Child Abuse Among JWs.

Originally posted by FMF
Well whether it be the JW and or the Catholic church, in the case of child abuse and sexual harassment etc., my concern is not for the institution, but for the victims. Does JW policy, as handed down to its members, actively encourage those who are victims of sexual assault at the hands of other JWs to go straight to the police and not go via the JW elders if th ...[text shortened]... more comfortable doing that? Does it actively and explicitly back the prerogative of the victim?

clearly you are unaware of the policy, i suggest you read it for yourself,

A press release issued in 2003 by Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information
stated: "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."[31] The Watchtower magazine has outlined the following policy:
"Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to
serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will
not protect him from this."[32] A 2002 memo to all congregations stated:
"Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with
sin."[2] Even where there is no mandatory reporting requirement, victims or
others having knowledge of an incident of sexual abuse must not be discouraged
from reporting it.[33]


The New York Times commented: "The shape of the scandal [in Jehovah's
Witnesses] is far different than in the Catholic church, where most of the people
accused of abuse are priests and a vast majority of the victims were boys and
young men. In the Jehovah's Witnesses, where congregations are often collections
of extended families and church elders are chosen from among the laypeople, some
of those accused are elders, but most are congregation members. The victims who
have stepped forward are mostly girls and young women, and many accusations
involve incest."[34]

Congregation elders are required to first contact the organization's legal department
in cases of alleged abuse to establish whether there is a legal duty to report the sex
crime to the civil authorities or not.[35] In Canada, elders have been advised:
"There is a duty to report when one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe
that there is abuse or a substantial risk of abuse and parents have failed to protect
the child. The report shall be made forthwith to the local child welfare authorities.
[…] Elders must be aware, however, that once they have knowledge, they have
an obligation. They cannot just hope that someone else will report. They must follow
through quickly, and be sure that it is done."[36]

The elders' manual, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, states: "Though
it is not the responsibility of the Christian congregation to enforce Caesar's laws,
the very nature of some crimes demands that they be reported to secular
authorities."[37] A 1995 memo to elders stated: "Many states make
mandatory that elders report an accusation to the proper authorities but other states
do not. In those states where such is required, oftentimes the parent, the guardian,
or the accused person himself can do the reporting."[38] This was publicized by
1997.[39]

In 2000, elders in Great Britain were instructed: "The elder approached must
encourage the complainant to consider his or her responsibility to report the matter
to the authorities without delay and should also explain that he himself might have a
duty to report the matter to the proper authorities," and that "all in the Christian
congregation will want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the
appropriate authorities in cases where a serious criminal offense of this type has
been committed, or there exists a risk that one may be committed."[40][41] In
2008, the Watch Tower Society of Britain, in discussions with the UK Charities
Commission, undertook to produce a Child Protection Policy and update its
procedures to bring them into line with other religious and secular bodies.[42

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse

is this clear enough?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are others also, Manny for example has also publicly declared his hatred, they know who they are, i need not name them specifically, if it applies then it applies, if it does not then you have nothing to concern yourself with.

If everyone agrees with you that these specific people are "haters" and "liars" regardless of whet they present, then why not just take satisfaction - if that is what you want - from knowing that others see them the same way as you do based on what they see and read for themselves? Why repeat "haters" and "liars", "haters" and "liars", "haters" and "liars" over and over and over again, post after post after post, like a yahoo chat room?

Originally posted by FMF
If everyone agrees with you that these specific people are "haters" and "liars" regardless of whet they present, then why not just take satisfaction - if that is what you want - from knowing that others see them the same way as you do based on what they see and read for themselves? Why repeat "haters" and "liars", "haters" and "liars", "haters" and "liars" over and over and over again, post after post after post, like a yahoo chat room?

because its relevant to the nature of the allegations and the motivations for having
originated it, that is why, what others think of them, is none of my concern, this is
based entirely on my own experience of having corresponded with them.


I need to go to work.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this clear enough?

I think it is cause for concern that "the elders" should have the prominent role in the process that they are given. What happens if "the elders" are not approached and the victim goes straight to people outside the JW organization? Is it guaranteed that there will be no repercussions? I still think JW policy is likely to result in an underestimation of the extent of abuse.

On page one of this thread, galveston75 said there needed to be two witnesses "...to prevent false accusations. If another cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed." On page six galveston75 said "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." This is troubling stuff. This is a sure recipe for underreporting.

It's not just me who has raised concerns about this. And we are not all "haters" and "liars" out here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... what others think of them, is none of my concern...

What others think of them is none of your concern? And yet you repeatedly call them "haters" and "liars" over and over and over and over again, post after post after post, on a public forum, and you say you're not concerned with what others think of them?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what could be, if, maybe, is alleged that, is possible, is suspected that etc etc is none
of my concern, what indeed is your 'specific concern', about publicly available policy
for the protection of children that ails you, you have not said. If it is suspected that,
alleged that, is thought that, then please spare me, if you have any concret ...[text shortened]... n that he is a liar and a fraud, i am free to
express that opinion, you need not acquiesce.

.. the original poster has clearly and publicly acknowledged his hatred for Jehovahs witnesses ..

