Should church leaders be prosecuted for protecting suspected abusers?

Originally posted by divegeester
Sure they are not above the law, but the leadership allegedly protects them by not testifying. I think the JWs may have rules about "not testifying against a brother" but I'm not sue.

If such an explicit rule exists then it is worthy of discussion. Having a
"not testifying against a fellow member" rule kind of assumes that a
member will transgress!! If the rule is not explicit then I maintain it is
the same phenomenon as a code of silence in the army. Wrong but
understandable.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Don't single out JWs.
This happens in [b]all groups.
Not just religions.

Twofold problem.
1. We do not want to bring our group into disrepute. (SHAMEFUL)
2. We cannot believe these accusations against our friend. (UNDERSTANDABLE)

There has been a recent case of a Church Elder abusing children in NZ.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/ne ...[text shortened]... - and will - be abused by someone.

ARMY
POLICE
SCOUTS
RELIGIOUS GROUPS
POLITICIANS
GANGS[/b]

Don't forget the NFL

Originally posted by RBHILL
Don't forget the NFL

The Indian government exonerated everyone involved with the fertilizer scandal!
http://www.nationalfertilizers.com/

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If such an explicit rule exists then it is worthy of discussion. Having a
"not testifying against a fellow member" rule kind of assumes that a
member will transgress!! If the rule is not explicit then I maintain it is
the same phenomenon as a code of silence in the army. Wrong but
understandable.

You find it (protecting sexual abusers) "understandable" by what reasoning?

Originally posted by divegeester
You find it (protecting sexual abusers) "understandable" by what reasoning?

Because of the process we are discussing; namely the whole
group being tarred with the same brush.
By understandable I mean I understand the process involved,
I do not understand how anyone could protect someone
who has committed any violent crime.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Because of the process we are discussing; namely the whole
group being tarred with the same brush.
By understandable I mean I understand the process involved,
I do [b]not understand how anyone could protect someone
who has committed any violent crime.[/b]

Makes sense. I think the cult like religions such as the Jehovah's witnesses are more predisposed to protect their own position as gods mouthpiece, after all without that claim, what appeal does the corporation actually have.

Originally posted by divegeester
Makes sense. I think the cult like religions such as the Jehovah's witnesses are more predisposed to protect their own position as gods mouthpiece, after all without that claim, what appeal does the corporation actually have.

I'm not sure when a cult graduates to a religion
(remember Christianity was a cult once) but
certainly the smaller that group is the more likely
that such covering up will take place.

I wonder what the Scientologists are hiding? ....

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not sure when a cult graduates to a religion
(remember Christianity was a cult once) but
certainly the smaller that group is the more likely
that such covering up will take place.

I wonder what the Scientologists are hiding? ....

Um really?

As we have seen the catholic church, one of if not the biggest religious
organisations on the planet, has conducted massive and sustained
cover-ups of sexual and child abuse.

I think if you want to claim that 'certainly' smaller groups are more likely to
engage in cover-ups I think you need to provide supporting evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um really?

As we have seen the catholic church, one of if not the biggest religious
organisations on the planet, has conducted massive and sustained
cover-ups of sexual and child abuse.

I think if you want to claim that 'certainly' smaller groups are more likely to
engage in cover-ups I think you need to provide supporting evidence.

I nearly PMed you with a "Welcome back" GF! 😠

The post was my opinion - which I didn't make clear but do now!

Regarding the Catholic church - the cover-up was most certainly not by
Catholics as a whole but the Vatican - a smaller group protecting their
own interests.

The most obvious example of a small group closing ranks to protect its
own is of course the family.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I nearly PMed you with a "Welcome back" GF! 😠

The post was my opinion - which I didn't make clear but do now!

Regarding the Catholic church - the cover-up was most certainly not by
Catholics as a whole but the Vatican - a smaller group protecting their
own interests.

The most obvious example of a small group closing ranks to protect its
own is of course the family.

I do apologies, My post was rather more snippy than I intended...

I go for brevity and end up waspish.

I do not doubt or argue that groups close ranks, I am just not particularly
convinced that the groups overall size is a major factor.
Although if you show me evidence to the contrary I will change my mind.

When you are talking about sexual abuse, from the perspective of the
people involved, everything is small groups of people.

I mean you can work in a gigantic organisation like the BBC, with thousands
of employees...

But the experience of the people in it will largely revolve around a smallish group
of people you particularly work with and the rest of the organisation mainly exists
as abstract.

You have the crew of your show, or your office, and of those you have a much
smaller circle of actual friends and close colleagues...

Cover-ups about "I don't want to get caught" or "I don't want to get in trouble for
rocking the boat" or "I don't want to get them in trouble, I mean I could be wrong"
or "It's not my job maybe someone else will deal with it".

And all of that can happen equally as far as I can see in a small group or mega corporation.

Because socially, we are pretty much all in small groups.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I do apologies, My post was rather more snippy than I intended...

I go for brevity and end up waspish.

I do not doubt or argue that groups close ranks, I am just not particularly
convinced that the groups overall size is a major factor.
Although if you show me evidence to the contrary I will change my mind.

When you are talking about s ...[text shortened]... a small group or mega corporation.

Because socially, we are pretty much all in small groups.

Yes - you're right it happens everywhere and we all have our cliques within cliques within cliques. (What more does Operation Yewtree have to show????)

The particular type of cover-up we (I ?) was discussing was one where any
misdeed by a single member would reflect badly on the group as a whole. That situation tends (in my opinion) to happen to small groups.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I do apologies, My post was rather more snippy than I intended...

I go for brevity and end up waspish.

I do not doubt or argue that groups close ranks, I am just not particularly
convinced that the groups overall size is a major factor.
Although if you show me evidence to the contrary I will change my mind.

When you are talking about s ...[text shortened]... a small group or mega corporation.

Because socially, we are pretty much all in small groups.

Whereas on the rare occasion that I go for waspish, I sadly end up—

—merely brief. 😳

Originally posted by vistesd
Whereas on the rare occasion that I go for waspish, I sadly end up—

—merely brief. 😳

lol.

That could be considered to not be a bad thing.

Quite possibly better than going for brief and ending up waspish.