ho Spilver!
-
nugget
This is why the problem remains. I had a conversation with an elder who called on our house by mistake. When I raised the Australian Commission he said that JWs were not alone that other religions such as the Catholics were much worse.
I said to him that it was a shame that he seemed to be content to be the best of a bad lot when the religion prided itself on having a higher standard.
As the JWs live in the past and do not take any responsibility for bad things that happen then bad things will continue to happen.
