21 Dec 15
1 edit
Child abuse sexual or other wise is a sick horrible thing and any group that has one's among it that commit these acts the group should vigorously expose these and report them to authorities..... JW... Catholic.... Baptist.... Cult...... Muslim..... Whatever!! It's an ill of society that needs to be handled and delt with
Manny
21 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Manny, there's a thread from earlier this year ~ February I think ~ in which robbie argued very specifically that the way child sex abuse "needs to be handled and dealt with" - in his organization at least - is to cover it up and deal with it 'in house' and not vigorously expose the cases and report them to authorities, as you put it.
Child abuse sexual or other wise is a sick horrible thing and any group that has one's among it that commit these acts the group should vigorously expose these and report them to authorities..... JW... Catholic.... Baptist.... Cult...... Muslim..... Whatever!! It's an ill of society that needs to be handled and delt with
Manny
One issue that could perhaps be discussed is something called "penitent privilege" ~ cited by robbie ~ which purportedly gives leaders and managers of the JW organisation an obligation to keep a case secret if a member of their group confesses in confidence to them about having had sexual intercourse with children.
A question therefore is: should self-identifying religious people be permitted to invoke such a "privilege" and in so doing - deliberately or perhaps even unintentionally - protect their organization from bad publicity.
A second question might be: is such a cover up of "sick horrible" crimes sound in a biblical sense? Do Christians believe that Jesus or the Bible told them to cover up such crimes in this way?
A final question is: does this "privilege" apply in any situation where a child molester confesses to someone else, or does it need to happen within a formalized organization, and if so, does that organization have to be a religious one for it to apply?
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFYet you have several times implied that the JWs do.
Absolutely not. I have never once asked robbie if he condoned sexual abuse of children.
I have not confused the two, and if you can cite a comment where you think I have, then please do.
I did cite it and here it is again:
You would seriously draw a parallel of any kind between divegeester's behaviour on a message board and pedophiles in your organization having sexual intercourse with children?
And you also said:
What does divegeester's "own conduct" have to do with the rape of children?
21 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou said:
Of course he did. He said: "Divesgeester would be better focusing on his own morality and behavior." In other words, he ruled out responding to criticism about the covering up of the morality and behavior of child sex abusers (in his organisation) from someone on account of the "morality and behavior" he claims that someone displays on a message board on the internet.
You would seriously draw a parallel of any kind between divegeester's behaviour on a message board and pedophiles in your organization having sexual intercourse with children?
I said:
...he didn't actually draw any such parallel.
In denying it you have now changed to:
....responding to criticism about the covering up of the morality and behaviour of child sex abusers...
Clearly you are confusing 'child sex abuse' with 'covering up child sex abuse'.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by menace71Indeed. No one here, including robbie carrobie would condone child sex abuse. The Guardian's report is not suggesting that Jehovahs Witnesses per se, condone child abuse. What is highlighting, quite effectively, is at the Jehovahs Witness organisation is as flawed as any other religious organisation and its leadership has a serious issue to deal with in terms of its malfunctioning doctrines and ambiguous teachings especially in regard to the reporting of such offences.
Child abuse sexual or other wise is a sick horrible thing and any group that has one's among it that commit these acts the group should vigorously expose these and report them to authorities..... JW... Catholic.... Baptist.... Cult...... Muslim..... Whatever!! It's an ill of society that needs to be handled and delt with
Manny
Originally posted by twhiteheadThankyou once again, FMF's transparently dishonest insinuations have no traction here. His propensity for dishonestly misrepresenting what people have actually said in order to attack others is well known and understood and stand as little more than a testimony to his tedious posting style and his odious presence here. I repeat it again he has nothing to offer anyone in a spiritual context other than nauseating tedium. If three long rainy days is your thing then FMF is da man, otherwise, best kicked into touch.
You said:You would seriously draw a parallel of any kind between divegeester's behaviour on a message board and pedophiles in your organization having sexual intercourse with children?
I said:
...he didn't actually draw any such parallel.
In denying it you have now changed to:....responding to criticism about the covering up ...[text shortened]... rs...
Clearly you are confusing 'child sex abuse' with 'covering up child sex abuse'.
As for the actual issue, Jehovahs witnesses have in comparison to other religious bodies and society as a whole a much smaller instance of child abuse, being well below either of them. Of course our critics put this down to a cover up and yet we are guided by the very same laws as everyone else and remain under duress to report instances of child abuse as is documented in our literature and child abuse policies both of which are publicly available. Of course our detractors don't like to refer to these facts, they are after all a rather inconvenient truth for them.
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have never suggested that you condone child sex abuse. You have, however, argued for covering it up. It's not an "insinuation". There is a whole thread from earlier this year when you put forward your argument, which we can revisit if you want..
Thankyou once again, FMF's transparently dishonest insinuations have no traction here.
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf an unspecified number of cases are not reported to the authorities and are instead dealt with 'in house' and in secrecy, on what basis are you claiming "a much smaller instance of child abuse"?
As for the actual issue, Jehovahs witnesses have in comparison to other religious bodies and society as a whole a much smaller instance of child abuse, being well below either of them. .
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFAnd now you are wriggling out of admitting (or attempting to do so) that you deliberately and maliciously suggested that Robbie was drawing a parallel between div's behaviour and child abuse intentionally confusing child abuse with the failure to report child abuse to the civil authorities. I notice others have also incorrectly assumed that failure to report to the civil authorities is automatically 'covering up' - which is not necessarily the case (although it could well be in this case).
No I am not. I am commenting on how robbie is wriggling out of addressing the OP.
21 Dec 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was commenting on the excuse that robbie was using to dodge the OP issue. Apparently, divegeester was not entitled to discuss this issue with robbie because of his moral shortcomings on another forum. If you think robbie is discussing this serious issue in good faith then so be it. If you think I am confusing 'condoning sexual abuse' with 'condoning the cover up of sexual abuse', then you are mistaken.
And now you are wriggling out of admitting (or attempting to do so) that you deliberately and maliciously suggested that Robbie was drawing a parallel between div's behaviour and child abuse intentionally confusing child abuse with the failure to report child abuse to the civil authorities. I notice others have also incorrectly assumed that failure to rep ...[text shortened]... ally 'covering up' - which is not necessarily the case (although it could well be in this case).