What would YOU say to this JW about Dateline??

by TheStar 15 Replies latest jw friends

  • TheStar
    TheStar

    OK I visited the about.com forum (christianity - general) to see if anyone there mentioned the Dateline story and sure enough there was a mention of it.

    A JW replied to it and I couldn't resist but to post a different view of the situation. She of course replied to me and much of what she said is very distrubing and some of it is out right lies. There is so much to respond to I don't even know where to start with this. I am asking for all of you to please help me put my thougths together to give a good response. About.com is a VERY popular site and many will be reading my response. It has to be good.

    This is what she said.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    http://forums.about.com/ab-christianity/messages?msg=10439.22

    NBC Takes on Paradise Pedophiles

    I understand your points quite well, and I don't mean for it to sound like I side with the pedophiles I just have a tendency to argue for the sake of arguing sometimes. Also, I'm looking at this from several different angles, so I'll try to explain a little better.

    1) I really do understand that pedophilia is a sickness that few understand. It is more than temptation, and currently there is very little that can be done to help some with this problem. However, not every case deals with pedophilia in the strictest sense. The allegations were about sexual child abuse which has a very large definition. I know of some cases in which the "child" was a teenager; not that this excuses the action, but often the offender was not much older. In this type of case, pedophilia is not the cause but an uncontrolled sex drive is the problem. In this type of case the person is, and should be, treated differently, although it is referred to as "child abuse". I agree that in situations of true pedophilia it is nearly impossible for one to be reformed, but that does not mean he/she is not repentant. As far as the ministry is concerned, you said that no pedophile is going to commit his crime with others watching, and that is why he is not allowed to go door-to-door alone. So he would always have at least one on-looker. And while it would be nice to round up all of the pedophiles and put them under lock and key, not only is that nearly impossible but it would also be a violation of their rights. So again, it becomes the parents' responsibility to protect their children, even if there is no visible threat.

    2) The two witness rule brought out on Dateline was taken out of context almost entirely. This is a scriptural principle designed to protect the innocent, much as the US uses "innocent until proven guilty". It is used in every situation where one member accuses or reports wrongdoing of another: gossip of the most hurtful kind (slander), smoking, drug abuse, fornication, drunkeness, etc. This is not to say that if there are not two or more witnesses the matter is dropped entirely. Further, this is solely for handling matters within the congregation. As mentioned, but never explained on Dateline, the elders do investigate matters. This is not to circumvent state laws or criminal proceedings, but to ensure that the offender is removed from the congregation. If the elders cannot establish that a matter has happened (or even if they can), it is up to the parents to take it to the police. I know of at least one case where there was more than one witness, simply because the person was caught in the act. Also, if the victim is one witness and the accused admits it, then there's the 2 witnesses. If someone does bring the accusation forth, and there are no witnesses THEY ARE NOT DISFELLOWSHIPPED FOR SLANDER. I really want to emphasize this point. They can only be disfellowshipped for slander if they spread the accusation through the congregation and it has no basis. Further, often the elders no that there may be no witnesses, but it's likely the person has committed the offense, in that case parents are warned discreetly to keep their children safe. (On a side note, matters like this are rarely secrets for whatever reason, and many in the congregation will know about the matter even if the person is not disfellowshipped and they take appropriate action.)

    3) As far as admitting that they are wrong, or that their system doesn't work, I'm not so sure they'd have to. The system does work if it's followed. It's just like you put it, the problem is with humans and how they use or abuse their power. In the least, this situation is going to help the elders see that they have to follow the directions they have been given. The #1 rule being handle it as soon as possible. And even though the people interviewed made it sound that way, the elders' job is NOT to render criminal justice, but to keep the congregation clean.

    4) As to why they declined the interview, the Watchtower society has included the letter they sent to Dateline on one of their websites. I think it is perfectly understandable why they declined, if you read the letter. It can be found at www.jw-media.org. You made a mistake in your post you said, "Still Dateline gave them another opportunity to show themselves clean and asked for proof that they excommunicate the child molesters. The Watchtower had no proof, they only had 2 cases that they were able to submitt to Dateline and in both cases the perpatrator was NOT a Jehovah's Witness." Witnesses cannot excommunicate or disfellowship someone who's not a member, in these two situations the parents were told to go the police because there was nothing that could be done for the congregation. Also, these were not necessarily the only 2, just the two that were submitted.

    5) I also find it interesting that Mr. Bowen and the others never quantified their findings. They simply said "a lot" when referring to what they found in their research. What is a lot? 100? or 10? (It's still too many, though) I would be interested in knowing exactly how many cases he has come across.

    6) Finally, when I go to the Kingdom Hall I'm sitting next to former fornicators, idolators, druggies, drunkards, slanderers, murderers, etc. It's not what they've done, it's what they are trying to do to change, to conform to God's standards, realizing that alone they have no power, but that God can help them to overcome whatever problems they may face. And that he, unlike some of us, has the power to forgive if a mistake is made.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    If you want to follow the full discussion, go to www.about.com, click on religion & spirituality, then click on christianity - general, then click on forums and you can go in as a guest or you can register yourself. Again the topic is "NBC Takes on Paradise Pedophiles"

    Thank you for your help in advance!

