19 Nov 11
However... that being said.
If someone comes forth with allegations of sex abuse or child molestation... I think it's rather archaic, backward, and dangerous to simply present the case in front of a couple of church elders. The matter should be immediately reported to the police. Going back to to Deuteronomy for answers is unsatisfactory in my opinion. Back in the Old Testament days, there wasn't a police force around with teams of professional investigators, labs, DNA evidence and so forth.. apples and oranges. Take it to the cops, period.
19 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI haven't made any specific "claims" of child abuse, nor have I accused you or galveston75 of condoning child abuse. I have merely commented that what galveston75 claimed, along with the discrepancy between what galveston75 claimed and what you claimed, paints a picture of a policy/reality gap that is probably resulting in an underestimation of the extent of the problem. As I see it, you have no reason to suggest that I am "cynical" about the problem of child abuse. There is no justification for insinuating that I am any less sincere about this serious issue than you are. These incessant and clumsy ad hominems on your part do not enhance the validity of what you say.
and neither do your unsubstantiated and baseless claims borne from no reality other
than a cynical mind.
19 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyour whole testimony lies in a comment taken out of content, in isolation, without
I haven't made any specific "claims" of child abuse, nor have I accused you or galveston75 of condoning child abuse. I have merely commented that what galveston75 claimed, along with the discrepancy between what galveston75 claimed and what you claimed, paints a picture of a policy/reality gap that is probably resulting in an underestimation of the extent of the incessant and clumsy ad hominems on your part do not enhance the validity of what you say.
reference, illustrated with invented scenarios, substantiated with, 'what if's', 'could
be's' and 'it seems that' and then you have the audacity to claim unequivocally,
again, without the slightest evidence, reference or reason and in the face of
independently recognised monitoring and guidelines to claim that our policy leads to
an underestimation of the extent of child abuse. Then to top it all off, you make the
absurd and ludicrous assertion that our policy was simply produced, by our legal
department to protect us from serious litigation and or to save face. Do you realise
how hysterical you are sounding? Not one piece of anything concrete, not one
substantiated claim, a pile of half baked assertions and imaginary happenings.
Tell me do you write fiction for a living, for if you dont, it may be an avenue you
would want to look into, either that, or tabloid journalism, they make a living with
similar sensationalistic claims on the feeblest of evidence.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said this, robbie: "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." And galveston75 said this: "But if this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim." There is a compatability gap between these two explanations, robbie. You cannot endorse your own AND endorse galveston75's. This gap strongly suggests that there is also a gap - in reality - between the facts on the ground and the impression of reality or the ideal that the JW corporate policy seeks to establish. Such gaps between theory and practice are the reason why the extent of abuse can get underreported in the real world - and JW is part of the real world. Just dishing out your petty insults and ad hominems simply does not alter this fact.
your whole testimony lies in a comment taken out of content, in isolation, without
reference, illustrated with invented scenarios, substantiated with, 'what if's', 'could
be's' and 'it seems that' and then you have the audacity to claim unequivocally,
again, without the slightest evidence, reference or reason and in the face of
independently ...[text shortened]... , they make a living with
similar sensationalistic claims on the feeblest of evidence.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually what I said was "...the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and deflect criticism is encouraging...". I also described the policy as "reassuring". Describing this comment as "hysterical" is just yet another ad hominem from you.
Then to top it all off, you make the absurd and ludicrous assertion that our policy was simply produced, by our legal department to protect us from serious litigation and or to save face. Do you realise how hysterical you are sounding?
19 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFno there is no gap, it remains in your understanding. The elders are dealing with
You said this, robbie: "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."And galveston75 said this: But if this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notifi world. Just dishing out your petty insults and ad hominems simply does not alter this fact.
sin, if you look at the Gmans statement this is readily discernible, he is talking of
repentance, this is after the facts have been investigated and or/established, not
before, not during but afterwards. The elders meet with the individual forming a
judicial committee of three persons to establish whether the person is repentant, not
whether they are guilty, that has already been established. What is more, they are
morally responsible prior to this to report any suspected or uncorroborated cases of
child abuse independently of this arrangement to the civil authorities they have
knowledge of themselves. If there are no other witnesses, as may be the case,
then who else but the victim must report it? If the victim reports it to an elder prior
to anyone else, then the elder is morally responsible to report it to the authorities
who will conduct an investigation. The elders will conduct their own investigation
independently of this. Why this will lead to an underestimation of the extent of any
alleged abuse you will now say.
