Honest Questions About Child Abuse
The report submitted by the ARC does not question her ability as an Expert Witness. They just dismissed her findings in whole. Again they are politicians who don't want to look to be to lax on things that will lose them support.
Folks- arguing with this guy is like pissing against the wind , beating your head against a brick wall, talking to an empty vacated mind with WT blinders wrapping that mind up with a warm , soft blanket so he can feel secure in his nice fuzzy WT / JW world and mindset . Don't we have people around here that really need our help and support ?
O.k. I've stated my views here. Happy New years everybody, including you Richard - wake up and open your mind and smell the WT coffee and writing on the wall for the criminal organization that IS Jehovah's Witnesses. Educate yourself. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
"Freedom of Religion"..... the most valued of all commodities... why? it allows people to commit all kinds of crimes "done in the name of religion"
"Freedom from Sexual Abuse"..... what value is placed on this?
O.K. Richard you want ACTUAL ideas on HOW to improve things with the WT Society's child abuse policies ? Let's try this : How about making it MANDATORY on WT leadership to do criminal BACKGROUND checks on EVERY male member who is being considered for appointment as an elder or ministerial servant ? THAT would show at least some kind of responsibility on the WT Society's part in taking an interest in WHO is taking the lead in their organization.
It would serve the twofold purpose of not only protecting the children from possible predators abusing their power - but - it would also limit the WT Society's financial liability with the tons of out of court child abuse lawsuit payouts they've been having to dole out due to their LACK of responsibility. This is a reasonable thought and request I believe to WT leaders. What do you think of that ? This is my view. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
In this case in Louisiana, there is nothing that a prosecutor or law enforcement official can do, they are obeying the legal requirements of the land in which they live. Again is it moral? No. But are they barred from doing anything more? Yes.
Not true Richard....... they are not barred from continuing to probe and poke at this Priest's detestable conduct towards this young person.
The Law evolves............ it is a servant that can be fired or over ruled in many circumstances. Even Jehovah's rules have been judged criminal in many situations.
Women had few rights in the history of first world countries now they have gone from few to equal rights. The same for slaves......... who's slavery was justified by the law and religion.
Just because the Catholic Church or WTBTS has a policy doesn't mean we have to respect it and agree to uphold it.....it doesn't mean they get to hide this policy under the freedom of religion law.
Do we sanction burning people at the stake, which is how my distant family member Giordano Bruno died at noon in 1600 under the Inquisition?
In first world countries and many 2nd and 3rd world countries stoning a person to death, usually for adultery or apostasy is no longer permitted. Even the Catholic part of Ireland said enough is enough when it came to the hidden abuse of the clergy towards children.
So as we discuss this subject about church rights let us acknowledge that freedom of religion is conditional. You don't get to handle poisonous snakes during a church service just because of one scripture in the Bible. You don't get to stone a person for a sexual preference. You don't get to burn a person alive. You no longer get to use the 'rod' on a child and beat him senseless.
You don't get to hide a sick child and pray away the sickness because you BELIEVE that's the right thing to do. Because your religion says it's the right thing to do. Or to deny a life saving blood transfusion to a child because of your pathetic JW beliefs.
And if your a believing Christian or a decent person you don't get to 'hinder the children' or 'suffer the children from coming to Jesus by using them as a sex object.
Child sexual abuse is the next great gap in the law that needs to be closed. Like women's rights and slavery it needs to be exposed. The Confessional is pretty worthless when it comes to acting and reacting responsibly. Some things are beyond the private.
People of any age who are defenseless need protection. In the Louisiana case this Priest is responsible for not acting in some way. The confessional has been a permission zone to act out one's worse behavior, then stroll in for a blessing.
Pedophile priests are no longer protected. Elders are not protected. Rabbi's are not protected.
When it comes to children the WTBTS and many other religions and organizations have been reckless with the health and welfare of the children who have been placed in a situation that makes them and their parents obedient to ignorant rules.
The times are against permitting pedophiles freedom to abuse. We just need to change the understanding of 'freedom of religion' to 'freedom and the responsibility under the law of religion'.
Richard Oliver - "The report submitted by the ARC does not question her ability as an Expert Witness. They just dismissed her findings in whole. Again they are politicians who don't want to look to be to lax on things that will lose them support."
Pretty sure the ARC staff aren't politicians.
