for the jw apologists, they debate certain factors to down play all the recent sex abuse information in the jehovah's witness organization.
and there is so much focus on "two witness rule" and "parents can report" the "elders aren't legal authorities" and many other smoke screen issues.
a lot of these issues and discussion are down stream from what i believe to be the root of the issue.
I don't think that aspect is unwitting Bonsai. It's the end point for this chain of evidence.
It will be an absolute vindication of those who've been speaking out for so long and for those who took their cases to the commission. The organisation is being backed into a corner where they either are negligent or culpable. And in either case absolutely morally bankrupt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfj1ecde5fy.
i'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place.
or something along that line.
i can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases?
the governing body have painted themselves in a corner, so to speak.
if they acknowledge their response to abuse claims was insensitive, unloving and inadequate they are denying the belief that "god's way" is best and risk losing abuse cases.
if they stick with it and say it is "god's way according to the bible" they will be seen as cult leaders and risk losing abuse cases.
So someone who has been failed by their parents goes to men she trusts, and that excuses them for failing her too? Excuses them for inflicting even more trauma upon her with their judicial process? Excuses them for absolute inaction knowing that they were sending her home to a violent man who was sexually abusing her and her sisters? Excuses them for ignoring her sisters? Excuses them for ignoring the man's own confession? Excuses them for not even having the basic common sense to report this to the police?
Remember that this is a religion where the elders are your first place to go to when in need. That you have an obligation to report 'serious sin' to them. That to 'drag Jehovah's name through the mud' is frowned upon in the extreme and so presents a major obstacle to reporting to the police.
Yes, things should go to the police. That's the point. One failure does not excuse another. It is not good enough to try and shirk the responsibility which is taken on when you become an authority in someone's life.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
i'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place.
or something along that line.
i can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases?
i'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place.
or something along that line.
i can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases?
Surely that's why such things should be passed to child protection agencies and the police as the default? They're equipped and trained to deal with these cases. The elders are not.
Just for the record and because it needs to be said, false accusations of child abuse by children are very rare. Very rare. In fact, the opposite is true. Children are much more likely to minimise what has happened to them, or even not to disclose at all.
I am a qualified secondary school teacher, and part of my training was that if a child came to me and even hinted that they had been abused that I should take it seriously and pass it to someone more qualified to help the child directly. I also had a responsibility to make sure appropriate agencies were informed. The one thing which is an absolute 'no' is to suggest in any way you fail to believe a child, because if they've found the strength to talk to you about something like this, then it's your responsibility as a sensible adult to make sure that they are safe and get help.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
The implication I took from that is that the commission will come down on how they isolate themselves from reality as well as label everything negative as 'apostate lies'. There's been a few occasions when they've pressed witnesses on that aspect. The culture of the religion is a huge factor here, and it's going to be hammered.
@FadingTruth - some things have made me question some assumptions which are still there in me too.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.
when our ancestors first migrated out of africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone.
at that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the eurasian landmassneanderthals and denisovans.
as our modern human ancestors migrated through eurasia, they encountered the neanderthals and interbred.
