by listen 149 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
3W,
It's one thing make these kind of statements hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. It's quite another thing to do so in person.
You're in Texas, right? Did you know there's a little get together of members from this board happening in Dallas this weekend? Why don't you show up at the fest and discuss this? If you go, I may show up myself, for the fireworks.
child abuse policy of other religions
Who has a better policy?"Below is just a sampling of the steps numerous religious institutions have taken to protect children from being abused. By clicking on the links provided any observer can see that the churches have gone to great lengths to openly discuss abuse issues and establish policies to prevent abuses from taking place.
Interestingly, by Googling each church along with "child abuse policy," or any similar phrase, the results are readily forthcoming. However, try Googling the Watchtower's child abuse policy and see what your search results turn up. For example, here is a link to a well defined child abuse policy for a Methodist church that requires criminal background checks for day care workers etc.
http://www.ltumc.org/pages/safetypolicy2.html Here is a link to a Methodist conference that discusses their child protection policies. They seem to have gone to great lengths to ensure that children are not abused.
http://www.txcumc.org/SafeSanctuaries/SafeHome.htm The Baptist church also has a well-defined policy that is aimed at preventing abuse.
http://www.baptist-atlantic.ca/articles/abusepolicy.htm The American Baptist Church has a similar detailed screening policy that is aimed at preventing abuse.
http://www.nationalministries.org/children/policy.cfm The Lutheran Church has a similar child abuse policy
http://www.synodresourcecenter.org/admin/personnel/background_checks/0001/abuse.html Here are the minutes of a Presbyterian elders meeting that lays out a very comprehensive child abuse policy.
http://www.opmh.org/sessionminutes/session040823.htm The Anglican Church in Ontario has a clearly defined policy that informs parishioners to call the police.
http://www.ottawa.anglican.ca/abuse.shtml Please take note of the Anglican policy that states: WHAT DO I DO IF THE VICTIM IS A CHILD? The protection of children is a matter of fundamental concern. In Ontario all professionals are bound by law to report suspected child abuse to the Children's Aid Society. The professional's duty to report overrides the privilege of confidentiality."
Those comments above in italics are the words of one of the biggest critics of the child abuse policy of the WTS. When looking at each link he provides what do we reallly find? Here is the truth about each one of them.
Methodist Policy: This policy and its provisions shall apply to all persons including all paid and unpaid leaders, whether lay or clergy who have any direct or indirect contact with children and youth who participate in any activities or events sponsored by the Texas Conference.
Only protects children against ones in charge. Not against Joe Methodist the child molester.
Baptists policy: Policy for Child Abuse Prevention All persons desiring to work with children/youth through any ministry (current or future) of this church, must first meet the following qualifications.
Does not protect child against Joe Baptist the child molester.
American Baptist Policy: the Board of Educational Ministries adopted a recommended policy for churches and regions to consider as they recruit and screen volunteers and staff who work with children, youth, and/or other vulnerable populations.
Does not protect children against Joe American Baptist the child molester.
Lutheran policy: it is prompted by awareness of problems in other churches that have allowed for the abuse of children by paid and unpaid child and youth workers in the church,
Does not protect child against Joe Lutheran the child molester.
Presbyterian policy: Employees and volunteers who undertake the special responsibility of working with the children of OPMH shall not violate the trust of the responsibility by engaging in acts of sexual misconduct.
Does not protect children against Joe Presbyterian the child molester.
Anglican Church Policy: In the Church, where people entrust their lives and their spiritual wellbeing to clergy and other employees and volunteers, the issues of sexual exploitation and harassment are of great importance. Church leaders are invested with the confidence of those who come to them. Sexual contact is a gross misuse of that power and a massive breach of a sacred trust that takes advantage of another's vulnerability
Does not protect the children against Joe Anglican the child molester.
You will note that in every link provided the policy is concerning those in charge of youths, the clergy, employees, volunteers, youth leaders and counselors. There is no policy to protect children against members of the church or their own parents. Their only concern seems to be to make sure that no leaders are accused of child molesting so that lawsuits may be avoided. They have no concern for protecting children from child abusers who are simply members of the church. They seem to not even have a policy for this. How much finer the policy of JWs to DF practicing child molesters and shun them.
If you know a religion with a better policy then show us.
But isn't it true that everyone in the congregation is instructed to keep silent including the elders and not let anyone else know that a person in the congregation is a former molester? Wouldn't a person be disfellowshipped or reproved for gossip or slander?This is another common apostate falacy put forth to mislead others. A 1997 letter to body of elders states:
Therefore, the elders should not make disparaging comments regarding a Christian' s decision to obtain professional help. It is also a personal decision if the alleged victim chooses to report such accusations to the secular authorities. Elders should encourage the sufferer to use discretion if that one chooses to confide in a mature friend.