19 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFencouraging? you find it encouraging that we produce a policy not with the victims best
Actually what I said was "...the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and deflect criticism is encouraging...". I also described the policy as "reassuring". Describing this comment as "hysterical" is just yet another ad hominem from you.
interests at heart but our own protection and public face as you have asserted and you
find that encouraging, man you are seriously slipping into some kind of moral morass.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI find the JW anti-child abuse policy encouraging and reassuring, robbie. As I said. Clearly. And, once again. Your incessant ad hominems are to no effect, robbie.
encouraging? you find it encouraging that we produce a policy not with the victims best
interests at heart but our own protection and public face as you have asserted and you
find that encouraging, man you are seriously slipping into some kind of moral morass.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFyou find it encouraging that it ,'saves face', FMF, your own assertion, not that it protects
I find the JW anti-child abuse policy encouraging and reassuring, robbie. As I said. Clearly. And, once again. Your incessant ad hominems are to no effect, robbie.
the children.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegalveston75 said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim. Where do the laws of the land - or even JW corporate policy - empower the "wisdom of the elders" in the way he claims? Where does it make 'how to proceed' the business or prerogative of "the elders"? What is the legal and corporate policy definition of "repent" and the definition of "satisfy"? How is this 'satisfaction' and 'repentance' measured? How can it be anything other than troubling when, in galveston75's clearly stated view, it is then a case of what "could" happen - in terms of informing the authorities - "if" these certain things happen?
no there is no gap, it remains in your understanding. The elders are dealing with
sin, if you look at the Gmans statement this is readily discernible, he is talking of
repentance, this is after the facts have been investigated and or/established, not
before, not during but afterwards. The elders meet with the individual forming a
judicial c ...[text shortened]... Why this will lead to an underestimation of the extent of any
alleged abuse you will now say.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have repeatedly described the JW corporate policy as both encouraging and reassuring. What troubles me is what appears to be a gap between that ideal and the reality described by galveston75.
you find it encouraging that it ,'saves face', FMF, your own assertion, not that it protects
the children.
I did not assert that the JW policy did not have "the victims best interests at heart", as you claim. You are misquoting me, robbie.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFthere are two issues under discussion here FMF, the issue of child abuse which is a
galveston75 said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim. Where do the laws of the land - or even JW corporate policy - empower the "wisdom of the elders" in the way he claims? Where does it make 'how to proceed' the business or prerogative ...[text shortened]... n - in terms of informing the authorities - "if" these certain things happen?
criminal offence and the issue of how the congregation deals with those who
perpetrate crimes of this nature, whether they admit their guilt or not. What can be
done if a person refuses to admit their guilt and there are no other witnesses? the
victim must go to the authorities and give testimony, the elders will conduct their
own independent investigation. If either party establishes the guilt of the individual,
either the civil authorities or the elders and the person still refuses to acknowledge
their guilt, then a judicial committee is still held and they are removed from the
congregation period, until they do, in absence if nesessary. Not only that, we deem
it a moral and religious offence to have anything to do with them afterwards, we
shall not even say a word of greeting to such an individual, why? because there is
no excuse for a lack of repentance, it is a hardening of the heart and is
inexcusable. You will now state why this will lead to an underestimation of the
extent of any alleged child abuse.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFthen i apologise, it is simply a misunderstanding of intent.
I have repeatedly described the JW corporate policy as both encouraging and reassuring. What troubles me is what appears to be a gap between that ideal and the reality described by galveston75.
I did not assert that the JW policy did not have "the victims best interests at heart", as you claim. You are misquoting me, robbie.