For shadow

by Big Tex 52 Replies latest members private

• 

  Big Tex

  I really believe that most JW's primary concern would be the victimized child. I cannot speak from personal experience as to how this was handled years ago

  shadow, I'd like to believe that as well. Cognitively, perhaps I can go there, but at a gut level I just can't. I've seen too much, in my own case, and I've heard too much from others who went through worse. It's quite a thing to have a circuit overseer sit in your living room and tell you to "shut up" or you'll be disfellowshipped.

  I hear where you're coming from, and I do understand. I really believed when I was a JW, in fact a couple of people on this board knew me from back then and called me 'hard core'. I do think it takes going through it personally. Seeing friends you've known for years turn on you, feeling tremendous pressure brought to bear on you and your loved ones, hearing threats and lies told about you -- all for no reason. I think it takes something that personal to get through.

  I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I don't expect to change your mind, (actually you seem very opened mind for a JW), but if this board can alert unsuspecting people to what "the truth" really is all about, then it's worth it. I would hate to see anyone go through what so many on this board have.
• 

  Cassiline

  Shadow

  Below is the policy ( present policy) presented by the JWs on their own website. It clearly states that if the elders do not find evidence or sustained abuse they can do nothing to him in the congregation. This means he is innocent of all charges under the JW faith.

  Now this means that the victim must coexist in the same congregation with her/his abuser. We both know the laws within the JW community of slander. If this child repeats such or her parents repeat such to anyone in the congregation then they are guilty of slander which carries several penalties.

  So the victim or their family may be Disfellowshipped or Reproved, marked because they dared to speak out about what the abuser did to him or her. No one can be warned under this policy which gives the abuser access to more targets.

  However it does state that the elders may or are supposed to report to the authorities where states require. Now imagine they do report and the child testifies, which has happened. Guess who gets the congregational support? The abuser/pedophile because the child is speaking out against his or her accuser. There is a case which went to court about two years ago in Washington State, with Erica Garza. Look it up and read the account. The JWs refused to support her, yet they supported him.

  Even if found guilty by Cesar's laws the pedophile is still not guilty in the JWs eyes.

  How can a ?justice? system like this be fair to a victim? In addition there are pressures in place to assure that the victim does not go to secular authorities.

  When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.

  However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

  http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

  Cassi
• 

  Tashawaa

  As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15)

  This is what the Society bases its "two witness" rule on... yet there is a scripture that deals with sexual crimes. The scriptures acknowledge that in serious crimes, like murder, there is usually NO witnesses. Same with sexual crimes...

  Deut 22:25 "But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die; but unto the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter."

  There would be no witness to the rape. No witness to say whether she screamed or not. YET, she was to be believed on her word only. No other witnesses were necessary for the Isrealites to take action.

  Why doesn't the WTBTS use this scriptural principle for child rape??? Its more applicable, and a law of God. No "two witness rule" should be required to believe a child was raped and report it to the authority - a responsibility of anyone who learns of the rape.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  And if an organization claims to be the sole channel for God, then I expect them to act like it. I would expect such a group would have rules and behaviors above the norm.

  When has God ever acted "above the norm". We are Jehovah's Witnesses people read your old testament then come back with "God loves to protect the victim."

  Also the reason this system is set up like this is to avoid law suits. There is a reason the catholic church is being sued out of existance in some perishes and JWs are not.

  The state defines "clergy" legalaly known as "pastoral counsel" the watchtower legal dpt have crated a wonderful waltz around liablity to change hats during each proceeding. Dont think JWs are the only bad guy there are books catering to churches on how to stay on the other side of the demarcation line in the clear.

