Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

by wannaexit 60 Replies latest jw friends

  • LoveUniHateExams

    The WT Society's arrogance is noteworthy. They really think they are above Caesar's laws.

    Obviously, they're not. Hopefully, they're about to have a head-long crash into reality.

    I hope the ARC recommends the strictest possible measures for these arrogant, puffed-up bastards.

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    Just perusing the WT response and reading through the comments, basically what Watchtower is saying is:

    "There is no such thing as a legitimate criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses' policies, procedures or beliefs."

    . . . in other words:

    "WE'RE A CULT!"

  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake

    I just want to encourage everyone in this thread as well to email the Royal comission with any evidence from the Watchtowers own publications that shows any part of their reply to be untrue.

    I've sent them an email about why their response regarding shunning is an outright lie, please anyone who is willing do likewise on any point you choose to address their lies. Include citations to their publications as to why it's a lie. The email I've used to communicate with the ARC is:
  • TimDrake1914

    Reading the WT response was really difficult in many ways. I feel a bit conflicted. On one hand, trying to be fair and unbiased, I understand their need to "fight for their rights" and use/take advantage of whatever leverage the law provides them and allows them to have in regards to their legal right to fight for their religious freedom. Like they stated in their rebuttal, there is a difference between what the law "permits" and what the law "forbids", and they have a right to do everything they want, as long as the law doesn't "forbid" it. But that right there is the problem this commission has brought to light. I agree with WT that governments must pass laws to make them do more than what they are doing, since that seems to be the only way we will ever get mandatory reporting.

    However, on the flip side, most of what I read from the rebuttal seems to go against the principals that JW's are told to live by. In other words, it's just more double-speak from WT. So even though I am totally with them on the whole "religious freedom" argument, I just can't help but feel that them trying to even make that argument betrays the principles they are supposed to be live by. As one poster previously commented, if they really did try and live by Christ's example, they wouldn't focus on what the law allows them to do or not do, but instead would be guided by the principle of true "justice". Their responses to the allegations mostly come accross as pharasiacal, and in many places, just lack empathy and understanding.

    None of this is surprising, of course. As someone who pretty much lost all faith in religion thanks to WT, I would love to see a world in which rationality, reasonableness and human kindness based on empirical evidence and scientific findings and not religious belief was the norm. But I also believe in the law and taking advantage of what the law allows, and for now, the law allows religion and its crazy reasonings. So good on you WT for fighting for what you believe. But I still think your policies and beliefs are crap, and that they prohibit you and your adherents from being the very people you purport and actually strive to be, and that to me is just amazing. But again, that's religion for you.

  • steve2

    Remember, the Royal Commission is not yet over.

    Jw organization is perfectly entitled to respond, point-by-point from the perspective of their beliefs. Whether this is seen as arrogant or 'speaking their truth' is a matter of perspective. Although, even jw organization must know they do not emerge from this smelling sweet - and what a shameful issue to be in conflict with caesar over! So, as far as it can do so, jw organization will want to put a "decent" gloss on existing policies.

    Ultimately, despite the huffing and puffing from both sides, I think the Royal Commission has made the organization significantly more aware of evidence-based responses to child sexual abuse. And some of the more egregious aspects of judicial committees (e.g., expecting the child to confront their alleged abuser) have already been stopped.

    Despite its tiresome posturing about 'following the Bible' and not being ruled by man, the organization cannot help but be aware of how its policies and procedures look to the wider community i which they live. This is an organization acutely sensitive to how others, including existing members, perceive it.

  • Hisclarkness
    Can someone please explain what if any significance WT's response holds? Does this delay any possible future policy changes or laws or is it merely a statement saying they disagree?
  • Vidiot

    It's a line drawn in the sand, based on the mistaken conviction that they're 100% right, and that God's got their back.

    They may end up somewhat disappointed.

  • slimboyfat
    They don't require two witnesses to fornication. Hypocrites.
  • Vidiot

    slimboyfat - "They don't require two witnesses to fornication."

    'Course not.

    Can't condone watching porn, after all. :smirk:

  • LevelThePlayingField

    F.69 A Jehovah’s Witness who no longer wants to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline may simply stop associating with the congregation without formally disassociating from the faith.

    What a lie!

    Also, where in their report did WT make ANY comments about what they want to DO about child abuse moving forward? I didn't see anything. All they had was a rebuttal. So they didn't learn anything from such a learned panel as the Royal Commission. Talk about throwing your pearls before swine.

Share this