Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  konceptual99

  Interesting Sparky - I will read the document in more detail when I get a chance. Regardless, their current procedures have received criticism in court and.most notably, from the ARC. They have also been called back to discuss this with the ARC. True, they are in good company with the Catholic and Anglican churches but even these organisations have made far more changes to their procedures to bring them into line with what is generally accepted best practice.

  I think that most would agree that at best the WTS demonstrates a strong resistance to change.
• 

  konceptual99

  You did not answer my question :
  ".....who's moral code......."

  Obviously their code. It could be influenced by how other organisations choose to act but the WTS chooses not to change the culture and mindset.

  If you want to argue that it's actually someone else's code (e.g my code or my perception of what others' codes may be) then fine but it's missing the point IMO. Repeatedly the actions and more critically, the cultural and organisational framework surrounding how allegations have been managed, have received repeated negative analysis.

  When subjected to critical questioning all the WTS seems able to do is whine "yeah but" like a teenager being called out on their childish behaviour. Worse than that, it seems incapable of going away, reflecting and then coming back to the table with some meaningful change and progress.

  TBH, some of the defence of the WTS on here has been far, far better than anything the WT lawyers have presented. I may not agree with every point but at least there is a logic to the argument.

  (You have already conceded that wt is operating lawfully)

  mmm - yes and no. In the main there is little chance that the WTS can actually act unlawfully in a jurisdiction with no mandatory reporting requirements since no other laws typically apply. This of course does not in itself remove any potential liabilities in a civil case.

  Where laws do apply, which is essentially mandatory reporting, then there is still the question as to if individuals and the organisation have always operated within the appropriate laws applicable to them. I don't think it has always been 100% clear if specific laws have been applicable and followed.
• 

  Hoffnung

  The question for the moral code by Fisherman is super hypocritical. JW claim themselves that they obey the superior authorities as per Romans 13. In this case, they willfully disobeyed the laws of this authority
  
• 

  OUTLAW

  By a moral code that that seeks to put the safety of potential victims first.....

  konceptual99

  Exactly!..
  Not the Legal Loophole,"Dirtbag Morals" the WBT$ attempts to Escape Justice with..

  .............................
  

  They Can`t Charge Me If My Pants Are Down.....AND..

  I`M WEARING BUNNY EARS!!
  

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Koncept you have posted a lot of colorful commentary but no legislation showing that WT is not complying with child abuse reporting laws. You have said that wt is not acting morally -but you have shown no facts, only colorful commentary.
  
• 

  JWdaughter

  In Fairness, folks do settle out of court when they are not guilty of anything-just to shut up the plaintiff, to keep their reputation, to stop the bleeding of the finances as they pay all the various court costs. BUT, in fairness, looking at the transcript, the WT was GONNA LOSE. Clearly, the monkeys are running the zoo and it has never shown so blatantly in a US court how foolishly and horrifically idiotic the WT stance is on all of this. They clearly have no defense as they keep trying to talk around the reality that yes indeed, the WTBTS and the CCJW is inextricably linked, connected and run together.

  You don't have to be guilty to settle, but the WT is clearly in the wrong and all the pussyfooting around that they do is starting to wear out the patience of the justice system. They KNOW that they can and have lost and that courts do and will find them liable. They do NOT need another precedent setting case against them and THAT is clearly and fairly why they settled.

  Good for the victim. Finally some justice and if money is the vehicle. . . vroom vroom.
• 

  JWdaughter

  The WT has claimed in years past a clergy confidentiality while denying that they are clergy. While we are sorting THAT little contradiction out, they are also claiming that their silence is something about respecting the privacy of the confession. We know that this too is a contradiction, not to mention a hypocrisy as they actually have COMMITTEES to kick folks out, they announce them from the STAGE, write DETAILED REPORTS, call legal (They apparently have an entire department to deal with child abuse cases) to see how much they can get away with NOT reporting and do wild dances around the truth so they can avoid testifying when they are found out. They hire lawyers to try to justify it. They have been doing it for years and it is getting less and less successful with every passing case.

  They have been trying to utilize the "privacy of the confessional" as if they are freaking CATHOLICS or something and guess what???? There is NOTHING in the Bible that says that such sin is private or should be hidden.

  That their MORALS are convenient is pretty much typical of religionists like the WT, idiotic mullahs, insane preachers and dissolute priests/monks of all persuasions (my Buddhist friend has some stories, so this is not limited to the Judeo Christian tradition in any way). Men who want to control make up rules that suit their peccadillos, preferences and convenience.
• 

  konceptual99

  Koncept you have posted a lot of colorful commentary but no legislation showing that WT is not complying with child abuse reporting laws. You have said that wt is not acting morally -but you have shown no facts, only colorful commentary.

  You stated that I conceded the WTS always acted lawfully. My point was that the only law that ever really comes into play is that of mandatory reporting and that the WTS obligations under this have been the matter of discussion in court - therefore not 100% clear cut.
  

  I think it's clear that I have not made a big thing at all about the legal side of things. I don't really care about the legal minutiae. For me it's about the culture within the WTS that defers to organisational protectionism rather than a progressive approach that embraces contemporary best practice and suggests a willingness to look in the mirror, accept valid criticism and implement change accordingly.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  On this site and others people have repeatedly stated that child abuse is a crime and not a sin. I view it as both a crime and a sin. But lets go with the fact that it is a crime. So morality should not come into a factor on this, only the legality of the instance. If it was just a morality issue then yes the "minutiae" of the legality of it wouldn't come into this case as a factor. The legal details matter greatly. First, it doesn't matter if Watchtower views Elders as clergy, the law views them as such. Each state that gives clergy-penitent privilege defines what a member of the clergy is. Some states have very broad definitions and some have extremely narrow defined. Second, again the law defines what is considered a confidential communication. If it was only given to Catholic confessionals, that would be unconstitutional and be struck down. Most states define the privilege as communication that is part of the beliefs and discipline of their faith, and that both the communicant and the clergy member recognize as a confidential matter. Even if that communication occurs in front of other people, who are also providing "spiritual" help. Third, the person who is the communicant is the one that holds the privilege, not the clergy member. As pointed out in People v Bragg, only the communicant can release the clergy member from that privilege, even if the clergy member divulges the information to a third party, because it is the moral thing to do. So yes, if you want to think of child abuse as a moral issue that Watchtower's actions are reprehensible, but if you look at it from a legal point of view they are doing what they are supposed to do.
• 

  OUTLAW

  On this site and others people have repeatedly stated that child abuse is a crime and not a sin.....Richard Oliver