i've uploaded a video that discusses the dramatic jury verdict regarding the abuse suffered by candace conti, of which you are all aware.
if you're not yet familiar with the story for any reason, please check out my blog article on the link below.... http://jwsurvey.org/general-information/the-watchtower-punished-society-loses-legal-battle-over-child-abuse-case.
john hoyle suggested i get a youtube video out fairly quickly so that we can spread the message more effectively online.
It's a very well done video. I'll be tweeting about it.
A few statements seemed a little misleading, as has been discussed. I think it might help to place a little note in the description that the Watchtower Society was held civilly responsible, not criminally responsible. I think that should clarify the ambiguous statements. If apologists want to discuss it further in the comments section, that's fine. It will just give the video more attention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/calif-jury-awards-28m-in-_n_1602997.html.
getting all the usual apologist nonsense and people who have little understanding of the case or the way the society works.
it is good that the comments are still going though and there is sanity occasionally.
I made the very first comment on the article. I tried to address some of the expected objections. I think it may have helped for a short period of time.
Now, there are so many comments that I think people are just spouting nonsense without reading what others have said. A few may be willfully ignoring the facts to try to make the Society look better.
We have seen a lot of cognitive dissonance. However, I think it's good that many Witnesses are deeply toubled by this news. They may publicly defend the Society, but there is an internal struggle going on that may have a real effect in the future.
there was a youtube video that contained an excerpt of ciro aulicino's talk "you will be with me in paradise".
at some point it was removed by youtube.
it now shows the message, "this video has been removed as a violation of youtube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.".
There was a YouTube video that contained an excerpt of Ciro Aulicino's talk "You Will Be With Me In Paradise". At some point it was removed by YouTube. It now shows the message, "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content."
The video on YouTube doesn't contain any identifying information, but it is still embedded on one of my blogs with the original title of the blog post, and a warning about graphic content and some rather strange comments from Watchtower apologists. Here is the link. Just click on the video to see the message.
http://jehovahswitnessesvideo.blogspot.com/2010/01/excerpt-from-talk-by-watchtower.html?m=0
The video also had graphic pictures from Watchtower publications, so that may have been a factor in it being removed.
i posted on another thread that the ap report in the nyt was disappinting.
my thought is to write to the ombudsman or at least an editor.
the article was a joke when held against standard nyt reporting.. so many issues are raised that are applicable to all religions and wider societal concerns.
I think this would be incredibly valuable. We might be able to make it a little easier if we share ideas and research.
i haven't been on here much lately, but i read barb anderson's report on the court case in california the other day.
nice to see the borg finally getting what they deserve.. anyway, the daily mail has done a story about it and at the end you can give your comments.
i think there are a number of 'faithful witlesses' on there who are giving the "thumbs down" to any negative comments about the borg, including mine.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but this article could also use some comments and votes for the better comments.
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/06/a-church-policy-of-secrecy-or-confidentiality/
have been looking but cannot see anything.... hope they do before it's old news.... oz.
Thank you for bringing this to the media's attention. Australia is one country where this news should really be seen. If nothing else, it may bring some comfort to the victims there. It may also scare some of the elders into actually getting those background checks.
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/06/a-church-policy-of-secrecy-or-confidentiality/.
the article seems to suggest that some of the news reports about the case may be exaggerated.
although i can understand this perspective if you only consider what the media has said, the actual facts of the case are much worse than has been indicated by the newspapers.. i left a comment.
http://www.getreligion.org/2012/06/a-church-policy-of-secrecy-or-confidentiality/
The article seems to suggest that some of the news reports about the case may be exaggerated. Although I can understand this perspective if you only consider what the media has said, the actual facts of the case are much worse than has been indicated by the newspapers.
I left a comment. It might be good if more of us shared our perspectives on the case. (You don't have to register to comment, just a screen name and email is sufficient.)
the cats well and truly out of the bag and even the r&f are all going to know about it soon.. .
will they blame her?.
blame satan?.
Can you imagine how much media attention there would be if they took it to the Supreme Court? I would almost like to see that.
jw-media.org is strangely silent about the candace conti case.
they haven't said anything about it as of the time of this post.. i decided to call the media department at this number (718) 560-5600. i identified myself as a researcher who also has some websites.
i was asked for the web address of my website.
I think most organizations would prepare something ahead of time, even if it were just something like, "We disagree with the decision and are considering our options." However, I don't think they even want to admit it's true on one of their official websites. They know that many Jehovah's Witnesses won't believe it unless they confirm it.
The problem is that this is far too big to ignore. Their silence will be seen as an indication of guilt by many.
was looking to see if there was any "official" reaction from the wts on the verdict.... jw-media.org - nothing.
http://twitter.com/#!/jworg supposed twitter account, nothing, in fact i can't even see past tweets.. where are these guys?
head in the sand?
The official Twitter acounts (assuming they are official) are kind of funny. I think they want some social endorsement of their sites to help them rank in the search engines, but they don't really want to advertise them. All they would have to do is send a letter asking people to follow them and they could have millions of followers in a few days, but I think they are a little embarassed to even be on Twitter.