  Remember all of these policies are made by a corporation under corporate rules. The watchtower is not a person and has not been ran by a person in about 30 years. It is a piece of paper asigned assests. Why on earth would any one expect it to protect your children when it sits filed in some office in new york gathering dust?
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  As far a guilty in ceasars eyes and not jw eye does not matter. Every one elder on every JC upon DFing you will tell you that if they are wrong then the dfing wont matter because "jehovah reads hearts". "This is a period of testing" "what is done in the dark comes to light" which means you'll be reinstated in a few months no big deal. So people (espeacialy exjws) are acting like the judical commitee means something when really it is the oppion of 3 men with no formal training or authority. The watchtower corp does not even trust them anymore. If they corp does not trust thier judgement why would any JW. Oh I forgot the corp never tells the jws it does not trust them.
• 

  shadow

  So what is the solution? What kind of policy do you recommend?
• 

  Big Tex

  I would want the organization to allow the investigating police to determine guilt or innocence. I would want the congregation and elders to cooperate fully with the investigation. I would want the elders to provide spiritual support and comfort to the victim and family. I would want the elders to absolutely and totally separate the accused from the victim and any other child until such time as his guilt or innocence is established. I would want him to be forbidden to go door to door unless he is accompanied by an elder, and never allowed to go into anyone's home until the investigation/trial is completed. If he is found guilty in trial, then I would want the congregation to take action and expel the offender from the organization on the basis of the verdict at trial.
• 

  shadow

  Big Tex

  I would want the organization to allow the investigating police to determine guilt or innocence.

  Police make mistakes too and it may drag on for months or years. Should JW's wait for the wheels of justice to turn? How many guilty people get off in the legal system? How many innocent are convicted?

  I would want the congregation and elders to cooperate fully with the investigation.

  Agreed.

  I would want the elders to provide spiritual support and comfort to the victim and family.

  Agreed.

  I would want the elders to absolutely and totally separate the accused from the victim and any other child until such time as his guilt or innocence is established.

  I don't see the elders as having the power to do this.

  I would want him to be forbidden to go door to door unless he is accompanied by an elder, and never allowed to go into anyone's home until the investigation/trial is completed.

  He was already forbidden to molest a child. Do you think he will obey some order not to go door to door or seek out more victims in whatever way may be convenient? Does the legal system impose this sort of restriction on released offenders and if so, do they have the will and the resources to enforce it?

  If he is found guilty in trial, then I would want the congregation to take action and expel the offender from the organization on the basis of the verdict at trial.

  What if he is repentant? If someone is convicted as a thief, should they automatically be df'd too? I thought most people here thought this was a terrible practice? My personal feelings about pedophiles are something like this:

  (Galatians 5:12) I wish the men who are trying to overturn YOU would even get themselves emasculated.
• 

  amac

  Good reply Shadow. I think we will both agree that this is an unsolvable problem. All we could expect is that there be a policy that will generally favor the victim over the perpetrator.

  I would want the organization to allow the investigating police to determine guilt or innocence.

  Police make mistakes too and it may drag on for months or years. Should JW's wait for the wheels of justice to turn? How many guilty people get off in the legal system? How many innocent are convicted?

  I think your response here may have been more general than specifically to what you quote from Big Tex. But YES, the congregation should allow the legal system to determine guilt or innocense. Not sure what you mean by wait? Do you mean that fellow JW's should come to their own judgement about his guilt before the facts are revealed in court? I would disagree.

  He was already forbidden to molest a child. Do you think he will obey some order not to go door to door or seek out more victims in whatever way may be convenient? Does the legal system impose this sort of restriction on released offenders and if so, do they have the will and the resources to enforce it?

  The trick here is that EVERYONE is supposed to go door to door...at least that is what they told me on my elder's visit last week :) when I told them I witness in other ways. So if someone is a convicted child molester, they should not be told to go door to door without an elder and the elders should discuss alternative methods with them.
• 

  amac

  oops. hit submit too soon...

  What if he is repentant? If someone is convicted as a thief, should they automatically be df'd too? I thought most people here thought this was a terrible practice?

  If he was repentant he would have confessed when asked originally. If he denies it and then is found guilty in a court of law, he should absolutely be DFed.