so, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-jw, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?.
i'm probably around a 6. i have the view that jws are a nothing marginal religion.
if i hadn't been brought up as one i doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.. the reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that i have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but i think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.
Really? You're finding fault because I said that children who are sexually abused within the Organization of JWs, then not believed because of the JW misapplication of the 2-witness rule, are innocent?
I objected to your description - not the argument. You used the term to elicit a particular response. Whether unconsciously or not. It was unnecessary.
so, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-jw, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?.
i'm probably around a 6. i have the view that jws are a nothing marginal religion.
if i hadn't been brought up as one i doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.. the reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that i have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but i think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.
...innocent children....
When you start using terms like that you lose me. Can a child who's been the victim of abuse be anything other than innocent?
You've used the term for effect to bolster your argument. It's unnecessary.
On the whole though I agree, the witnesses have played down child abuse (and other crimes) so as not to 'damage the name of jehovah'. I don't think they're alone in that though. Lots of religions and organisations have been guilty of the same thing. That however, is no excuse whatsoever and that's why I'm not as apathetic to them as I would have been had they had proper safeguarding policies in place.
I do believe they are slowly changing though.
so, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-jw, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?.
i'm probably around a 6. i have the view that jws are a nothing marginal religion.
if i hadn't been brought up as one i doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.. the reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that i have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but i think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.
Why does 10 have to be related to a "nutjob apostate?" Why can't 10 be ex-JWs who are telling the truth about the Organization? There are plenty of those on Youtube and they are well worth watching.
Well mark yourself as a 10 then, I haven't got a problem with that.
I will stay away from you at parties though. ;)
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
Landy there is a case being fought here in the UK - the charity commission against the Moston congregation who brought adult victims (who were pursuing that the perp be disfellowshipped) face to face with the perp and only then was he disfellowshipped. when they were brought face to face with him the vicitms were able to question him and show up very clearly that he had been lying to the elders.
Sounds about right for a kangaroo JC, but there was a time, years ago, when they would have a child victim in the same room as the accused. I don't (I hope) think that happens any more.
so, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-jw, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?.
i'm probably around a 6. i have the view that jws are a nothing marginal religion.
if i hadn't been brought up as one i doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.. the reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that i have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but i think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.
So, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-JW, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?
I'm probably around a 6. I have the view that JWs are a nothing marginal religion. If I hadn't been brought up as one I doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.
The reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that I have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but I think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.
If it wasn't for that I would be entirely comfortable in my apathy and it would be a 5.
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
Ignore Richard Oliver. He and Fisherman are just here to bait you. Thanks.
Bait you into what? Accepting a dose of realism?
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
The government can do very little in reality.
As Ruby says, the biggest point of pressure will be public opinion. It's something the WTS need to sort from the inside out, and the more their poor safeguarding policies become known, the more pressure they will have on them to change them. Which in all honesty, I think they are doing, albeit very slowly.
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
....and bringing victim and perp into confrontation.
Does that still happen? Please tell me it doesn't. :(
i am not wanting to start a fight.
i just want to hear what people think.
honestly and realistically, what do you think the australian government will do, with watchtower, when they receive the full arc report?.
Sooner who later, when posters innocently reply to Richard Oliver's OP, he will re-enter the fray and start pin-pricking posters' replies so that he can - once again - impose his strongly pro-JW organization views. He will sprinkle a bit of "legalese" here and there and use an "I'm only asking" mantra.
Then Fisherman will join in and posters will realize the "information-seeking" OP is just another way for these two men to further their well-exposed pro-JW organization views.
So what if someone does have pro-JW views? Is it your job to censor them?
My mother has pro-JW views. It's a good job I don't treat her IRL the way anyone with even remotely pro-JW views gets treated on here.
i have some tricks to play.
i know it may sound childish but i feel that creating havoc and forcing the memorial to be postponed will be the highlight of the night!
wish me luck!.
Was going to comment but undercover said it perfectly.
