A Witness can go directly to the police in a case of child molestation, even if by a fellow Witness.
Hmmm, then why do I personally know so many people that the EXACT opposite happened. I can point you in their direction if you want. Akashafur, Bananagraveyard, Jax252000, YahweyToHell, all on youtube. Send them a message, I'm sure they'd love to tell you all about it. Then there's the folks in my congregation that it happened to.
These I'm taking together because you're mis-reading the policy.
So even after only one child is molested (although usually more than one is already abused by the time the person is exposed), the person can be disfellowshipped. And, no matter what, since freedom to go to the police is absolute, the molester should be in jail.
Also, should further wrongdoing come to light during the trial it would be necessary for the matter to be re-examined, as is true of any judicial matter when additional wrongdoing is discovered.
I put in bold the part you're mis-reading. Should ANY FURTHER wrongdoing come to light. Not on the same crime my man. So if during a trial a second victim comes forward THAT can be used for a judicial committee meeting. Nothing involving forensics, nothing involving a doctor's examination whatsoever.
Silentlambs claims that the current policy was a result of their pursuing the matter, even those this is a clear lie since this policy existed at least as early as 1991 and Silenlambs didn't exist until 2000. They also lied about Witness doctrine causing men to murder their families.
And you're lying that there wasn't a major policy change right around the time of the Dateline episode regarding the subject. So why should I listen to you? I've got the Body of Elders letters from around that time as well, you and I both know there was a HUGE shift in paradigm.
Maybe you could donate here instead: snapnetwork.org
Oh you mean I should donate to an organization that shines the light on the Catholic molestation problem but doesn't mention the JW one at all. You mean take the focus off the JW problem? As I mentioned before shove that head in the sand a little bit further Stand Firm.
This website is an excellent resource for telling the other side of the story than Silentlambs': http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html
That website is a pile of shit. I've deconstructed it's awful arguments that are just STREAMING with logical fallacies regarding 607 BCE and the whole UN NGO thing. The ENTIRE 607 article is a causation/correlation fallacy and on top of that if you search the web you'll find that he's all but admitted that he didn't print the entire story about the UN NGO situation. On top of that the webiste used to allow comments and a way to contact the author to ask questions, now you'll notice it doesn't. Why? It's because as an apologist the entire site is laughable at best and gross distortion and lies at worst.
Just in this article here that you posted in the chapter "If Only One Witness" it reads:
Did you see that the elders cannot take action "within the congregation"? So although the elders cannot take CONGREGATIONAL action judicially speaking, this does not mean that the elders do NOTHING.
So what do they do?
1. It is reported to the Watchtower Society.
Wow, that's great, very helpful. Now let's read on because your own source here shows that you are lying about the dates of things and it corroborates Silent Lambs's story. Let's keep going.
But there is another reason why it is reported to the headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses. The name of the accused is put into the database and kept by the Watchtower Society. Should he ever be accused again then the matter would be established at the mouth of two witnesses and judicial action could be taken.
So I call bullshit here because then cases like Rick McClean wouldn't exist. I digress, we've got to keep going in this article because it's a great "other side to the story" that you told me to read.
2. If there is a mandatory reporting law it is reported to the authorities.
Yup, only if it's mandatory. Remember the first thing they do is report to the Legal department and they will be advised if they're not in a reporting state to not take that second step.
3. If a child is in possible danger it is reported to the authorities.
That 1988 letter is in regards to physical abuse not sexual abuse. The letter also then goes on to state how if the child is noticed as being abused at school and they are a known JW it could prove to "bring reproach upon Jehovah's name".
4. Elders offer to go with the child to the authorities.
This is the part I love, check out the quote AND THE DATE.
December 1, 2000 letter: "If the complainant is a child the elder might offer to accompany him or her to discuss the situation with a parent (but not the alleged abuser) or to one of the above authorities."
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I thought you said Silent Lambs were liars and they didn't actually effect any of the policy? Did you not just say that... hold on let me check again...
Silentlambs claims that the current policy was a result of their pursuing the matter, even those this is a clear lie since this policy existed at least as early as 1991 and Silenlambs didn't exist until 2000.
You did... you did claim that. So wait are you a liar? Or are you so ignorant of the facts YOU'RE PRESENTING TO ME that you'll give me a source that proves you wrong. Hold on... there's more from your source you gave me.
5. The victim or family can report it to the authorities without sanctions.
And a February 15, 2002 letter states: "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities."
What was that date again? Oh yeah 2002. So this was in place BEFORE Silent Lambs?
Look man there's even more to your source you gave me that is contradicting what you're saying here. Do you really want me to go into all the logical fallacies that the guy is using here. The entire thing is something called "Argument from Selective Observation", he's citing certain articles that say one thing but he's ignoring TONS of articles that say the exact opposite. I have a Watchtower CD Rom I'll be more than happy to sit there and go quote for quote with you showing how use of many other articles will show how the matters are usually handled.
So the long and the short of it is that I have a show coming up in West Warwick, Rhode Island at the Elks Lodge that is going to be a killer show. I'm going against Triplelicious whom I've wrestled a few times before and you can see a sample from our last match here:
If you buy tickets from me $2 will go to Silent Lambs and just for Stand Firm I'll match whatever the donation is to Silent Lambs and send it to RAINN.
Everyone come down to NCW and have a great time!