Why won't they simply change policy on sex offenders? Will they?

by punkofnice 49 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • punkofnice

    Why won't they (the WBT$ head honchos), simply change policy on sex offenders? Will they?..especially after the ARC for eg?

    It seems that with all the bad press and now the ARC among other institutions that are exposing the WBT$ for a haven for paedophiles, why hasn't the WBT$ simply changed it's insane policy?

    The things they've been doing are pathetic. A weird cartoon and the JWTV nonsense from the popes blaming homosexuals for child abuse.

    Are they really such fools? Are the GB and their suck ups themselves paedophiles (and that's a serious question not a viscious dig)?

    Would it really cost them their reputation? Surely, they could spin it to say that they are leaders in the field of child protection.

    I suspect there is MONEY at the root of their resistance.

    sorry if this has been covered before...well, actually I'm not....but y'know.

    Why are those money hugging popes so stubborn?

    I value your thoughts.

  • notoneoftheboys
    Its very simple. The GB has a thick file in Brooklyn and it lists paedophiles in congregations worldwide. These files also expose who serves as an elder or MS, who is a paedophile. The sickness these people have is incurable. Sure the GB says Elders monitor these ones, but how can an elder body do that? Its a sad day when the GB make these rules with no sense of concern for children. Its been proven that paedophiles have a very high rate of reoffending. Tell that to the mothers and fathers of small children who carry the emotional wounds of trusting unknowingly a family friend Elder, Ms with the well being of their kids. Yet here we are, we know thousands serve as elders and ministerial servants, how will a householder react if he finds out the nice caring man who has just fondled his child while handling out literature is a sexual predator? Sad day.
  • Wasanelder Once
    Wasanelder Once
    Good old pride I think. Just can't give up that "God's Mouthpiece" crap. Once they cry "Uncle" they have seriously undermined their authority.
  • punkofnice
    NOotB - Its a sad day when the GB make these rules with no sense of concern for children.

    I agree wholeheartedly. The GB are despicable fools(tm)

    WaEO - Pride does sum their mindset up.

  • steve2

    An organization that prides itself on having a unique role in modern-day history ain't going to easily allow itself to be seen as changing its policies and procedures because secular legislative bodies tell it to.

    Besides, it claims guidance and direction from Jehovah, the true God and instructs rank and file to wait upon Jehovah. All other religious groups and devotees are viewed as worshipping in error.

    So, it will required spiritual gymnastics to spin any changes in child sexual abuse policies as new light from Jehovah.

    The illusion of "Divine" guidance can be shattered quickly under the scrutiny of informed lawyers who have painstakingly done their homework.

  • fukitol

    Because they're brainwashed, ignorant, religious nutters, who honestly believe their God requires 2 witnesses to child rape.

    They're about on the same level as the most brainwashed, deluded, pig-ignorant, fundamentalist Muslim.

    I'd rather die at Armageddon than worship such a deity.

  • Splash

    By changing the policy to delete all abusers, they would lose many appointed men.

    By becoming open and sharing the abusers names to protect the congregations, they would be liable for compensation claims.

    By making any changes because the law says so, they demonstrate themselves to be less than the holy all knowing GB they try to portray.

    By doing anything on a worldwide scale, they would expose their underlying problem to many who are unaware of it, and some would quit.

    Expensive court cases would follow, bad publicity, loss of followers and ministry zeal, and loss of income.

  • punkofnice

    steve2 - It's a shame if that really is the bottom line. Perhaps the old cliche of 'pride before a fall' will bite them on their bums.

    fukitol - I'd rather die than be anything like the GB filth. I wouldn't mind a bit of their cash though.

  • punkofnice

    Splash - that's an interesting point. (Blimey, I sound like I'm conducting the watchtower study(tm) again).

    The bottom line opinions wise seems to be money and pride.

  • konceptual99

    There are some key differences in how the WTS sees it's own responsibilities when compared to other religious organisations. These include, but are not limited to, things like:

    - no congregational child specific activities and child leaders (e.g. sunday schools)

    - no congregational requirement for a leader to be alone with a child who is not their own

    - no clergy/laity differentiation

    - the judicial process being a theocratic one with essentially no criminal/civil legal responsibilities

    - victims/families having the right to do whatever they wish as far as reporting is concerned

    - elders not being policemen but spiritual shepherds only

    - scriptural instruction for having two witnesses before judicial action can be taken

    - long track record in alerting members and the wider public in general to the risks posed by child abusers

    - no systematic process for simply moving offenders who are appointed men around to another congregation

    Of course these all generate much debate as to their implementation and impact but the point is that these factors build a perception of their own scope of responsibility. The WTS is very careful not to go too far in conceding any organisational responsibility or duties. If so the legal and financial obligations become far greater. They will resist change as much as possible for these reasons.

Share this