If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case.
The article is typical WTS-defender bullshit.
The author acknowledges knowing that critics state that the Society often speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of child molestation. This is demonstrably true, but the author dismisses it without any evidence at all. What he does is to quote official policy -- completely ignoring the fact that written policy is often ignored when the Service Department gives oral instructions to elders. Indeed, the basic instruction to elders is this: "Don't handle abuse cases on your own! Refer all cases to the Service Department." Why is this so? So that the Society can directly control what happens with the case, without leaving a paper trail.
At the 2001 Kingdom Ministry Schools for elders, a new policy was announced: elders should never suggest to an abuse victim or her family that they should not go to the police. This was followed up a few months later (February 2002, I believe) with a letter to Bodies of Elders stating the same policy. Now think about this: if there never was a policy, unofficial or otherwise, to suggest that victims not report abuse to the proper authorities, then why was it necessary for the Society to state it?
An excellent illustration of the Society's doublespeak is the case of one Daniel Fitzwater from Nevada. He molested a lot of girls in the 1980s. On the verge of being exposed by victims, he moved to Florida until the statute of limitations ran out. Then he moved back to Nevada and started molesting JW girls again. By the late 1990s, many girls had complained, and the elders and even a Circuit Overseer reported this to the Society, which did nothing. Eventually four girls filed a criminal case, the guy was convicted and spent about seven years in jail. He was released in 2005, I believe. All of the girls who brought the charges were harassed by the Society and are no longer JWs. Nothing was ever done about the many other girls who were molested. While the perpetrator was never disfellowshipped, his daughter-in-law was threatened with disfellowshipping for talking about the case to other JWs. While in prison, the perp carried on "Bible studies" with other prisoners and was regularly visited by local elders. Last I heard, he's still a JW in good standing in Nevada.
A lot more could be said to debunk that JW defender's bullshit, but I'll leave it at that.
AlanF
thirdwitness is obviously a typically deluded JW. As is usual, he puts up a strawman and then tries to knock it down.
The simple fact is that elders are instructed to see to it that rank and file JWs who know that someone is a molester keep their mouths shut to non-elders. A JW can and will be disfellowshipped for gossip and slander if he talks to non-elders about a molester who has not been disfellowshipped.
AlanF
A former molester known to be such by the elders is a known child molester since the elders are part of the congregation
But elders aren't the congregation and the community as whole. The BOE letter stated about "known" molestor and about reasons why "known" molestor cannot be appointed again:
"people in the community would not respect him"
"People" won't know if a molestor has received private reproof and when authorities have not been informed about the crime.
3W,
I see that you're still up to your same tactics - not addressing the objections and implying WT statements say something they don't.
A 1997 letter to body of elders states:
What can the elders do to help protect our children? The elders should be alert to the activity of any who are known to have molested children in the past. Individuals who have manifested a weakness in this regard should be sensitive to their need not to be alone with children. They should refrain from holding children or displaying other forms of affection for them. It would be appropriate for elders to give kindly cautions to any who are doing things that may be a temptation or a cause for concern to others in the congregation.
Can you provide the month and day this letter was written. We have access to all the BOE letters and I'd like to read this quote in context. This letter refers to elders, perps and children. It does not say that JW's can warn others or that JWs can approach the elders. It's basically telling elders to keep an eye out on perps.
It is pretty clear for any who want to be honest and consider the statement carefully. If others in the congregation are concerned about something the former molester is doing what should elders do? Reprove them for gossip? Df them for slander? No, that is not in the instructions from the WTS at all.
It is quite the opposite. Any individual in the congregation who has 'cause for concern' for what a former molester may be doing would not be considered slanderous for bringing up those concerns and elders should handle those concerns according to the directives from WTS. The elders are not to just sluff the concerns off and call it gossip or slander and reprove or DF the person. And yet, that is what apostates will tell you.
The quote from the letter doesn't support your statements, at all 3W.
This directive certainly makes it clear that persons could indeed be warned if a person was unknowingly putting children in harms way of a former child molester. It also makes it clear that anyone who had 'cause for concern' about what a molester was doing would not be reproved but rather the former molester as well as those he is coming in contact with would be warned and cautioned because of this 'cause for concern'.
The quote from the letter doesn't support these statements either, 3W.
The usual rhetoric does not fly with those wanting to know the truth. Youre statement is not in line with the WT policy. That is the policy that critics of JWs wish it to be. But it is not. Read the essay above and then provide the proof that contradicts the policy not the usual rhetoric.
There is no use addressing everything said since the essay addresses the points that you are bringing up. When you actually bring up proof that contradicts the WT's policy then I will see if I can address it. Otherwise I will just be copying and pasting what I have already written.