And they dismissed her "findings" because all she did was read over the WTS's printed material on the subject, and rubber-stamp it.
And also because she was clearly, ridiculously wrong.
And here's the deal in an added thought about WT leaders doing mandatory background checks on potential elder appointees or ministerial servant appointees. Someone may say " Oh ! This would be too expensive to do these checks ! " And yet - WT Society has made over a Billion $$$$ on the sales of their New York facilities and even more selling off many kingdom halls - I think they have PLENTY of money to do these background checks. It would protect more children from child abuse AND it would lessen the need for paying out millions $$$ in out of court child abuse settlements .
Bottom line ? I feel WT leaders are too arrogant to do what I'm recommending. They'll never admit fault or admit negligence. They think THEY are God . Seriously. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
Justice Peter McClellan asked Dr Applewhite if the process used by Jehovah's Witnesses was appropriate for handling child sex abuse allegations. Dr Applewhite agreed the process could further traumatize victims.
The doctor, who has listed work with the Catholic archdioceses of Melbourne and Adelaide on her extensive CV, said she had not found examples in Australia of a religious organisation that provided better information than the Witnesses on how to support abuse victims.
Dr Monica Applewhite, a US-based consultant specialising in child abuse response and prevention, was employed by Watchtower Australia, the legal entity of the Jehova's Witness church
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181187/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-procedures-dealing-sex-abuse-deficient-traumatise-victims-church-expert-admits-child-abuse-commission-hearing.html#ixzz4UR065JJ4
But she confessed her research was based on Jehovah's Witness publications, not on empirical studies.
Her knowledge of every religious organisation was also limited and she was unable to immediately identify the other religious organisations to which she was referring.
When asked by Angus Stewart SC, counsel for the commission, whether Jehovah's Witness procedure was "deficient when measured against current best practice", Dr Applewhite replied: "Does it meet all current best practices? It probably doesn't."
................The women told the commission how an internal judicial hearing required them to detail the abuse to three church elders, all men, in front of the alleged abuser.
Justice Peter McClellan asked Dr Applewhite if she thought this process was appropriate. Dr Applewhite said there were better ways.
She also agreed that under the two witnesses rule, abuse victims could be further traumatised because they were not being believed.
Justice McClellan said: "It is by no means an ideal place for someone's psychological well being to be placed?"
Dr Applewhite replied: "That's true."
When Andrew Tokley SC, counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, suggested Dr Applewhite be allowed to submit a supplementary report, Justice McClellan said it needed to be more than an expression of opinion.
He pointed out the commission needed information that would help address the obvious flaws in the Witnesses' procedures.
It appears that she changed her tune when confronted with the truth of the matter. As she agreed with the counsel when she refuted the WT's polices as being:
no means an ideal place for someone's psychological well being to be placed?"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181187/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-procedures-dealing-sex-abuse-deficient-traumatise-victims-church-expert-admits-child-abuse-commission-hearing.html#ixzz4UQzALGdG
Applewhite was blinded by greenbacks into not doing her due diligence and believing the spin given to her by WT legal. When she was called out on this nonsense by the ARC then she had no choice other than to start accepting the conclusions of the ARC or face yet further damage to her credibility.
If she had done her job properly in the first place then she would have no doubt presented the WT with a highly critical report from day one and never have been put up by the organisation as a secular representative. In fact, her name would never have been mentioned by the WTS.
Outlaw. Again you're trying to over simplify things.
First of all the ARC is a group of politicians and not a court of law.....RO
This information isn`t hard to find..
A Royal Commission is a major ad-hoc formal public inquiry into a defined issue in some monarchies. They have been held in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia. A Royal Commission is similar in function to a Commission of Enquiry (or Inquiry) found in other countries such as Ireland, South Africa, and Hong Kong. It has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the terms of reference of the Commission.
Royal Commissions are usually chaired by one or more notable figures. Because of their quasi-judicial powers the Commissioners are often retired or serving judges.vidence presented at the Australian Royal Commission hearing..
The evidence presented at the Australian Royal Commission Hearing..
Doesn`t support your delusional Defense of the Watchtower..
So you dismiss it..
Second, you keep claiming that Watchtower prevents people from telling the police. Is there any actual evidence of that other than the testimony in the ARC or from other witnesses in other courts? Is there any objective evidence?....RO
Can you prove to me that you never read a book?....RO