Friend blundered on Mar 10, 2001 at 12:50:04 AM:
views .. I don’t think Focus’ and mine are all that far apart either
Our views are as similar as are those of pedophile and of victim; we look at the same reality, but.. we have different true agendas.
if [Focus] were not apparently so determined to avoid my point for the sake of salvaging his own initial mistakeI made no mistake. If you choose to use, in a most critical place, a term like "policy" (in your first question to me, for example) without defining what that term means when applied to a revisionist, weasel-wording and deceitful organization such as the Watchtower, you display only your own naivete at conducting a logical debate and deserve what followed. I knew what that would be and was laughing my head off as you charged in.
The March 8th Awake of 1993 does make the recommendation that victims of rape (rape is sexual abuse!) should be encouraged to report the act to authorities.. assertions that that recommendation is made to the exclusion of JW perpetrators are just plain absurd —there is no such exclusionary language in that article or anywhere else regarding such serious criminal offenses. Such an assertion (not that you made it) is no more than reading a conclusion into the text!Friend hearkens back yet again to same ONE quote. The question is whether or not a JW (possibly, a child victim of a pedophile, or one who was such a victim when a child) would apply the counsel in the Awake! AND override the counsel in the QFR I first quoted. Let us examine this.
Now, of course for his own convenience, the DECEITFUL F IEND wishes us to believe that a JW would BOTH:
(a) read the counsel in Awake! about rape-reporting and apply it also to cases where the perpetrator was a JW (not an illogical step, as while the article does not mention JW-perpetrators it makes no attempt to specifically exclude them) AND
(b) read the counsel in the QFR about doing NOTHING that might bring reproach on the good name of the congregation, but decide to ONLY apply that advice when the matter giving rise to the trouble was a CIVIL matter (even though the article makes no attempt to specifically exclude criminal cases).
Keep re-reading until the penny hits the kerb: F iend's double-standard is amazing, isn't it? Of course, he dresses it up to conceal its nature, but that is his essential position! LOL! CAUGHT RED-HANDED!
Here are some of the reasons why the JW is likely to do just the opposite of what F iend postulates (again, Proof by Assertion – LOL!) he will:
1. As without a question charges of child molestation would damage the congregation's alleged 'good name' far more than would civil cases, the advice in (b) would be taken to apply EVEN MORE STRONGLY (rather than not at all, as F iend would have you believe!) in a criminal case.
2. My QFR in FOUR places made it clear that one was not to spoil the name of the Watchtower by involving outside authorities – and language chosen suggested this was a Fundamental Principle; the Awake! mentioned its point about reporting just once, in passim, and nowhere suggested that it was a key principle.
3. At the time the Awake! was written, JWs comprised about 1 person out of every 1,200 people on earth – and, by JW propaganda, almost certainly the JW is the most peaceable, law-abiding, moral and decent of those 1,200 people! It is therefore most unlikely that it would even cross the mind of the reader that the rapist might be a JW: the QFR was specific as it applied only to intra-JW problems.
4. The R&F have grown wary of listening to counsel from the FDS on the subject of rape, as on the question as to whether the attacked woman was scripturally required to resist, the shameful Watchtower has flip-flopped nearly a dozen times: another reason why the QFR might prevail.
5. R&F JWs are trained not to improvise and commit overt acts without explicit, unambiguous and uncontradicted (lest they get caught in one of the dozens of rule conflicts) authorization: it comes with the territory of being meek and submissive – so the 'do not report' of the QFR prevails over the 'do report' of the Awake!, as the former is passive and less likely to bring down trouble on the head of the JW.
Do you know another religion that, as a matter of policy, takes it upon itself to follow a member’s moves in order to send warning letters to other congregations about the individual?I know of many! The Gestaporeligion, for one. Or haven't you realized what made Hitler turn against the JWs (despite the overtly anti-semitic, pro-Nazi material disseminated by Brooklyn) so early is that he saw in them an intolerable RIVAL? The Fuehrer knew instinctively that there was no room in the New Germany for another fascist, anti-democratic, totalitarian, extremist, interfering fundamental cult that demanded total, unquestioning loyalty. The Nazis and the Jehovah's Witnesses were too similar in hosts of details (yes, there were key differences too!).
You are beginning to sound as wild as Focus’.Yet another telling apostrophe, F iend?
I do not know why I am continuing to refute this proven rascal and to continue to highlight his intellectual deceit and profound misconduct. Was this a court case, a judge would have stopped proceedings long ago, on the grounds that I have more than proven my case already. So, it nmust be that I enjoy this.
To F iend: "GET OUT OF THE FILTHY WHORE!"
--
Focus
(Cool? Class)