Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes the JW organisation and its leaders - right down to the local level - do all in its power to expedite the prosecution of those of its members who are sex criminals ?
anyone is free to report any criminal activity to the courts, the fact of the matter is as i have admirably shown, despite this freedom there have been a relatively few convictions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNobody is forcing you to assume any figures at all. Learn to admit ignorance when you simply don't know something rather than feeling forced to make something up.
No, its not flawed because these are the only reliable figures to go upon otherwise we shall be compelled to simply assume figures.
It is flawed to use figures that do not represent what is being claimed (even if they are reliable for some other use).
These are the facts concerning convicted child molesters.
No, they are not. They are the facts concerning convicted child molesters who were / are JW elders. No the same thing at all.
Anyone is free to report any criminal activity to the courts,
As I clearly explained, that statement comes with a very restricted meaning for the word 'free'. The reality is the a significant proportion of victims and their families do not report it to the court because they do not feel free to do so.
So let us be clear as far as convicted acts of child molestation go Jehovah's witnesses as an organization have a relatively small incidence in comparison to other denominations and society as a whole.
Because you are a relatively small denomination.
Lets also be clear that you only claimed statistics for elders (and I haven't even verified the accuracy of those claimed statistics).
Now this begs the question therefore why are they now being singled out? The answer of course is that they are hated by people like divesgeester.
Two reasons:
1. They have been found guilty of covering up child molestation and discouraging the reporting of incidences to the authorities.
2. Divegester hates JWs.
If anyone is really interested in what has transpired here then I suggest that its important to try to understand at least three factors which have a bearing on the matter.
1. Its important to look at the matter in a historical context because laws, secular laws have changed and where the reporting of child abuse may not have been mandatory it now is. This is important because if cases of abuse have taken place, and there was no mandatory reporting at the time and there now is then its easy to see how this could provide a catalyst for instances which happened in the past to be retrospectively brought to court.
2. There is the matter of corroboration (still extant is Scots law) which demands that at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime. This was adhered to in the past by the brothers because its also a Biblical precedent. Now that the law compels mandatory reporting, its no longer applicable. Its again easy to see how this historically could have led to the non reporting of cases of child abuse if there was deemed to be insufficient evidence and again since the laws and practices have changed its easy to see how it may have provided a catalyst for reporting of late.
3. Lastly there is so called pastoral confidentiality or priest-penitent confidentiality in which a minister of religion is not legally compelled to report the sins of the penitent. There are of course exceptions to this.
In America every state has a statute that identifies persons who are under a legal duty to report abuse under specific circumstances. Whether members of the clergy are required to report suspected child abuse varies from state to state.
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_Pastor_Confid_.cfm
Now Elders within the congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses also were considered ministers of religion and it may or may not have been lawfully mandatory to report cases of child abuse and the responsibility for reporting was given to the parents of the family the reason being that the Elders were not qualified to deal with criminality, which they are not. Again its easy to see how secular law as it stands now could be in conflict with pastoral confidentiality and cases retrospectively brought to court.
Now I relate these three factors for anyone of discernment to make a rational evaluation of what has transpired historically. There are of course those relatively rare instances when a cover up has actually taken place and I resent those people for having done so. They bring reproach upon the name of the most high God himself and subject the Christ to humiliation once gain. There is no room within Jehovahs organization for them and there is no room in society for them either.
Originally posted by twhiteheadits not flawed i have provided the reason why, elders may be held liable for the non reporting of child abuse, as well as acts of child abuse, its not my fault you don't understand that. You were saying something about ignorance, how ironic.
Nobody is forcing you to assume any figures at all. Learn to admit ignorance when you simply don't know something rather than feeling forced to make something up.
It is flawed to use figures that do not represent what is being claimed (even if they are reliable for some other use).
[b]These are the facts concerning convicted child molesters.
No, ...[text shortened]... ation and discouraging the reporting of incidences to the authorities.
2. Divegester hates JWs.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs the sexual abuse of children not one of these exceptions?
Lastly there is so called pastoral confidentiality or priest-penitent confidentiality in which a minister of religion is not morally compelled to report the sins of the penitent. There are of course exceptions to this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat other serious criminal offences are covered up or kept secret from the authorities by your organization ~ by way of the criminal's "penitent privilege" or "pastoral confidentiality" that you cite ~ aside from adults sexually abusing children?
Lastly there is so called pastoral confidentiality or priest-penitent confidentiality in which a minister of religion is not morally compelled to report the sins of the penitent.
Are there other other serious crimes that do not make it into the official statistics?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd yet you argued stringently in favour of covering up cases of child sex abuse on that thread earlier this year. Shall we revisit it?
There are of course those relatively rare instances when a cover up has actually taken place and I resent those people for having done so. They bring reproach upon the name of the most high God himself and subject the Christ to humiliation once gain. There is no room within Jehovahs organization for them and there is no room in society for them either.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI suppose it is of no surprise that you wish to rationalise the circumstances in order to defend the organisation you are emotionally enslaved to, however as the article explains:
If anyone is really interested in what has transpired here then I suggest that its important to try to understand at least three factors which have a bearing on the matter.
1. Its important to look at the matter in a historical context because laws, secular laws have changed and where the reporting of child abuse may not have been mandatory it now ...[text shortened]... s no room within Jehovahs organization for them and there is no room in society for them either.
[i]"A damming submission to the royal commission on child sexual abuse has recommended 77 adverse findings against the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia. It was open to the commission to find the church fostered distrust of secular authorities and its response to child sexual abuse fell short of best practice, counsel to the commission Angus Stewart QC found in his submission..."
What do you think of the commission into child abuse's findings?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you didn't quote those statistics, did you?
its not flawed i have provided the reason why, elders may be held liable for the non reporting of child abuse, as well as acts of child abuse,
its not my fault you don't understand that.
What gave you that idea?
You were saying something about ignorance, how ironic.
No, you just wrongly assumed I was.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA moment ago you were assuring me that everyone was free to go to court. Clearly you were trying to imply that everyone did go to court. Now you seem to be backtracking on that stance.
This is important because if cases of abuse have taken place, and there was no mandatory reporting at the time and there now is then its easy to see how this could provide a catalyst for instances which happened in the past to be retrospectively brought to court.
Originally posted by twhiteheadlook dude, I will make this real easy for you. There are three scenarios,
But you didn't quote those statistics, did you?
[b]its not my fault you don't understand that.
What gave you that idea?
You were saying something about ignorance, how ironic.
No, you just wrongly assumed I was.[/b]
1. That an elder may be guilty of child abuse on an individual basis and held accountable.
2. An Elder may be held accountable for failure to disclose knowledge of child abuse. (not the same thing as you acknowledge above)
3. The watchtower Bible and tract society may be held liable as a result of the behavior of Elders (they being representatives of it) or of congregation individuals.
All of these scenario's were readily discernible from the information contained in the wikipedia article that i cited. I suggest that you read it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have made my position clear. I have given reasons, cited references, substantiated my claims with facts, you may make reference to those. You better watch out you could morph into FMF if you are not careful. Worse still imagine becoming divesgeester! Gulp!
A moment ago you were assuring me that everyone was free to go to court. Clearly you were trying to imply that everyone did go to court. Now you seem to be backtracking on that stance.