Please provide some proof to back up this statement. Thanks

Originally posted by FMF
I think it is cause for concern that "the elders" should have the prominent role in the process that they are given. What happens if "the elders" are not approached and the victim goes straight to people outside the JW organization? Is it guaranteed that there will be no repercussions? I still think JW policy is likely to result in an underestimation of the exte o has raised concerns about this. And we are not all "haters" and "liars" out here.

Did you not read the last post on page 7 which explains the stand of JW's? That is our guidelines clearly and I believe that explains it all.

Originally posted by galveston75
Did you not read the last post on page 7 which explains the stand of JW's? That is our guidelines clearly and I believe that explains it all.

The post on page 7 does not really deal with the concerns. It still comes across as a system that is going to understate the extent of the problem. And certainly your posts on page one and six are very troubling indeed.

Originally posted by FMF
I think it is cause for concern that "the elders" should have the prominent role in the process that they are given. What happens if "the elders" are not approached and the victim goes straight to people outside the JW organization? Is it guaranteed that there will be no repercussions? I still think JW policy is likely to result in an underestimation of the exte o has raised concerns about this. And we are not all "haters" and "liars" out here.

I am sorry i find the terms of your concern not only unsubstantiated but completely
baseless to be honest. It is as the article stated the responsibility of every single
Jehovah witness to report child abuse, this naturally refutes your baseless and
unfounded assertion of the role of the prominence of elders is significantly
disproportional and likely to lead to an underestimation of the extent of any abuse.
The elders role is to deal with the sin, it is the civil authorities role to deal with
criminality. what is more , Jehovahs witnesses have issued every single parent with
literature and guidelines on how to protect their child from sexual abuse. You will
now state how such a procedure is likely to lead to an underestimation of the
problem, for it seems clear to me, that it should indeed have the opposite effect.

As i suspected you have no real knowledge of any instances of abuse by Jehovahs
witnesses and therefore must resort to making up hypothetical scenarios, with what
if's, could be''s. Repercussions for whom, ? do you think that you are likely to
remain a Jehovah witness for very long if you smoke a single cigarette and yet we
are apparently tolerating a much more serious and heinous crime? it really
demonstrate the unreasonable nature of your claims.

Originally posted by FMF
What others think of them is none of your concern? And yet you repeatedly call them "haters" and "liars" over and over and over and over again, post after post after post, on a public forum, and you say you're not concerned with what others think of them?

The fact that they have singled out a particular denomination, in this case Jehovahs
witnesses, when in fact, there are other denominations with a much greater occurrence
of child abuse is evidence of what? their prejudice and their hatred. Why have they
made no reference to the Catholic churches, 4000+ cases of child abuse? the
protestant churches 300+ a year cases of child abuse? yet we have seven recorded
instances of child abuse in the last 100 years by comparison and we are being singled
out? Now i must ask myself, why that is, after all, any reasonable person with a
reasoning mind must also ask himself the same question, the answer prejudice and an
expression of hatred, if you feel uncomfortable with that, then i am sorry, its a fact and
i will continue to draw attention to it, for its relevant as is evidenced by the motive for
producing this thread in the very first instance.

Originally posted by Rajk999
.. the original poster has clearly and publicly acknowledged his hatred for Jehovahs witnesses ..

Please provide some proof to back up this statement. Thanks

in order to do that id need to peg my nose up and wade through your accumulated
pile of bull.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
..singled out a particular denomination, in this case Jehovahs
witnesses, .

All these threads were started because you and Gavleston make claims of superiority. This is clearly stated at the start of these threads as follows :

- In response to JWs on this site claiming that they have much lower rate of Child Abuse that other organisations

- Regarding the JWs on this site about how much they LOVE EACH OTHER .... !!

So the fact is YOU have singled out yourself by claiming JWs have a higher standard. Nobody did that BUT YOU. If you claim superiority then you should expect to have to prove that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in order to do that id need to peg my nose up and wade through your accumulated
pile of bull.

Actually the truth is that I said no such thing.

What is wrong is YOU and GALVESTON does not like anyone pointing out flaws in your doctrine. You resort to insulting remarks, becuase you dont have a proper response for the issues raised.

Originally posted by Rajk999
All these threads were started because you and Gavleston make claims of superiority. This is clearly stated at the start of these threads as follows :

- In response to JWs on this site claiming that they have much lower rate of Child Abuse that other organisations

- Regarding the JWs on this site about how much they LOVE EACH OTHER .... !!

So t ...[text shortened]... Nobody did that BUT YOU. If you claim superiority then you should expect to have to prove that.

no, this thread is an expression of your hatred for Jehovahs witnesses, the fact is, we
do have a much lower rate of child abuse than any other denomination (seven in the
last one hundred years in the United States), the fact is, we do have love among
ourselves. This does not make us superior, its simply the natural application of our
faith. Why do you not mention any other denomination? because you are uninterested
in expressing your loathing of child abuse in general and instead use it as a vehicle to
express your hatred of Jehovahs witnesses, your a loathsome individual using such
tactics as this to attempt to score political points, you really are sick.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually the truth is that I said no such thing.

What is wrong is YOU and GALVESTON does not like anyone pointing out flaws in your doctrine. You resort to insulting remarks, becuase you dont have a proper response for the issues raised.

more bull, in actual fact i was having a perfectly amicable and civil discussion with bbar
making your assertion ludicrous, to say the least.