Ah, the troll deigns to reply:
:: Hildabingen a.k.a. Watchtower Legal Dept. Troll say:
: My are not we the paranoid kind?
No, I just know how you people operate.
I note that you're not denying being what I said. Can't figure a way to convince yourself how to use "theocratic strategy" here, eh? Well, I suppose that's a point in your favor.
::: The same people who will act like they want to "protect the children" against the WT support a pedo culture everyday of their lives, especially men do this.
:: Really. Which people? Name some names, troll.:
: I am talking about people on this board, the people who gawked at the Brit video and there are a bunch or the men who gawk at Charlotte Church.
I know who you're talking about in general, troll, but you still haven't given any specifics.
: If there was not a market for such perverts, the videos would not be shown all over the tv. Are you that dense?
Ah, I see. Nasty Britney videos appear on TV and you conclude that some people on this board get some jollies from watching, and therefore that all criticisms of the Watchtower Society about its mishandling child molestation cases are invalid. Yes. That's typical JW logic.
This is about the biggest fucking red herring I've ever seen. And that's saying something, given that I've dealt with some big mutha-fuckin red herrings from JWs over the years.
:: Yeah, the ubiquitous Watchtower "some". Some do this and some do that. But some are never identified.:
: Let us take a poll on this list, shall we, because that is the some to which I am talking about.
We don't need to take a poll. You claimed that you've already seen the antics of "some". But you can't name them. Talk about making false accusations!
: I am 100% certain there are some on this board who criticize the wt while thinking it is so cool to watch a tennager prance around in a school uniform. Are you that dense?
A perfect illustration of the red herring I described above.
:: How about WTS officials who have trouble controlling their impulses when five-year-old girls get on their laps? You don't seem to have a problem with that.
: I have a big problem with that.
Not so's you'd notice.
I'll let you put your money where your mouth is: If I name names, will you complain to your bosses and demand that the people who publicly display this attitude be booted out of Bethel?
:: As for Britney Spears and Charlotte Church and other attractive women who receive a lot of media attention, they're certainly being exploited by some of the standards of Western culture. But they're not being abused.
: Oh really? They are certainly being objectified, being unnecessarily elevated and they are the objects of sex desire for many pervs. That is abuse, sir.
In your opinion. In their opinion, it isn't. They're willingly being exploited so as to make millions of dollars.
:: Furthermore, when these young women were 16, they were for all practical purposes adults because of their exposure to the adult world of entertainment.
: Give me a break. Now you try to redefine adult with such Clintonian terms as, for all intents and purposes, blah blah. Give me a break. The girls at 16 are teens!
Yes, they're teens, but in the eyes of the law, 16-year-olds are quite different from 8-year-olds. That's a simple matter of biology, too. The law recognizes that there is a huge difference between a girl aged 18 + one day having sex with a boy aged 18 - one day, and a girl of 22 having sex with a 13-year-old. The 18-year-old is technically guilty of statutory rape, but no one in his right mind would claim that she is guilty of child abuse.
Now take another extreme: Suppose an 18-year-old boy has sex with an 8-year-old. By the laws of all western cultures, this would certainly be child abuse. Now start moving the ages of the two parties around. Where does one draw the line between child abuse and simple unsavory conduct? No one can say, but many legislatures make an attempt. In Colorado, for example, I believe that if there is a difference in age of four years or more and at least one of the parties is under 16, that is defined as child abuse. There are other categories of infraction for smaller differences in age.
:: What they do is voluntary, with the approval of their guardians and of lawmakers. This is a far cry from the innocent little girls and boys who have become the prey of certain JWs.
: So you have no problem if jw teens choose to initiate sex with adults? You are a perv.
You're a fucking liar, as are so many of your fellows. You don't know how to deal with truth without using smear tactics. But I'll illustrate your hypocrisy by showing the trap I set that you fell right into:
In Israelite culture it was the norm for girls to be married off shortly after they began menstruating. That means that it was normal for girls age 10 to 15 to be married and start having babies. This was all done with God's approval. So, just as with the teenage rock stars you're pretending to complain about, what these young Jewesses did was voluntary, was done with the approval of their guardians and even of the supreme lawmaker, God. As someone who approves of Biblical morality, I'm sure you also approve of these ancient practices. Your hypocrisy is in approving the one situation but condemning a nearly identical one. Talk about having an agenda! But again, both situations are a far cry from the innocent little girls and boys who have become the prey of certain JWs.
: So there are supposedly two cases of persons being persecuted FOR being victims of molestation in the Wt and a bunch of other anonymous cases?
Not supposedly -- certainly. There has been a good deal of media coverage of the Rodriguez case, and some coverage of the Berry case. Erica Rodriguez's molester, an elder named Manuel Beliz, was convicted of molestation last August and sentenced to 11 years in prison. The story was well publicized in newspapers in eastern Washington. Rodriguez has filed a civil lawsuit against the elders of her former congregation and against the Watchtower Society for various crimes including threatening her with disfellowshipping if she went to the authorities. But you already know about this case.
::: Right. Are you sure that is why these victims are being troubled by the wt, as you think?
:: Yes. By advocating the protection of child molesters within your organization and beating up on whistleblowers.
: I do not advocate any of the things you mention.
Oh, but you do! By defending a religion whose policies tend to protect child molesters, and that actively beats up on whistleblowers, you are most certainly advocating these things.
Tell me, so that we can see your true colors: Do you approve of the Society's attempts to disfellowship Bowen, Anderson and the Pandelos for whistleblowing?
:: So? Lots of things are pagan and you think nothing of observing them. JWs normally observe wedding anniversaries, wear wedding rings, etc., and think nothing of the pagan roots of these things...
: You do not even know me. How can you say what I observe?
I didn't, dummy. I said what "JWs normally observe". Obviously, you're a dyed-in-the wool JW, because you take offense at my general statement.
Are you claiming that you do not approve of observing wedding anniversaries, wearing a wedding ring, and so forth? If so, you're a nut. If not, then your protest is pointless. Which is it?
: Jws normally wear rings. Does that mean that this mystic does?
You tell me.
: Jws observe anniversaries, does that mean that I do? No it do not.
It doesn't mean that you do it, true. But you're still not saying whether you actually do it. So tell me, dear sweet legal eagle: do you observe wedding anniversaries?
: And I could care less what other people think. I answer to God alone, baby dear!
Suuuurrre! That's why you've swallowed the Society's bullshit blood doctrine hook, line and sinker.
:: As for blood, what's riskier? Bleeding out profusely on the operating room floor, or taking a 1-in-100,000 chance of getting a blood-borne disease?
: Better to die for a good cause than for a bad one.
True, but dying in accord with the Society's blood doctrine is not dying for a good cause. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible about blood transfusions, but there are some very strong arguments that it is a very good thing to make a small sacrifice like donating blood to save the life of one's brother. For a detailed look at why, visit http://www.jwbloodreview.org . You'll be glad you did!
:: How you gonna feel if your kid dies from lack of blood?:
: Obviously, sad.
Then why go along with a deadly policy that has no scriptural support?
AlanF
