My thoughts on the WTBTS answers to the RC. I just have to say first off. I read the whole thing and man I'm pissed! They are SO arrogant!!!! They did not agree with them on one single point. Not one!
And I want to comment on the overall tone. When you read their whole response and you get a real feel for them, you get a sense of where they are coming from, you know what I mean. Well, they are not concerned about the victims. They do not show interest in children. They do not show an interest in "continuous improvement". They were not there to learn. They were not there to brain storm. Their response was completely one sided and one sided only. Their main thought was "REBUTTAL". All they wanted to do was argue with the RC. It really sounded to me like when the 8 year old is giving mom excuses why he didn't clean his room. It's not my fault because.... Any way, here's some of my take-aways.
4.6 Child sexual abuse is a matter of concern to any right thinking parent or adult,and to see it only as an “institutional” problem would be to miss an essentialtruth: that much abuse occurs within families. The reasons why one personwithin a family might abuse another vary. That is not to say that institutionscannot be helpful in addressing the problem, but it helps to put the responseof institutions into context.- Really? is the GB trying to teach the RC here about child abuse? It's actually the other way around.
8.2 The Commission’s report will be read by many in Australia and around theworld as it would seem to be both the largest and most thorough inquiry of itstype anywhere in the world. Its views will no doubt influence futuregenerations of Australian legislators and others.- This has got the GB really scared, I think. And too bad for ya!
9.17 ...The faith is not an agency or instrumentality of governmententrusted with the responsibility for the supervision and care of children.- Good comment! Now the truth really comes out. We're not responsible.
9.367 The policies and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not require anyindividual who no longer wants to be subject to their “rules and discipline” toformally disassociate themselves. They can simply stop associating with thecongregation. Such individuals are not shunned.- LIE.
9.374 For example, Mr O’Brien stated:284 “They don’t have to disassociate themselves to stop associating. They don’t lose their spiritual or familialassociation by being inactive.”- LIE #2
The RC wrote:F70 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s policy……. is adopted and enforced in order to prevent people from leaving the organisationand thereby to maintain its membership.
to which WTBTS replied:(e) it is an unfounded, unfair and unnecessary attack upon a voluntary faithbasedorganisation that is law-abiding and does much to promote lawfulconduct within Australia and around the world through its exertions; and(f) if the finding could not be made in a Court of law, it ought not be madeby the Commission.
If I could guess what WT will do in the end, as far as what they will actually change, then 10.4 sums it up. (nothing):10.4 Jehovah’s Witnesses have demonstrated that they make adjustments wherenecessary and within the confines of their Scriptural beliefs. Severalexamples were given during oral testimony of what Jehovah’s Witnesses areprepared to do: for example, to review procedures, to consider whetherprocedures and practices should be consolidated into one document, and toseek additional independent legal advice.
