I'm seeing this like a film:
A suspense drama.
Scene 36 EXT. DRAFFENVILLE - SUBURBAN HOME- FRONTDOORSTEP - DAY
ANGLES - a mans hand knocking on the front door
An eye through the frontdoor peephole looks out at us.
The door opens to reveal -
A woman in her fifties - still in her pink dressing gown - freshly lit cigarette dangling between her lips.
WIDE - the man that knocked at the door - a Jehovahs Witness - (BROTHER FRIEND) - dressed in a style of suit they used to wear when Pops was still alive - a suitcase in his left hand - awakes , watchtowers and what looks to be Tom Edisons phonogram prototype - lin his right - he has his back to us.
WOMAN
What do you want?
BROTHER FRIEND
Good Morning Madam we're calling on our neighbour ……….
WOMAN
(interupting)
Wait a minute - you're not one of those pedophile protecting Jehovahs Witnesses they were talking about in the paper the other day are you?
BROTHER FRIEND
What is revealed about the Society’s motivations regarding reporting (or not) of child abuse to secular authorities?
INSERT - CLOSE ON WOMANS FACE
SOUND - Brother Friends monotonous drone continues BG.
The woman is nodding off - standing - cigarette still dangling from between her lips.
BACK ON -
BROTHER FRIEND
(continues monotonously)
It is revealed that the Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within JW circles. It is revealed that though a sexual predator of children is a threat to an entire community the Society still prefers to keep knowledge of such a person’s conduct privileged. It is revealed that this is a deplorable act, an act of selfishness on the part of the Society.
As a religious guide the question the Society must answer is this: Is it right to provide reports of known child abuse to the secular authorities? An additional question is: Is it right to provide reports of suspected child abuse to secular authorities? The Society’s actions demonstrate that they do think it is right to make such reports but they do not apply that conclusion uniformly. What does that mean?
There is perhaps no argument that one single policy from the Society could practically and uniformly deal with reports of child abuse. Why is that? It is because protection and justice from community to community differs sometimes so significantly that how moral people respond to that authority must differ. For example, some governments and communities in this wide world are prone to executing first and investigating second—if at all. Understandably, in such communities moral people are far more reluctant to report suspected cases of child abuse …….
SOUND - BACKGROUND - snoring begins.
BROTHER FRIEND
cont.
…….or even cases that are somewhat evidenced but not evidenced decisively to the levelheaded and reasonable person. But the Society’s actions do not stem from potential injustice or lack of protection from secular authorities. How do we know that?
Circumstances in the United States actually illustrate well that the Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within its own sphere of influence, but its actions in that nation also betray the Society’s real incentive, which incentive has nothing whatsoever to do with what is best for children. In the United States it is true that laws addressing child abuse vary from state to state. Nevertheless among secular authorities throughout that nation the prudence, protection and justice provided stemming from reported child abuse is pretty uniform in that protection and justice is generally the same from one jurisdiction to another from state to state. But, in the United States admittedly the Society’s action of reporting (or not) of child abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with a jurisdiction’s protective, investigative and/or prosecutorial record and everything to do with penal code! (And not one of those codes prohibits elders [clergy] from reporting known child abuse) That is why the Society tells some elder bodies to report known child abuse and others that they need not report. The question becomes, why would the Society direct elders to report in some jurisdictions but not in other jurisdictions with everything else being equal in terms of protection and justice afforded? There is only one answer and it is the one given above. The Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within its own sphere of influence.
INSERT WOMANS FACE - fast asleep - cigarette has burned down to a butt.
BACK ON:
BROTHER FRIEND
cont.
If the Society felt otherwise then they would insist that elder bodies act uniformly by reporting known and suspected child abuse throughout the United States and other jurisdictions having a reasonably similar record of prudence, protection and justice from law enforcement authorities. At the very least the Society would explicitly encourage that victims report this insidious crime! The Society has already demonstrated that reporting known and suspected child abuse is not in violation of any Biblical tenets because in jurisdictions requiring such reporting they tell elders to comply with those reporting laws. So, if there is no Biblical violation then why not report uniformly (or at least actively encourage that victims report) when protection and enforcement is reasonably equal? Again, there is only one reason and it is one having to do with an ill-conceived notion of preservation . Just what they are trying to preserve is not all that difficult to determine. What is the object of that ill-conceived preservation?
