If an adult member of a congo invites a few grown-up people round to his house, he is responsible for their conduct. If for instance a couple sneek away into the garden for a bit of smack and tickle - he is held responsible for this by the elders, even if he was unaware that it had happened.
Yet a child is the SOLE responsibility of the parents, even if they are not there when a predator molests them. (Didnt the "defence" in the California cases revolve around the argument that the elders have NO DUTY OF CARE for children in the congregation?)
Why are the parents responsible and not the predator who invited the CHILD for some "spiritual activity?"
Why is responsibility not placed squarely on the shoulders of the adults who indulged in wrongdoing?
A few years ago there was a party at a hired hall. The word got out and there was a huge number of uninvited gatecrashers, who either did not know how to behave properly, or thought whatever I do it will be the mug who organised it who will be in trouble. Things got out of hand. The well -meaning Brother who organised it was dragged over the coals by the elduhs and was so hurt by the behavior that he no longer wants Da Troof.
Any other examples?