by Londo111 75 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Wonderful! Nothing like having the actual video of the garbage the WT lawyers spout.
The parents are brainwashed, the elders are brainwashed but the leaders (gb) and their lawyers have known for years exactly what they are doing!! They will be exposed through these court cases. Just imagian the day they finally have to turn over those massive files of molesters they have protected, what a happy day that will be.
In criminal court blame goes on the perpetrator. In civil court blame is given to parents, elders, congregations and headquarters. I understand where johnamos is coming from as well as everyone saying don't blame the parents. It all boils down to culpability. In every civil case the finger is pointed at parents by the Watchtower legal team. But often times parents hardly have any measure of culpability because they where never made aware of an abusers past. It's that malfeasance of Watchtower's policy which shields pedophiles from discovery that they are paying for in court today.
If a JW parent learns their child has been abused yes they should go to the police first but they don't because they believe they are making Jehovah sad if they do. Why do they feel that way? Who has conditioned them to feel that way? JW parents put the organization first before their own children. To place the blame squarely on them for not going to the police is ignoring the underlying issues and that is what upsets people when others start pointing their finger at parents.
The key to the "two witness" rule is understanding that it existed to minimize false allegations. The Law was done away with, but the principles remained. Those principles were the "law" of the Christ. So not bearing false witness was important and that's the key to understanding the NT references about the two-witness rule.
That rule had nothing to do with hiding crimes or creating some loophole. To use it as such is to miss the entire principle that Jesus was talking about. The WTBTS has put themselves back under the LAW by their legalistic practices. Everything is legal this and law that. They LOVE to reduce grace and mercy to nebulous ideas while making legalities "scriptural." They love the LAW. They are the Pharisees.
If some God does come back to judge Xianity, the WTBTS is screwed. I'll take my chances as a doubting fader.
DD
Sweet news
In every civil case the finger is pointed at parents by the Watchtower legal team. But often times parents hardly have any measure of culpability because they where never made aware of an abusers past.
Note- I quoted you but I am not directly replying to you as I didn’t take your post as to say that you are saying that I said such :)
Am I saying that the parents are responsible for the fact that their child was abused?
NO, that lays completely on the piece of garbage that actually committed the abuse.
Are there precautions that parents can take to reduce the risk of their child being abused?
YES!
If parents don’t take such precautions and even thou the perpetrator is 100% responsible for the abuse, then they start to bare some responsibility.
Are there precautions that elders can take to reduce the risk of children in their congregation from being abused?
YES!
If elders don’t take such precautions and even thou the perpetrator is 100% responsible for the abuse then they start to bare some responsibility.
This responsibility is in regards to not taken precautions to prevent the abuse, it is not responsibility in regards to the abuse occurring, as I said the perpetrator is 100% responsible for that.
OK now that the abuse has taken place, regardless of precautions taken or not taken… there is now the matter to deal with it.
It is said that the WTS has numerous reported cases of abuse reported to them but these cases are unreported to authorities.
OK, in order for these cases to be reported to the WTS, elders, etc… would have had to report them. In order for the elders to have cases to report to the WTS, there would have to be alleged victims reporting these cases to them, either the victims reported it directly themselves or the parents of the victim’s reporting it, etc.
Now, at this point, if it goes unreported to the authorities, then all that are aware of the abuse but fail to report it is equally responsible for it going unreported, even the victim themselves with the exception of them being a young child.
Now something that gets said often is that if elders are aware of a known perpetrator then they should make that known to parents. I agree and say that is one of the precautions that elders can do to help reduce abuse from taken place to begin with. And many would agree and say that a parent won’t let their child alone with that person now that they know of their history. But what about a person that that is not known about? Does the parent/s say: “this person is not known to be a perpetrator so they can be alone with my child “.
Remember that the known perpetrator was not known to be one until after the fact, so that shows that even thou elders can make known any perpetrators that they are aware of, it still falls on the parents to take the same precaution with all as they would with known perpetrators.
On the bottom of the link it says: Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.
Maybe we couldn sign up all of our Jdub friends to get current emails.
Haha, oh my, that's funny and an appealing idea. There is a decent chance that the supplied email address will first be asked to confirm that it wants notifications, but that's still something.
Noticed this a couple lines up from the ABC request:
| 11/24/2014 | Request filed to: | request to continue OA; from atty for appellant due to OA in other matters in two different cities on the two days before this argument |
For anyone who knows how to read this, could this have anything to do with society (appellant) attorneys having to jaunt about the country putting out fires (eg the Zalkin cases)?
For anyone who knows how to read this, could this have anything to do with society (appellant) attorneys having to jaunt about the country putting out fires (eg the Zalkin cases)?
OA means "Oral Argument" and in this context probably means other appeals arguments, of which I don't think there are any other WTS cases scheduled for right now. Their lead attorney on appeal is with a private law firm specializing in appellate advocacy, so it probably just relates to other cases not connected to the WTS.
Good news about good things!
