PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Focus

  w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers ***
  Do Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer? -U.S.A. Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God's law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as 'unrighteous men.' Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be 'putting in as judges' men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.
  However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus' words: 'If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.' (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent. -1 Tim. 5:8. The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be taken in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God's name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul's counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected. -Rom. 13:3,4."

  So - the summary is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".

  A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant, he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.

  It follows that if the wrongdoer is not disfellowshiped (perhaps the molester shows "true repentance", or cannot be DF'd because of lack of evidence to the satisfaction of the Judicial Committee - the extra witness may be hard to find - or perhaps the poor victim is too scared of being spiritually molested by the interrogation of the elders and backs down), the victim must take no legal action at all - for it would then be legal action against a "fellow believer".

  But how, in the light of the above clear statement, can one explain these amazing claims from certain Watchtower lawyers?

  "Jehovah's Witnesses .. According to church lawyer Moreno, the system worked. Elders did their job, and victims and police did theirs', he said. 'What was the harm?' Moreno said. 'The report got made. You've got a teen, who has been molested, upset at the elders for not calling the police?' he said. 'You can call the police. You're the one injured. Who makes the laws? Not us. Don't blame us for the laws, please. Talk to the state legislators of Colorado.'" - Louisville Courier-Journal, Feb 4 2001.

  "A spokesman at the church's headquarters in New York said there is no prohibition or discouragement in going to legal authorities in the event of child abuse. '.. we do not prohibit or discourage the victim or the victim's parents from reporting child abuse to the authorities even if the alleged perpetrator is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.' - Paducah Sun, Jan 5 2001

  Please, can someone explain? I can hear the cries of tortured kids...

  Can it be that PEDOPHILES : WTS :: flies : honey ?

  --
  Focus
  (Puzzled Lamb Class)
• 

  Xandit

  This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and you know it. Anyone but a moron would know that this QFR relates to cases of a civil nature, you're not a moron and you know it, you're just dragging your coat to see what reaction you get. Another example of your continued mindless drivel. Why don't you go play in the street with your toys.
• 

  Focus

  > Anyone but a moron would know that this QFR relates to cases of a civil nature

  Firstly, the article - which I quoted in full - neither states nor implies that. On what do you base your "insight"?

  Secondly, the article stresses - more than once - that what is paramount is the interests of, and good name of, the congregation. Such standing would be even more damaged by a criminal case. So, very arguably, and wholly contrary to your ignorant, insolently-worded and unlearned opinion, the WTBTS's dictum can be seen to apply even more strongly to criminal matters!

  End of your argument.

  Just for form's case, though, I'll nail the coffin down right and proper: So, and thirdly - let us pretend that the average, brainwashed JW would interpret the article as meaning it is fine to cause criminal actions against fellow-believers to come about, but not acceptable to bring civil actions against such ones (LOL!). Now, a wrong may have both a civil and a criminal aspect to it. Heard of the two O.J. Simpson trials? Heard of private prosecutions, thicko? So the pedophile (often "Mr Average", 1.05 homes, 0.6 garages, 1.2 cars etc.) is in a position to be sued for damages by the victim. A lower standard of proof (on balance) would be required than a criminal action (beyond a reasonable doubt), and many choose such a route to obtain redress. In most legal systems, there is no requirement for the criminal action to occur first - or at all (the police may bring one up as a result of testimony in the civil action). The WTBTS ruling would prohibit the bringing of such (initiating?) civil action, and therefore constructively prevent whistle-blowing.

  > Another example of your continued mindless drivel.

  Quite.

  Notice those large holes that have appeared in the ground around you? They are what remains of your argument.

  --
  Focus
  (Suffering Idiots... Class)
• 

  Xandit

  People are sued in CIVIL cases. Civil prosecutions of criminal matters are so rare they don't even appear on the radar scope. Certainly it is not talking about reporting crimes or even accusations of crimes. This whole argument is errant nonsense. Your extrapolation concerning "the good name of the congregation" has nothing to do with criminal matters, and it is 'your' extropolation.

  You must have a real talent for suffering idiots otherwise you could never look in a mirror. You're just a loud mouthed fool who unfortunately has been gifted with the opportunity to spread his ignorance before a larger audience.

  I realize that talking to you is a waste of breath so I won't waste any more of my time or breath. You can go back under your rock and commune with yourself about how wonderful you are.
• 

  Focus

  > Civil prosecutions of criminal matters are so rare they don't even appear on the radar scope.

  (1) CIVIL PROSECUTIONS? That is a contradiction in terms. You expose your own ignorance, thanks.

  (2) You meant private prosecutions... An example of one in the US was the second O.J. Simpson trial. Another was in a case in England over a boy killed at a bus stop (the public prosecutor's office then took over the case). So, your radarscope must be ill-tuned, or wrongly positioned. I leave it to the reader to guess where it is

  So, we have established that you do not know very much.

  > Your extrapolation concerning "the good name of the congregation" [..] is 'your' extropolation.

  I see you did not even read the WTBTS article - "good show"!

  "Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration .. whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God's name would not be reproached .."

  What part of that don't you understand, Xandit? You know, the bits between quotation marks are a "quote", and the author thereof is the Watchtower Babble & Trappem Sicksiety. Re-read until you comprehend.

  Your lack of argumentation and abundance of unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable insults serves only to indicate the vacuity of either your position, or of your cranium's contents, or of both. Ask LDH to explain any difficult words.

  --
  Focus
  (LOL! Class)
• 

  Friend

  Focus

  Your answering one question should remedy the error you have made.

  If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?

  Friend
• 

  Xandit

  Friend, so nice to see you here. A breath of normalcy.
• 

  Xandit

  Wow, you found two cases out of a few billion. That's what I call representative and certainly something that would be addressed in a QFR.
• 

  Focus

  > If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?

  While I could well ask you "at what time" (as WT policy is known to change - if you fail to resist an armed rapist, are you guilty of fornication? - 8 changes on that one), I shall not prevaricate - the answer is "No."

  However, it is all in the wording of the question. Don't you enjoy beating your wife?

  So, let me ask <b>you</b> a question before you quickly (and incorrectly) convince yourself that I am in error:

  "If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it absolutely required by Watchtower policy for them to right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"

  If your answer is "Yes", Friend - provide the citation from WTBTS literature. Take it as a given that under the majority of systems of jurisprudence it is not an offense per se to fail to report the occurrence of a crime about which one has become aware.

  And if - despite these fair warnings - you reply "Yes", let me ask you a second question:

  "Then why did those scumbag Elders not report it, when they heard the testimony of the victim?"

  See the corner you are getting yourself into? LOL!

  Don't be too presumptuous with me - "see my error" indeed!

  And Friend - "Come out of the Great Whore!". I feel defiled speaking to one who, however reasonable-sounding - peddles filthy, disgusting Spiritual Pornography by day. OK?

  --
  Focus
  (Christian Sanctuary Class)

  Edited by - Focus on 2 March 2001 23:33:49
• 

  expatbrit

  Hi Friend:

  One question for you:

  Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?

  Just curious.

  Expatbrit.