  • Mister Biggs
    Mister Biggs

    TheStar-

    Kindly inform this person that they are going DIRECTLY against the reasoning that the GB used when they said that they don't believe a public forum is a place to air problems or concerns.

    With that type of reasoning NO JW should be on these public forums trying to defend their faith.

  • MikeMusto
    MikeMusto

    The letter referred to "brother against brother", so those
    that appeared on the program were and are considered brothers.
    Interesting. Therefore it is important that we hear the words
    of our brothers, are we to judge our fellow brothers?

  • teenyuck
    teenyuck

    JW's, as most here on the board, need to be reminded of Megan's Law.

    These crimes coupled with many other heinous crimes against children, prompted the passage of federal and state laws mandating the release of information necessary to protect the public from high risk sex offenders. All 50 states were required to meet federal standards and in New York this was accomplished by the passage of The Sex Offender Registration Act of 1996, more commonly known as Megan’s Law.
    Here is a link to the site.

    http://www.parentsformeganslaw.com/

    The JW's argueing that they don't know someones past is bullshit. They can access this easily...they have an obligation to tell the others in the cong when a sex offender comes in...it is public knowledge!!

  • Mister Biggs
    Mister Biggs

    What are you trying to say, Musto?

    Anyway, who really is your brother?
    Also, how do you know if the person on the other side of the debate is a JW or not?
    Doesn't wisdom indicate that it is better to be safe and refrain from debates (from a JW perspective)?

    Heck, if "loyal" JW's really think about it (take note You Know, Matrix, et al...), NO ONE from the Society (i.e., J.R. Brown) comes to this Board to "defend" the faith. So, why not follow their lead?

  • TheStar
    TheStar

    Mr Biggs,

    Thanks. That is one point that is clear in my head. As you can see from her very well written reply, there is much more ground to cover.

    Mike,

    I'm not following, say again?

  • TheStar
    TheStar

    Thanks for the reminder Puffs! Great info. I can use, thanks.

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Were the people on the show actual victims of the system and actually proved they were shunned by the congregation for going to the police? They seemed to prove that the system has serious problems.

    Were the advocates backing up what they said with proof such as a taped phone call?

    Did not Dateline give the WTS a chance to provide examples of how "good" their system works. And after waiting 6 months they got 2 nonJW peds. After that we see a guy that Dateline found who was dfed TWICE and still knocking on doors.

    Why is a bunch on untrained "janitors" forming a committee and investigating a crime that falls under the "penal" and "Criminal" codes of the USA and Canada. Interviewing victims and their abusers is something that requires training and will "tamper" direct or indirect evidence - As Dateline asked - Why the hell are they investigating criminal matters that should be handled by the police.

    Finally, instead of saying the parents can let their conscience decide whether they should go to the police OR NOT, the WTS must inform the rank and file that IT IS THE LAW for ALL parents to report ALL crimes committed against their children and other children to the proper authorities.

    hawk

  • Guest 77
    Guest 77

    May I begin by saying, the letter was well written. There was thought put into this message.

    I like to begin by referring to paragraph 6, it says in part, 'Finally when I go to the Kingdom hall I'm sitting next to 'former' fornicators, idolators, druggies, slanders, murderers, etc.....' Interestingly, she didn't mention sitting besides any 'former' pedophiles! Why not? Do you think for a moment that she would be sitting next to a person who has been known to be a pedophile or is a pedophile? Would she feel 'comfortable?' Would she invite this person to her home? If not, (most likely she wouldn't) why not?

    Has anyone heard of a 'former' pedophile becoming a baptized witness? In paragraph 1 she says, "I really do understand that pedophilia is a sickness that few understand. It is more than temptation, and currently there is very little that can be done to (help) some with this problem.....' Hmmmmmm.

    Yes she can help, EXPOSE THE CRITTERS! That's exactly what those on dateline did! They also exposed an 'irresponsible' spiritual organization who failed to correct this critical (vermin) matter.

    No amount of verbal gymnastics will convince me otherwise. They 'demand' repentance for those who seek to return to the fold and yet they flagrantly allow this 'criminal' act to be perpertarted on innocent children! When this matter is exposed such as Dateline they then try to justify themselves? This is obscene 'justice.' What's good for the goose is good for the gander, period.

    Guest 77

  • Francois
    Francois

    The two witnesses thing being similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" is more apt than she thinks.

    The US does NOT presume anyone to be innocent until proven guilts. It SAYS it does, but in actual practice, it does not. That's the very reason a person must post bond to get out of jail between arrest and trial. If we really used the "innocent until..." thingy, there would be no bail bond. We'd just trust 'em to show up at trial. And some people can't even get out on bond or bail. Why? Cause we presume they're guilty, that's why.

    So, like the JWs, we SAY we are protecting the innocent. In fact of actual practice, we don't. So in a way, she's right. Our legal system lies about presumption of innocence, and the WT lies about use of the two witnesses thingy.

    Hope this helps.

    Francois

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit