Why lawsuits against WTS could be good for them

by Eyebrow 3 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Eyebrow

  I have been reading a lot about the lawsuits against local congregations and the WTS regarding sexual abuse, and how it is perceived that the organization actually shields the abuser.

  Well, in many cases, this is true. I don't believe that it is true in all. But, my point for this post is that these lawsuits brought forward will acutally be GOOD for JWs.

  Why? Well, it would be ignorant to claim that this is the only religion where abusers have been shielded. Wasn't it the lawsuits of the 80s and 90s that brought the worldwide attention of the Catholic Church's shielding abusing priests? While things seemed to have moved slowly with that church, I bet the priests today are a lot more careful about hanging out with kids undersupervised. And many parents' have become leary of trusting someone just because they are a member of the cloth.

  As more and more of these cases against abusing witnesses and the WTS hit the news, the organization will take a much harder look at how they are handling these situations. And hopefully, offer better training to the elders. In the state I live in, it is illegal for the abuse NOT to be reported...hence one of the current lawsuits against the local congregation.

  This is an opportunity for the organization to refine its polices because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Hey...if an abuser is reported and found guilty and sent to jail, then he is paying what is due to ceaser...if he ever does become repentent, well, let him be reinstated. But, the flock needs to be protected from these wolves, even the ones that may actually be diverted from such behaviour in the future.

  In the this same state it is also considered illegal for a parent to spank a child. I would never report anyone for a simple spanking; sometimes this is discipline that is appropriate. However, sexual abuse can NEVER be seen as a form of discipline, and I do not see how any person can feel that they can circumvent the law in this regard.

  I do not believe that the policies of the WTS are to shield the abuser. I think what is happening is that the the lines have been too blurred between protecting the society's name, over actually doing the godly thing and getting the evil from out of the congregation. This is a difficult thing for ANY religion to deal with. However, any organization that can actually practice what it preaches will be revered by those within and outside of the congregation.

  Inside of wasting time and money fighting the lawsuits that are legitimate (there will always be a few questionable ones) the legal department should work on coming up with a legal and moral solution to this dilemna. Hopefully, that is what they will do.
• 

  Kent

  Hey Eyebrow

  If the result of this is that the Watchtower stops protecting and hiding pedophiles, the result is what I believe we all hoped for. That's what this is all about, isn't it?

  I don't forget the victims, and I do NOT mean that isn't the MOST important issue, so please folks - don't attack me for "not caring about them". But going for the elders, the congregation and the Watchtower itself is to make the stop their practice in this respect. And if the results will be that they do - fine!

  You said:

  In the this same state it is also considered illegal for a parent to spank a child. I would never report anyone for a simple spanking; sometimes this is discipline that is appropriate. However, sexual abuse can NEVER be seen as a form of discipline, and I do not see how any person can feel that they can circumvent the law in this regard.

  It's just a little problem with this statement. While you feel violating the law in one respect, others might feel they can forget about another law. As reporting of pedofiles, as one example.

  As always, when someone feels it's up to him what laws to obey or not, we're a good step into anarchy. Accepting spanking of children is to accept SOME abuse of them, and where should the line be drawn?

  Would it be proper for an employer to have you spanked because you didn't do as told in your job? Because you fucked something up? If not, why? There has to be some dicipline there as well, right?

  The problem accepting abuse is the fact that it's even harder to draw a line where abuse is abuse. Children shows up in hospitals, bruiced, broken ribs, black eyes. And of course, the same people who has a brain so small they need to spank their children quite often has wifes wearing sun-glasses! POWER - that's what it's all about. And the friggin wife needs to know her place as well, right? After all, God himself told MAN to control her, and according to Paul she should just shut up anyway.

  And on we go.........

  Yakki Da

  Kent

  "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

  Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
  http://watchtower.observer.org
• 

  Eyebrow

  I knew the response for the spanking comment....that is why I put that in there...I like to hear other's views. Bruises, that is different you have to take action if you know that it is more that an occaisional spank (I know many won't agree with me here) As far as an employer goes....I should say that my idea of a spanking is one that does distracts the child when nothing else will work. It doesn't have to actually be painful to be effective. Employers are responsible for my upbringing, but parents are. The employer can fire me. Anyhoo, that is my defination of spanking, and I do respect those that believe differently on that defination.

  But any sign of sexual abuse to me...it really does boggle my mind how anyone can just shrug that off. Especially those that are entrusted with offering help to their flock. And the WTS need to decided whether they want to be considered actual clergy or not, because they do use that as an excuse often even though they claim elders are not clergy.

  And you are right...the victims are of the upmost concern here. I just hope that these lawsuits will cause an attitude change so that there will be less victims in the future,
• 

  Anchor

  : I do not believe that the policies of the WTS are to shield the abuser

  Please take the time to read the many threads here on the subject. Many of them are very well informed. There are very enlightened policies in effect in "Christendom" that should be adopted by JWs; it seems the light got brighter for them before Watchtower.

  WTS claims to be directed by God. If so, God's policies of two witnesses are seen to be unenlightened, its entire judicial process a failure. The code of silence in God's organization is seen to produce rotten fruits, ruining lives in the process. Elders live in a culture that dictates they should NOT report and should investigate every tiny detail about the crime.

  The Society's policies on Child Blood Abuse (CBA) kills innocent children by letting them bleed to death.

  People may change their attitude, but do not miss the point: the Society is being led kicking and screaming to a change of policy. It is not voluntary by any means. They are going to point to the lawsuits as evidence of persecution by "opposers of the preaching work." It will not be acknowledged as the passionate work of reformers who post on this board.

  Welcome eyebrow!

  Anchor