Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by FMF
Well robbie has been sneering at her and he doesen't seem to think the Jehovah's Witnesses Organization have an obligation to protect people like her from sexual abusers, at least that's what I am gleaning from his scattergun comments so far.

LOL, such a sore loser. wher have i stated that we do not have an obligation to protect people from sexual abuse? scattergun, its like shooting tin cans with a sawn off shotgun, your arguments and knowledge of the case are so inept.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I might make some cabbage soup with it, again your opinions om my character and my sincerity are meaningless to me.

My opinions are about your opinions. Others will decide whether or not you are acquitting yourself with integrity on this thread. I don't need you to concur with my assessment thus far.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No I am disputing the watchtower and Bible tract society was complicit in that abuse, regrettable though it was.

Do you think that the congregation should have been told that McKendricks had been convicted of child molestation?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you think that the congregation should have been told that McKendricks had been convicted of child molestation?

is there any legal precedence which states that a secular or religious body must make an announcement about the sexual misdeeds of any of its members, either then or now, if you please.

Originally posted by FMF
My opinions are about your opinions. Others will decide whether or not you are acquitting yourself with integrity on this thread. I don't need you to concur with my assessment thus far.

I don't think there is any fear of that, more bread with your soup?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wher have i stated that we do not have an obligation to protect people from sexual abuse?

You said "So if there is no law which states that a secular or religious body, either then or now must make an announcement to its members on the sexual misdeeds of its congregants or members, why are the watchtower and bible tract society being held legally responsible for failing to do so." Sounds a bit like what a big shot corporate lawyer trying to defend accessories to sexual abuse might say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is there any legal precedence which states that a secular or religious body must make an announcement about the sexual misdeeds of any of its members, either then or now, if you please.

Didn't your organization want to protect girls from McKendricks' sexual abuse?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is there any legal precedence which states that a secular or religious body must make an announcement about the sexual misdeeds of any of its members, if you please.

I don't know, and it's not a sexual misdeed. The man was convicted of child molestation.

Now answer my question - Do you think the congregation should have been told that this man had been convicted of child molestation?

Originally posted by FMF
You said [b]"So if there is no law which states that a secular or religious body, either then or now must make an announcement to its members on the sexual misdeeds of its congregants or members, why are the watchtower and bible tract society being held legally responsible for failing to do so." Sounds a bit like what a big shot corporate lawyer trying to defend accessories to sexual abuse might say.[/b]

then why don't you produce the evidence, after all, if the law exists, it should be easy for you to find. If not, then why are the watchtower bible and tract society being held legally responsible for failing to do so. If they are not legally responsible then they cannot be held to be complicit with the abuse and a miscarriage of justice has ensued.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is there any legal precedence which states that a secular or religious body must make an announcement about the sexual misdeeds of any of its members, either then or now, if you please.

Another point before i forget, if the result of this court case went the other way and the Watchtower didn't lose, there is no way in hell you would be here questioning the legalities of the court system.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then why don't you produce the evidence, after all, if the law exists, it should be easy for you to find. If not, then why are the watchtower bible and tract society being held legally responsible for failing to do so. If they are not legally responsible then they cannot be held to be complicit with the abuse and a miscarriage of justice has ensued.

Did your organization do enough to protect children from the convicted child molester McKendricks?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't know, and it's not a sexual misdeed. The man was convicted of child molestation.

Now answer my question - Do you think the congregation should have been told that this man had been convicted of child molestation?

I am unaware of what went on to be honest, if there is an action which takes place which transgresses the high moral standards Jehovahs witnesses place on their congregants then an announcement that the perpetrator is removed from a position of responsibility, has been reproved, has been disfellowshipped etc is made, the specifics of the case are not revered. Again this is entirely in harmony with Californian law, which at the time as is now, has confidentiality laws which would prohibit the details being mentioned. It is actually against the law to reveal the details. The watchtower and Bible tract society has suffered a miscarriage of justice, was not complicit in the plaintiffs abuse and it really is astonishing that a guilty verdict was reached, not in the case of abuse, but the watchtower and bible tract society were held to be responsible. There has still been no actual evidence produced that they were complicit in the abuse, not a shred.

gotta go, cya.

Originally posted by FMF
Did your organization do enough to protect children from the convicted child molester McKendricks?

the evidence that they were complicit, if you please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the evidence that they were complicit, if you please.

They knew that McKendricks was a child molester. Or do you dispute this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is there any legal precedence which states that a secular or religious body must make an announcement about the sexual misdeeds of any of its members, either then or now, if you please.

He asked you what you thought. Are you saying that you think that the congregation should only follow what it is bound to by legal precedence? Or are you refusing to share your thoughts on the matter?