Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

by Jim Penton 86 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  patio34

  Hello Mr. Penton,

  It was interesting to read your post.

  Loathe as I am to enter the fray, I do feel compelled to sincerely disagree with most of your post. It seemed to me that you are sidestepping the real issues of reporting these crimes to the authorities and letting them take charge of the accusations and take it to court. This method preserves the "innocent til proven guilty" aspect. This apparently has not only been discouraged in the past but forbidden. Your assertions that rape and child abuse are often only ploys by women is irresponsible, inflammatory, and irrelevant. The point is: Let the authorities decide, not the elders.

  If Mr. Bowen were not involved, where would the victims of the "don't ask, don't tell" go? What would be your suggestion? Mr. Bowen is a champion of the victims of the antiquidated WT policy of two witnesses. Two witnesses were not required for murder nor for rape "in the field." It's absurd, unjust, and cruel to arbitrarily apply it to children.

  I believe Mr. Bowen was justified in using the expression CYA as it is common in this country and not considered overly ungentlemanly.

  Respectfully,

  Pat
• 

  larc

  Seaken, I have some questions for you. How exactly did Ray attack Bill? I didn't see that in his comments. Also, why do you think Ray should do anything for Bill's crusade? Ray is 80 and very busy operating out of his house, filling book orders, updating his book, getting it translated into other languages, and answering the many phone and letter requests for his help. He has enough to do, and more than I could handle. You might as well criticize Bill for not writing a book. It has about the same logic to it. Seaken, how many books have you written in the fashion of Franz, Penton, COJ, Harrison, Eason, Hickman, Bergman, Schnell. How many thoughtful internet topics have you written in the fashion of AlanF, Farkel, Norm, JanH. How many web sites have you initiated in the fashion of Kent, Randy Watters, and Simon. How many crusades have you started in the fashion of Bill Bowen and the group that deals with the blood issue. You have done none of this. Well, neither have I, so criticize you and me before you go after the major contributors.
• 

  patio34

  Well this is a first for me, Larc. I can't remember disagreeing with you, but I strongly take issue with your post rebutting Seakin. Since when does one have to be "published" in order to disagree with what's opined here? I had the same feeling that Seakin had when reading Mr. Penton's post about it being spoken from the platform for all the R&F to keep quiet and follow the lead of the elders. No thanks!

  Plus, it seems to me that Mr. Penton is wrong. I'm as valid as anyone else here on the board whether I've written articles or not. So is Seakin who presented his views in a respectful way and did not attack the person, just disagreed with some of the person's OPINIONS.

  Maybe you should let Mr. Penton answer for himself.

  Pat
• 

  Makena1

  Jim - welcome to the board and thanks for your post. Ray's books were the catalyst for me. (thanks to Sabine my wife) We have also in a very small way supported the SL movement.

  Like Just2Laws (who I very much enjoyed meeting this summer), I am keeping my opinions on this debate to myself.

  That said, I concur with this part of SEAKEN's post:

  " Whether JW's or Catholics or Mormons. It's all the same. God is not participating. It is man abusing man. Stop looking for answers in the sky. The answer is within ourselves."

  Peace,

  Makena

  Edited by - Makena1 on 28 October 2002 22:35:31
• 

  larc

  Patio, I think you missed the purpose of what I wrote. I don't mean that someone has to write a book to have a valid opinion. I meant that there are major contributors who have used their major talents to make a contribution. Because Ray or Bill do it in different ways, does not make either of them wrong, just different with different personalities, talents and areas of expertise. Regarding your comments to Penton, I don't think he side stepped the issue at all. He clearly pointed out that the JW shielding of criminals was wrong. He also stated that accusations should be brought to a court of law, and he, himself, has testified in court cases. What more can the man do or say??????
• 

  expatbrit

  Well I'll state it yet again: no-one should be above questioning and honest criticism. Not the Pope, not the President, not the Governing Body, not Mr. Franz, not Mr. Bowen, not you, not I.

  If the criticism is abusive, then an apology is warranted for the manner, but not the mere existence, of the criticism. The day we say that Mr. Franz should not be questioned or criticised (for whatever reason) is the day we replace one Governing Body with another.

  As Jehovah's Witnesses, we lived Nineteen Eighty Four. In post-JW life, I will not live Animal Farm.

  Expatbrit
• 

  DannyBear

  Well said xpat.

  Iam constantly amazed at all placator's who shout 'stop the presses', whenever thier particular favorite issue is under scrutiny.

  If some had their way, we would leave a matter unresolved, just to maintain the peace.

  That is the ultimate jw way.

  Danny
• 

  larc

  Expat, of course I have to agree with you. Everyone can, and sometimes should be questioned. I also think that the method of questioning is important, and I agree with Penton that some forms of questioning and associated remarks are "crude". I don't see any of this in those who have spoken for Ray's point of view including Ray himself, Amazing, COJ, Penton, myself, and some others. However, I did see some harsh language from Bill Bowen, and some of his advocates. By the way, Bill and I have shared private e-mails and we are getting along just fine. My last comment was not meant to irritate him - just an observation from regarding an old post.
• 

  deddaisy

  Both biblically and in accord with Common Law tradition, the idea of having at least two witnesses to a crime has also been recognized as absolutely necessary in most cases.

  Certainly you are not talking about present day case law? You certainly are not implying that the courts insist on two witnesses to murder, to rape, to assault and battery, to child molestation, to ANY crime in order to convict a person? If not, why are you even bringing up traditional case law in a thread supposedly concerning Bill Bowen's attack? Are you the same Penton that has testified in trials?
• 

  patio34

  Hi Larc,

  You may be right, but then again, I may be. But right now I'm going to bed and too tired to check back the original posts. If I'm wrong, then I apologize. But I haven't conceded the points yet. Tomorrow's a new day. Night all . . .

  Pat (of the Sleepy class)