The typical JW zombie mindset

SecretSlaveClass

I posted this on a pro-JW site:

This is the official policy sanctioned by the Governing Body. It's not about indivuals being molesters/deviants. It's about recent published JW policy recommending not only tolerating pedophiles, but actually how to go about considering them for eldership or minsiterial servant positions:http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile...

Like · Reply · Aug 7, 2015 3:47pm

This is an example of a brainwashed reply:

Anna Kotas

Your reasoning, that "WTpolicy recommending not only tolerating pedophiles, but actually how to go about considering them for eldership or minsiterial servant positions" is warped. That is not at all what I understood from reading it. This document was providing answers to valid questions posed by elders wanting direction on various circumstances involving a FORMER child molester.

No need for me to add anything more, the reply says it all ...

I am surprised they didn't remove my posting!

freemindfade

They can say any brainwashed thing they want, data doesn't lie.

The ARC gives some good data

1006 cases not a single one reported, even if the JW policies weren't ask twisted as they were and this still went on, it is a pretty good indication there is a systemic shortfall. The evidence, just in Australia, says yes, they ARE permissive towards pedophiles. How they get there is just little details and semantics (which there are a lot of powerful ones that have come out). But in the end, the victims go through more scrutiny than the abusers.

breakfast of champions

See! Two plus two DOES equal five!

BluesBrother

One brilliantly simple point that came out of the Aus. videos was concerning the very nature and aims of a J C hearing. One of the barristers quickly made a comment that hit me like a ton of bricks.

A J/C is not a Court of law. It is not determining right and wrong, crime and punishment. The whole purpose of it is to try to regain your brother. The maxim that was dinned into us at elders schools was "Our aim is to gain". The last thing you want to have to do is disfellowship somebody.

Therefore a Committee looks for signs of repentance.That is the key to their decision. If the perpetrator claims repentance, and is at all credible, they are bound not to d/f him

That may work for the teen who has been screwing his girlfriend, but it is totally inadequate to deal with serious crimes that lie in the province of the Police

freddo

But .... "Anna Kotas" has read it (a mere sister I presume - sarcasm - has read it. She can't spiral bind the elders book and yet she has access to this much more "highly confidential" document.)

Also your post is "allowed" on a pro-jw site.

These are good things. They are the thin edge of the wedge.

cofty

There is no such thing as a "former pedophile".

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. They might be capable of not acting on their urges for a while but that is still the way they are wired. Repentance for past crimes has nothing to do with it. Short of chemical castration they remain a risk to children.

This is why they must be referred to authorities who actually know what they are talking about.

DATA-DOG

What Cofty said. She doesn't understand that there is no such thing as a former Pedo.

You should go back to that site and counsel her. Tell her to make sure she doesn't read any of the Flock Book. She doesn't qualify.

DD

SecretSlaveClass

DATA-DOG: I may well do so.

Cofty: That point didn't occur to her. What did occur to her was that her emotional attachment to everything she holds dear was being attacked.

konceptual99

Playing devils advocate, is there not a very small subset of convicted sex offenders who pose no long term threat as their conviction was based on their age and the age of the person they had sex with? I am thinking ONLY of those people in some relationship where one is just above the age of consent and the other just below.

I know that often the authorities look on these situations differently but there is still the feasible prospect of someone getting a conviction or caution under these circumstances.

Is this person a paedophile?

SecretSlaveClass

konceptual994 minutes ago
Playing devils advocate, is there not a very small subset of convicted sex offenders who pose no long term threat as their conviction was based on their age and the age of the person they had sex with? I am thinking ONLY of those people in some relationship where one is just above the age of consent and the other just below.

Of course you are right. But those fall into the category of "sex offender, statutory rape". This depends on age difference from state to state, country to country and culture to culture. In the end common sense and conscience must prevail.

The typical JW zombie mindset

Share this