by dgp 66 Replies latest jw experiences
@MS: If it is public, then it is OK. I don't know if any European country has made it public.
@thetruthseeker: I am sorry... I believe it is not easy to cope with such situation. But I don't see why JWs generally are to be blamed for that. If police released that man, and if they have confidence in him (maybe it is reasonable, maybe it is not), you should not blame JWs for that. Of course - I say again - I know that it is not easy to cope with such situation.
"Unless you live it and see for yourself I'm sure I will never convince you that things aren't done as you would think they would be. I just hope you never have to find out"
So true! Until I lived it, I would have never thought the things I saw could possibly happen in "God's organization"
"In the JW congregations, the.....potential victims should have the right to fair warning."
So true! I could not believe the number of people (including elders) who knew of the sexual abuse and who kept silent allowing more victims to be victimized simply because they, for reasons I will never understand or appreciate, chose to remain silent. And, all it would have taken was for one person to have the courage and strength of character to sound a warning and they just did'nt.
HQ
Titus, I am afraid you're not making reference to what TruthseekerIam said. She is saying that worldly people are not considered valid witnesses to a fact. And she is telling us that five -not two, mind you- worldlies saw the thing happen, and yet the elders acted as if "no one" had seen it. And she is also saying they were trying to cover the thing up.
This reminds me of Islam, where the the word of a man carries more weight than the word of a woman, but, above all, is a serious flaw in the WT.
I wouldn't hold all witnesses responsible. Only the elders in question, and, above them, the Governing Body.
It's not just that you can accuse a worldly with less corroboration than it would be necessary to accuse a witness. It's that you can't accuse a witness on evidence provided by worldlies, no matter how many.
Sheesh!
Titus, I am afraid you're not making reference to what TruthseekerIam said. She is saying that worldly people are not considered valid witnesses to a fact. And she is telling us that five -not two, mind you- worldlies saw the thing happen, and yet the elders acted as if "no one" had seen it. And she is also saying they were trying to cover the thing up.
This reminds me of Islam, where the the word of a man carries more weight than the word of a woman, but, above all, is a serious flaw in the WT.
I wouldn't hold all witnesses responsible. Only the elders in question, and, above them, the Governing Body.
It's not just that you can accuse a worldly with less corroboration than it would be necessary to accuse a witness. It's that you can't accuse a witness on evidence provided by worldlies, no matter how many.
Sheesh!
Read it better, DGP.
@ Titus.
My comment was made in refrence to you saying...
"And you don't need to, MS. If police arrests that man, everybody will know. You don't need to tell them."
The only ones who knew, were those involved.
We were told not to tell anyone.
The congregation as well as the public was not aware this man was out on bail awaiting a trial for over a year. Thankfully he was convicted and sent away to prison....however, no one was protected from him in that year.
So NO "everyone" did not know this brother in their congregation was awaiting trial for molesting.
@thetruthseeker: OK, I said "if police arrests him". I would add: "and prosecutes him". MS says that the register of the convicted offenders is public. About case you mention - Look! If police didn't deem it necessary to inform all people that this bad man is walking around.... I don't think it is problem of Jehovah's Witnesses. If Jehovah's Witnesses made mistake, then also the police made mistake. I am sorry.... I know it is wrong. I don't say it is OK to keep that in secret. I said:
And you don't need to, MS. If police arrests that man, everybody will know. You don't need to tell them.
I believe that police will do right thing. They were wrong this time. It is their task to warn people if dangeours offender is in community.
Simply: You cannot blame Jehovah's Witnesses for that. You cannot.
I think there is an easy way for the branch to get around the "two witness rule" if they really wanted. First it is absolutly stupid to think there will ever be two witnesses to child abuse. just stupid. in order to work around that all the branch would have to do is allow the parents to be one of the witnesses. that is have the parent(s) attest that they have spoken with their child about the abuse and beleive what the child says is true. That satisfies the requirement for two witnesses (the child and the parent) and allows these matters to be delt with in a more real world maner . the fact is though, this wont happen. the branch would rather bury it all and pretend that God takes care of it.
I'm sorry titus but as an elder I can attest that everything said here is exactly how we are directed to handle these matters. I refuse to follow it, but i would be removed if it ever comes up in my congregation.
@elderelite: It is very complex matter. It is not easy to deal with it, I know that. I don't say that the WT policy is perfect, but I only comapre it with the policy of secular authorities. You cannot create the policy which will transform abusing and crime into something nice and beautiful. When abusing and crime happen, it is not easy to deal with it and.... I don't think that all suggestions I heard here would make the policy better. IMHO.
I undertand Titus and I'm not bashing you. we are just talking... you dont like my idea of letting a parent be a "witness" by attesting that they believe their child is being truthfull?
Well...
I don't know. On what basis could it be possible? Do the secular authorities have that practice?
I hope you are also aware of traps of that way of dealing with it...
