I was impressed by part of today's symposium entitled ' Safeguard your children from what is evil'
They failed to detail what the child protection policies are in the congregation
I think Konceptual99 raises a really valid point. Many organisations that work with children have their safeguarding policies accessible to the public.
As an example, out of curiosity I chose the first church that came into my head - The Baptist Church. I typed in Baptist Church safeguarding policy to see if I could access their policy. Lo and behold. There it was. Within seconds, I was able to read their child safety policy. I have included the link below.
Watchtower legal department lurkers. PLEASE TAKE NOTE!
Moving in the right direction.
Sadly, re-active rather than pro-active still.
All driven by money, I'll wager.
Bolting the gate after the horse is long gone......
The Botchtower will still fight for every penny in every lawsuit brought against them.
And fight tooth and nail against justice for children.
Its sugar coated words to help keep questioning parents IN, who otherwise might have left.
I'm far from impressed.
Ah, but, see, they weren't DFed for being wrong, per se...
...they were DFed for "unrepentantly" resisting counsel (to STFU or else).
You're right, , that, that would be the honest course.
However, they will never take that course...
...so what does that tell you about the WTS?
UnshackleTheChains - thanks for the Baptist links
I thought the following section was interesting - seeing it set-out as they have:
'Safe To Grow' document
Page 79: When it is known that a person who has been convicted of sexually abusing children or young people is attending your church
BTW - weird, it looks like they actually shut down their Child Safeguarding website last year - http://www.safetogrow.org.uk/ - (see pages 65, 71, 77, 80, 81 and back (last) page of above document)
I heard that talk, too, and as has been already described, the focus was primarily on parents talking to their children about sex so that the children know what is "approved by Jehovah." In other words, the goal is to educate them as to what is a sin and what is not, so that if they are approached, they know that to engage in sex or touching would be displeasing to Jehovah, the idea being that if the child knows what is right and what is wrong, then they won't go along with whatever an abuser wants to do!
Okay--so many problems with this. First of all, the implication is that the child has some degree of responsibility, since the child knows what is a sin and what is not, and that there is some degree of control and even complicity on the part of a child if they are assaulted. That is absolutely nonsense and part of the "blame the victim" mentality at which the Society is so adept. This stance is supported by the admonition in the talk about dressing modestly, as if the child is in some way seducing--and again, responsible--for an assault. There was nothing about how a child is a victim and if an assault happens, your child is not to blame, nor was there anything about getting help or going to the police.
Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective:
"I am so impressed with Wal-Mart's decision to carry organic foods, after the Shareholders and Lawyers realized that it made financial sense."
Wal-Mart is still a business that treats it's employees like shit. We should stop giving them any money. Sure, we can get food a bit cheaper, but at what cost?
The WTBTS did not really change, and they certainly did not have a change of heart, or do anything for the right reasons. They are like a drunk-driver who, after repeated warnings, kills someone, finally gets busted, and expects some kudos for being forced to change.
Wake up and smell the slimey coating of this disgusting, parasitic cult that merely jerked back one of it's blood soaked appendages, before continuing the search for its next meal.
I don't really care for their belated, sniffeling 'improvements'. None of these have came off their own back and frankly, after the ARC, if they cared at all about ssfeguarding children then they'd have inplimented the suggested changes immediately. But they haven't and never will. Mainly because they're proud and rigidly stuck in their ridiculous ideology.
If things improve and less children are harmed then fair enough but I can't see it. They'd have to get rid of the two witness rule. And they won't.
"She wouldn't have been raped if she had dressed more appropriately, and had stayed home to read our publications."
One thing for sure the WTS is not being openly transparent regarding this issue.
For example they probably didn't mention the ARC investigation in Australia against the JWS, they didn't mention the directive from HQ that all information of any of their members being accused of pedophilia were to be destroyed at all Congregations.
They probably didn't mention the many legal cases brought forward against the WTS for cover up and mishandling certain members who were identified as being involved with the sexual abuse of children.
They probably didn't say that the organization has had some their members being accused of pedophilia even some elders.
They seem to be with the intent of white washing over the recent media attention the JWS has been getting over a pedophilia problem.
The WTS leaders have always been deceiving slime balls who don't honesty address issues, whether its false doctrines made by the WTS or any issue that makes a bad impression toward the organization itself..