Jehovah?s Witnesses seek suit dismissal

by Purza 21 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  gumby

  At the time, Glew was a ?ministerial servant? who counseled church members and supervised the care of Jehovah?s Witness children while their parents proselytized door-to-door, the suit alleges.

  This man had a Daycare center for the children while the dubs parents went door to door without their kids? Please! They always have to foul up at least one thing in the media so the dubs can pick it apart.

  In a formal response, the attorneys for the church don?t deny Glew molested the four plaintiffs while he was a member of the church. But they said Glew never held a position of authority in the church and the religious organization isn?t responsible for his crimes.

  "and the religious organization isn?t responsible for his crimes".

  Oh really? So only elders and servants have to answer for their sins within Jehovahs Organisation. That's a new one I haven't heard them use before. Lying bastards!

  Gumby
• 

  heathen

  Good point Gumby and avengers . They will eagerly claim a clergy class to avoid paying taxes but in a case like this by God these people are not even qualified to look after kids .
• 

  Satanus

  Come on guys, it says that he was a ministerial servant. It was the wt's responsibility that he meet those requirements.

  S
• 

  Sunspot

  Just when I think that the WTS can't do much more that surprises me.........something like THIS comes out!

  Despicable creeps.
• 

  badboy

  ARE THEY SAYING IN EFFECT;LEAVE YOUR CHILDREN WITH US AT YOUR OWN RISK
• 

  heathen

  I think it's even more disgusting when you look at the guilt trip they put on women to do the field service so they can sell magazines . I mean jeezzzzus H cahhhhhrist how can people just ignore the facts that have been publically made available on child predators , the people that are most found to be child molesters are people that are trusted or even family members .
• 

  Gerard

  Attorneys for the Jehovah?s Witnesses said the acts took place before California law required clergy to report such abuses and that the lawsuit violates the church?s freedom of religion to deal internally with a church member.

  Child abuse is child abuse regardless of the date it was done. A criminal act supersedes any religious privacy!

  Freaking lawyer...!
• 

  badboy

  Let me see;Freedom of religion means;we don't have to report child molesters to the police;we are above the law.
• 

  Jim_TX

  "Let me see;Freedom of religion means;we don't have to report child molesters to the police;we are above the law."

  Yes, plus...

  We do not vote for these laws.

  We will use these laws whenever they are convenient for us.

  We will skirt around these laws when they are _not_ convenient to us, or scream "persecution!" if taken to task for violating them.

  Regards,

  Jim TX

  P.S. I think someone should 'locate' this fella who supposedly cannot be 'found'. I'm sure his life could be made miserable if it were made public where he lives.
• 

  SloBoy

  Purza,

  I live near this area and have heard about this abuse for some time. Good to see they're finally moving ahead with the case. Though these house-trained, lap-dog WBTS lawyers use all the legal cunning at their disposal, what really jumps at you is the lack of TRUE compassion for the victims. This is the real witness for the public!