there was a time when the abuse issues in the catholic church were first starting to be exposed.. now, they were fully aware that they had the exact same issues that they too were covering up.. what did they choose to do?.
they could have "learnt" and said "man, that looks bad and we know we have the same problem - but at least we can learn something and put processes in place to make sure we clean up our act".. they could have done nothing themselves but refrained from criticized the catholic church knowing that they had the same skeletons in their own closet.. what did they actually do?.
they wen't full guns criticizing the catholics for something they knew they were completely guilty of as well, painting themselves as 'the good guys where this sort of thing would never happen' but the only processes they put in place were to tighten up how cover-ups were managed and to make sure the local elders knew how to silence any incidents.
Good points in the OP.
I remember back in the '80s when the Catholic Church thing was just coming out, all of us JWs would point at what was happening as "proof" that the RCC was "false religion" and weren't we glad to be part of a "clean organization" without such problems.
Well now we all know better.
last week we had the cos visit and i wanted to share my experiences with you.
some background info on me, i knowttatt and am fully awake, my wife also knows my doubts and read a few things on the internet but she is still 100% commited to the truth, saying everything on the apostate sites are lies.
so right now i am in just to keep the status quo.
the substitute CO brought the topic about child abuse in Australia up
Well that's curious. He'll never make regular CO acting like that!
Now the real CO tried to shoot it down, saying that the elders would never tell the parents not to go to the
police and the allegations have no claim.
Damage control. And yet, instead of not discouraging people from going to the authorities, the elders should be reporting it themselves.
confidentiality.
how many times does ron de rooy state the importance of jehovah's witnesses being confidential?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qucn5azi5gk&index=17&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui.
This is just another example of classic Orwellian doublespeak on the part of the WTBTS and its representatives.
In JW-land "confidentiality" really means: cover-up.
firstly, thank you to anyone who is in support of this rc.
no one has shown anything but great interest and empathy for those who were abused.. i don't know who this simonsays character is though and i find him to be very rude and ignorant.
it takes all kinds to make the world go round i suppose.. today i was contacted by a staff member of the royal commission.
Umberto, that's fantastic. Keep us posted!
my wife and i planned on fading but the elders now want a shepherding call and we are just done.
i know that many play the game to try to stay in, but i'm not a game player and neither is my wife.
our families already shun us because we reached out to a disfellowshipped family member.
dubstepped: Our families already shun us because we reached out to a disfellowshipped family member.
Nothing quite screams cult as does behavior such as this!
What a graphic way to describe the mixed emotions you're feeling. Hang in there, it get's better.dubstepped: We feel a mixture of relief and the desire to throw up.
i have been mulling over the options that the wt has to take in regard to child abuse.
in my mind there are the following ones:.
1. overhaul their entire system, and apologize to all abuse victims.
They will have to make certain changes, which they will proudly announce as "New Light" as if they came up with it themselves.
The really need to get rid of the "Two Witness Rule" in relation to allegations of the abuse of minors. It's actually wouldn't be hard since the majority of JWs would accept any Nu-Belief that GB comes up with. But I think that even the GB members are convinced that "it's from Jehovah" and we have to follow it. When they lose enough money, they'll find a way to justify that that too "is from Jehovah" and they'll lose it.
Additionally, they need to instruct all elders to be mandated reports even when it's not required by law. I doubt they'll ever do that, but it is what should happen. Hell, even Dr. Monica Applewhite advocated that.
Also, they need to quit requiring that victims of sexual abuse face or confront their abusers. Again, I don't see how they'll justify it scripturally because it does come from their ever precious "book," but this policy, practice and procedure also needs to go.
The irony will be that if the WTBTS makes any of these changes it will be because they were forced to by secular authorities and upon the advice of a Catholic woman. Of course they'll still claim it was "New Light from Jehovah" and his alleged Holy Spirit.
If they GB told the average JW to eat a shit sandwich, they'd gladly do it with a smile!
the gb needs to be subpenaed to testify just like losch was.
the commission needs to subpena each one individually and make separate fines when each one refuses.
Didn't they try that with one or more of the GB members during the Unthank hearings a few years ago?
As I recall, the GB just ignored the subpoena.
Maybe someone here can find a link ...
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
To the OP, maybe a better way to frame the issue is to say that it is unscientific to be dogmatic about things which can neither be proved nor disproved.
And yet, there remains this truth: There is no good reason to believe things about which there exists no evidence.
Consider what Bertrand Russell opined on the subject:
There can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true! … Either a thing is true or it isn't. If it is true you should believe it, and if it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't you should suspend judgment.
It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Morpheus: while I appreciate the teacher in you attempting to correct my spelling, thats a war long over and lost. If auto correct dosent catch an error im not going to either
Got it!
One of my best friends and fellow teachers has a coffee cup on his desk that reads, "I'm silently correcting your grammar."
I've not yet learned the subtle art of silent correcting.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
FMF: Or does it just mean they have replaced ignorance with knowledge.
The answer to your rhetorical question is of course obvious. And yet knowledge is always provisional and contingent upon further data.
I like the way you expounded on the Carl Sagan quotes I posted.
Morpheus: Which is where the label "athiest" [sic] gets dicey.
Exactly my point. BTW, it's "atheist," not "athiest."
