Is Child Abuse being Hijacked ?

by Earnest 19 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  hawkaw

  Well Earnest,

  One I am stunned that no one has pulled your post. If this was a Mad Apostate post and he did it - he would have been launched into space.

  Having said that ... I do support free speech including this thread and I won't delete it.

  But and a big but .... Min. does ask a valid question in his thread title. Is he a ped or not? The reason why he asks the question is based on the "fact" that a woman accused Ted of such yesterday in public and in front of news crews.

  Is child rape being hijacked to attack the WTS. Well, lets be clear about something. The WTS refuses to this day to admit the problem exists and supposts abusers like Fitzwater. Needless to say Bill, Barb and others want to stop it. Whether you like it or not certain things are done to publize issues so that corporations are forced to change there ways such as but not limited too court actions, media blitzs and demostrations. That is how its done.

  hawk
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I have a question.

  Since Earnest is claiming that talking about Jaracz possibly being a Pedophile is "Abusing our Freedom of Speech", was it "Abusing our Freedom of Speech" when the American People were all talking about O.J. Simpson being a murderer?
• 

  sf

  Well hawkaw, I'm still miffed as to why EMan felt it necessary to delete my entire post in that other thread.

  How can he just do that (cut my free speech) without other moderators input?? I never accused TED of anything. Did you get to read my post at all? Don't suppose many did. It really sucked. I was not even warned. It was just 'killed', because HE thought it was 'too accusory'. What the hellions does that mean??

  Perhaps The Prominent Bethelite can help out on this word and if I did indeed came close to accusing Jaracz of anything.

  sKally
• 

  plmkrzy

  sf, I didn't see your post.

  Valis

  In all fairness liking or not liking what someone has to say is not the issue.

  Wouldn't this be a more constructive way of getting down to the "truth" of the matter? Or perhaps you are afraid of what you might find out?

  Again, in all fairness, getting down to the "truth" of the matter is something that has to be proven in Court. We can not legally get to the truth of the matter on a discussion board.

  JMO

  plum
• 

  Simon

  Calling someone a pedophile could well be considered libelous and should be deleted IMHO.

  I believe we should stick to reporting that an accusation has been made and discussing whether it has any merit without repeating the accusation itself as if it were fact or proven.

  Accusations 'made in the street' are one thing, accusations that have gone through the courts are another.
• 

  hawkaw

  IMNSHO ....sf's post should not have been deleted ....but asked to be amended
• 

  sf

  "Calling someone a pedophile could well be considered libelous and should be deleted IMHO."

  I never called TED JARACZ a PEDOPHILE in that post Simon. Never.

  I feel totally VIOLATED by E(man). Totally.

  Just when I think most men are okay fellas, my mind plays tricks. I have GOT to stop listening to my head and stick with what i KNOW.

  I don't reveal much about my wt daze, but today I DID. AND YOU 'VIOLATED' me by killing my post. Now it's as if it is still stuck and buried inside me. Happy? Actually, odds are you really could't care less. I'm not exactly 'popular' here with most of the men. Remember my post to ROBERT HOWARD? Snuffed out, in a flash. Why Simon? Your reason then was 'you wanted to limit threads that started as:'TO: SUCH N SUCH'. And that you were thinkingof a category where people could just bulletin each other. hahaha, yea ok. I know the real reason you killed Simon. But that was then. This is now.

  I respectfully want my free speech respected as well.

  I NEVER ACCUSED TED JARACZ OF ANYTHING IN THAT POST. I know better than that. That's why I chose my words carefully. I'm full aware of how caustic I can become. That post was not caustic either. Just said alot about men who use womens vulnerabilities. Perhaps that is what chapped his hind.

  sKally
• 

  Earnest

  Undisfellowshipped:

  You ask:

  Since Earnest is claiming that talking about Jaracz possibly being a Pedophile is "Abusing our Freedom of Speech", was it "Abusing our Freedom of Speech" when the American People were all talking about O.J. Simpson being a murderer?

  The abuse that I spoke of referred to the capitalised title of the thread, not the discussion of the allegation that followed. If there was no problem with the title of the thread why did minimus and hawkaw want it deleted when I simply substituted "MINIMUS" for "TED JARACZ". Minimus considered the question "disgusting and offensive" and I agree, which is why I described it as an abuse of freedom of speech. I was not offended because the question referred to Ted Jaracz, I was offended by the question itself and would probably have reacted with the same post whoever had been named.

  I would like to add something about hijacking child abuse victims and just ask that it be taken as sincere. There have been a number of posts where indignation has been expressed when a funeral has been used simply as a public talk to an audience who would never normally enter a KH. It has simply been a means to an end. The individual involved sometimes seem to be just a necessary adjunct to the talk. I feel the same way about the current "enthusiasm" for silent lambs and the glee that here is someone accusing a member of the GB.

  Earnest
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Hi Earnest,

  You said:
  

  What I am serious about is that the really dreadful crime of child abuse is being hijacked in order to attack the WTS. To my mind this is simply using the victims as pawns in a bigger game. I deplore it. Certainly the WTS should be held to account, as should the Catholic church and all other groups that are reprehensible. I thought the idea of another poster that Silent Lambs should be broadened for all victims of child abuse went some way to making them the focus of our attention.

  I definitely understand what you are saying.

  We need to hold every single Church, Organization, Group, Religion, Business, Government, and people accountable who have molested children, OR who have covered-up child molestation.

  However, I for one, truly feel for all of the victims.

  Would I like to see the Watchtower Society get busted for hurting all of these victims? Absolutely. That is the feeling of JUSTICE in our conscience (which God gave us).

  Also, by publicizing what the Society, and the Catholics, and all the other groups have done to cover-up child molestation, it causes several things to happen.

  1. It should cause parents to be a lot more careful in choosing who (if anyone) they will let their kids hand around with in the Church.

  2. It should cause the Media to start questioning the Policies of the Church, which will put lots of pressure on the Church to change their Policies to protect the children.

  3. It may cause people to stop donating money, and it may stop people from joining the Church, and this, in turn, will cause the Church to lose money, and THEN, the Church may actually take action to change their Policies.

  You are right, NO ONE should take advantage of any victims of abuse, but I am not sure who you are saying has done this?
• 

  Earnest

  Undisfellowshipped:

  You asked:

  You are right, NO ONE should take advantage of any victims of abuse, but I am not sure who you are saying has done this?

  I hesitated to reply because in criticising anyone who publicises child abuse can make one appear to be supporting the abuser. Celtic's post today ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=37689&site=3) is an example of what I had in mind and speaks for itself.

  Earnest