Larc,
:Duns,
Regarding the girl in your home: First of all, if her fate is none of my business, then you should not have brought up the subject in the first place.:
I utilized the example of the young girl in my home to demonstrate how children sometimes misapprehend certain existential phenomena that presents itself to their consciousness. I closed by assuring you the matter had been resolved. Yet you chose to seize on the fact that I made no comment in my next email. I considered the matter closed as far as you were concerned. Thus, there was nothing wrong with me using the little child's words to make a point.
:You stated that I make snap judgments. I think it would be better to say that I look for diagnostic indicators. I think for a girl to say a man raped her when he didn't is an "indicator" that she has emotional problems.:
For the record, the young lady staying with us is not a Witness. Her mother leads a very sordid life that I utterly detest, and she has been in and out of relationships with all kinds of men. (The girl sadly told me she had ten fathers!) Admittedly, I think the lass does have some type of emotional problems. It does not mean that she has been raped, however.
:Going to the authorities: One of the major warning signs that a child has mental problems is a change in affect and personality. I did not suggest going to the authorities. I suggested taking the child to a doctor. Either you misread me or you consider doctors to be "the authorities." Perhaps you believe, like many elders, that the appropriate theraputic intervention for mental problems is more time in service and more Watchtower study.:
Let's review what you actually said. You started out asking about a child being "depressed" after coming home from a brother and sister's house. You did not initially use the term "affect," but later resorted to it. So who is being sloppy here? Then you suggested that IF the child comes home "depressed," he or she might need to see a professional. I used the word "authorities" because normally if one takes his or her child to a doctor of any kind, there is a good chance the authorites WILL get involved. What is more, taking your child to a clinician or doctor because he or she comes home "depressed" or has undergone a severe change in "affect and personality" is not sound reasoning IMHO. You cannot rightly infer that just because little Suzi visited brother and sister S, and is now "depressed," brother and sister S must have forced her to engage in some type of untoward behavior. I think a parent, who reasoned this way, would be acting way too hastily.
It is not sound to argue as follows:
(1) The streets are wet when it rains
(2) The streets are now wet
[ergo]
(3) It must be raining.
There is a way to resolve the problem you raise. But I do not think your proposed solutions represent either viable or suitable alternatives for the WTS.
For the record, I have no problem with a child seeing a therapist, if circumstances necessitate that he or she do so. However, you need to remember that we are supposed to be talking about alleged pedophiles (not cases where a child has suffered abuse).
:Bergman: Duns, for a man who prides himself in logic, this is very ignorant, indeed. The fact that I know Bergman has nothing to do with anything. We are not identical twins or clones. We have very different beliefs.:
Did you not say that you wrote the foreword to one of Bergman's works? You tell me. If you did, you are not simply guilty of knowing Bergman. You have seemingly put your stamp of approval on his shoddy, ersatz scholarship.
:Privacy in the congregation: if the congregation harbors a pedophile it is society's business. These criminals are not likely to keep their crimes within the confines of the Kingdom Hall.:
Who said anything about harboring pedophiles? I asked for proof that Sydlik, Greenlees and others were ever REALLY pedophiles in the first place. When one cannot produce evidence of unsubstantiated rumor, I'm not surprised when he or she attempts to deflect attention from the REAL topic.
:Analogy to murder: Duns you're getting sloppy. I did not make an analogy. Reread my words. I said that on a continuum of bad behavior, pedophelia is closer to murder than it is to cigarette smoking. This leads to a question. Once the elders have determined that someone is a pedophile, what should be the punishment?:
But you DID make an analogy. You typed:
<<<<:Duns,
There are a number of issues beyond basic theology that should be handled within the congregation. These would be matters that are forbidden by the religion, but are not matters that are legislated as criminal by the state. An example would be cigarette smoking. It is a disfellowshipping offense, but not a criminal offense. At the other extreme is murder, which is both a congegational and a criminal offense. I certainly wouldn't think that you would condone the elders who harbored a murderer. Perhaps you would. I am not sure how far you are willing to extend your loyalty to your organization.>>
The comparison that you drew was between harboring a murderer and harboring a pedophile. Your signifiers bear witness against you.
We evidently concur on false accusation, the real issue here, so I'll skip that part.
:Organizational life: I don't have to reread your words to know what you wrote. You wrote that the organization and the individual have a symbiotic relationship. I think you acknowledge in your last statement, that when the organization is threatened, the individual is expendable.:
Let's review the comments you made, then look at my reply.
Larc:Remember one fact of organizational life: the organization is more important than the individual.:
Duns:I believe there is actually a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the organization. In other words, there is a dialectic interplay between the two modes of being as they vitally subsist for one another.
Maybe a misunderstanding resulted because we both employed terse phrases to delineate our concepts. I will now expand on what I meant when I articulated the terms above.
According to one of my dictionaries, "symbiosis" can refer to "a close prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species." It can also denote: "A relationship of MUTUAL benefit or dependence."
I think Nicholas Wolterstorff speaks of the "symbiotic relationship" between the art critic and the public. One depends on the other and in some way benefits from the other. Neither the critic nor the public is expendable in this symbiotic relationship: They both need each other in order to subsist.
Similarly, the organization--any organization--is dependent on individuals within the association. Neither is really more important than the other one, as even the apostle Paul recognizes, when he dictates his elegant rhetorical discourse on the Christian body in 1 Corinthians 12.
Therefore, I did not say that the organization takes precedence over the individual. A symbiotic relationship indicates the very converse to be true. Like Covey, I think that the optimal intersubjective situation is one of interdependence. How could you think that I placed the organization above the individual in a relational sense then?
Dan
Duns the Scot