If theirs was some legitimate Biblical concern about protecting the reputation of God’s name, Jehovah (as if we need to protect Him!), or meeting some Biblical requirement then the Society would have to uniformly either prohibit or require reporting, but that is not what it has done. By instructing some elders to comply with penal code that requires reporting the Society has in essence said, it is morally okay to report these cases. So, if it is moral then why not uniformly report when all else is reasonably equal? The only object of preservation left becomes a selfish one.
By its deplorable action the Society has demonstrated that it is less concerned with the real and day-to-day interests of helpless and innocent children than it is with its own instrumentational viability......
SOUND - BG - the womans snoring is getting louder.
BROTHER FRIEND
(continues monotonous drone)
....the internal strife and anger on this issue runs deep and it is heating up! The Society should have listened to its battery of lawyers years ago when they advised a uniform policy of reporting child abuse when protection and justice is reasonable expected.
Why did the Society want those letters reproduced on this and other forums held in such strict confidence? Because they betray the Society’s self-interest gained at the expense of children and their families! In the end their interests will suffer over this and other issues.
That is quite a smoking gun, and it is undeniable! In fact, in recent weeks the Society’s own attorneys have admitted (apparently without thinking through it very well as attorneys) that the Society’s policies have been far too inadequate because they have admitted to knowing of botched cases in spite of policies in place, which policies include the matter of training and verification of understanding stemming from that training (or lack of). How else could they claim to know of cases where elders ‘did not follow directions’ without it being de facto admission of known inadequacy on the part if the Society’s representatives and therefore bad policy? The problem with the sort of inadequacies spoken of here is that it should take only a very few cases (perhaps just one!) to realize a flaw in the system (policy) and correct it. This has not happened in the obvious ways it needs to be done in relation to reporting incidents to legitimate authorities. One problem the Society will face is the potentially huge numbers who will be willing to come forth and testify to this lack and do so with one voice. That number will certainly be more than just a few, in fact it already is.
Just how deep the Society will yet mire itself in this sordid affair is yet to be seen, but what lay ahead will become even more untenable and nasty unless some major change is enacted by decision-makers at Brooklyn Bethel on a number of key issues into compliance with that which is sound and moral based upon the Bible, most importantly in those issues involving blood and child abuse.
INSERT WOMANS FACE - still in the land of nod - a fly is walking all over her face.
CUT TO:
ANGLES - The suitcase - open on the front doorstep - contains every volume of Studies in the Sciptures - old 78 rpm records - a well worn copy of the elders manual - no bibles.
Dejected Brother Friend tosses the awake and watchtower magazines he's holding into the suitcase.
37 EXT. DRAFFENVILLE - SUBURBAN STREET/SIDEWALK - SAME
Brother Friend makes his way down the front footpath of the house.
INSERT - CLOSE ON - the snapping rabid fangs of a demon possesed pitbull terrier.
ANGLES - midway down footpath - the demon possesed pitbull springs from behind a bush and clamps it's vice like jaw around Brother Friends throat - knocking Brother Friend to the ground - the suitcase flies open - Woman still dozing BG at front door.
BROTHER TAKETHELEAD - (an 11 year old kid) - and SISTER FIRSTDAYINFIELD - (claudia schiffer lookalike) - are coming down the sidewalk.
BROTHER TAKETHELEAD
(as he observes the mauling taking place in the front yard of the house)
….and did you did you notice the new light that was being brought out by the society in paragraph 86 of chapter 251 of the Happiness How to Cope With It book at the book study last…….
ICHING
Edited by - iching on 14 March 2001 12:41:59
Edited by - iching on 14 March 2001 12:44:34
