Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have just outlined to you two of the issues, penitent privilege and mandatory reporting, tell the forum how these are not related to the issue of reporting child abuse. You may wish to do some research prior to answering.

Why on earth would whether the reporting of sex abuse is technically mandatory or not be used as an excuse to keep such serious crimes against children secret from law enforcement authorities?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The issue [of child sex abuse] is not exclusive to Jehovahs witnesses, its not even exclusive to religious organisations, its a societal problem.

Earlier you said "Then I raise the issue of whether a perpetrator of child abuse would be more or less likely to come forward knowing that his confessor must reveal the details to the authorities due to mandatory reporting."

Do you think the best way to approach the "societal problem" of child sex abuse is for there not to be mandatory reporting and for members of society to keep such abuse secret?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have just outlined to you two of the issues, penitent privilege and mandatory reporting, tell the forum how these are not related to the issue of reporting child abuse. You may wish to do some research prior to answering.

I asked a question and made an observation. The question was "Do JW's have confession?", in other words is there a procedure like the one the Catholic Church has? Yes or no is sufficient. The observation was that confidentiality of confessionals isn't the primary issue concerning child abuse allegations in various faiths. You may want to divert any debate concerning reporting of child abuse allegations to questions surrounding the privileged information of confessions but that isn't the real issue. The issue is the suppression of allegations from the victims themselves. These allegations are not subject to "penitent privilege".

Originally posted by DeepThought
I asked a question and made an observation. The question was "Do JW's have confession?", in other words is there a procedure like the one the Catholic Church has? Yes or no is sufficient. The observation was that confidentiality of confessionals isn't the primary issue concerning child abuse allegations in various faiths. You may want to divert any d ...[text shortened]... gations from the victims themselves. These allegations are not subject to "penitent privilege".

Jehovahs Witnesses do not have a confessional procedure like the Catholic church in which a priest acts in the capacity of a confessor and a kind of intermediary with God. Nor is it ritualised in the sense of prescribing a set course of action as penance for the sin, 'say ten hail Marys and you will be ok'. Elders of Jehovahs witnesses do hear confessions of wrongdoing though and this is usually treated in the strictest confidence, penitent privilege applying although mandatory reporting supersedes this where it is Law.

I do not want to, nor have i engineered, nor given the impression that, nor fabricated cause to divert anything and I have really no idea why you are saying that I have. The suppression of victims is part of the issue but it is not the only issue as you seem to be assuming, Why I cannot say.

I will briefly address the topic only as far as it relates to the breakdown of rational that I am referring to. Despite allegations of a cover up the Royal commission of Australia which recently complied a report on all religious organisations in Australia documented that 400 cases of alleged child abuse (and Jehovahs Witnesses report child abuse from a diverse range of scenarios from molestation to sexting between minors), found their way to local authorities because those involved were instructed to go to the authorities. Thus the allegations of institutional cover up are demonstrably false, but that is not the point.

The point is that even this highlights the breakdown of rational and the ignorance of posters like FMF who described the abuse in the only terms their one dimensional cardboard cut out, judgemental finger pointing minds could process, to describe it as actual sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. This is what I am talking about, a complete breakdown in rational thought for the abuse itself has a diverse range from something as sinister as molestation to sexting between minors on mobile phones. Are we to describe sexting between minors on a phone as sexual intercourse??? and yet he is on record terming the allegations of child abuse as just that. Its almost medieval in its ignorance, a kind of foggy superstition that pervades all.

This is what happens when you let people that know absolutely nothing about an issue loose on the internet, every issue for them becomes a moral one and rationality breaks down into a one dimensional, judgemental, finger pointing, Dealing with an issue is one thing but one inevitably finds that ultimately its a battle against ignorance.

Raise any issue and these dullards will use it as a pretext to moralise.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

I will briefly address the topic only as far as it relates to the breakdown of rational that I am referring to. Despite allegations of a cover up the Royal commission of Australia which recently complied a report on all religious organisations in Australia documented that 400 cases of alleged child abuse (and Jehovahs Witnesses report child abuse from a diverse range of scenarios from molestation to sexting between minors), found their way to local authorities because those involved were instructed to go to the authorities. Thus the allegations of institutional cover up are demonstrably false, but that is not the point.

Are you claiming that the findings of the Royal commission of Australia are that the allegations of institutional cover up of child sex abuse in the JW organisation and other organisations are false?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

The point is that even this highlights the breakdown of rational and the ignorance of posters like FMF who described the abuse in the only terms their one dimensional cardboard cut out, judgemental finger pointing minds could process, to describe it as actual sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. This is what I am talking about, a complete breakdown in rational thought for the abuse itself has a diverse range from something as sinister as molestation to sexting between minors on mobile phones. Are we to describe sexting between minors on a phone as sexual intercourse??? and yet he is on record terming the allegations of child abuse as just that. Its almost medieval in its ignorance, a kind of foggy superstition that pervades all.

On a previous page, you said: "I raise an issue regarding the reporting of child abuse, the so called penitent privilege verse mandatory reporting. Now penitent privilege is a minister of religions obligation to keep the confessions that he hears confidential. This raises a moral dilemma in the confessor because he has vowed to keep the session secret but also has an obligation to protect children."

And you also said: "Then I raise the issue of whether a perpetrator of child abuse would be more or less likely to come forward knowing that his confessor must reveal the details to the authorities due to mandatory reporting."

With these comments about "penitent privilege" and "mandatory reporting", were you referring to crimes such as adults having sexual intercourse with minors and sexual molestation of minors, or were you referring to stuff like "sexting between minors on mobile phones"? Be clear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

This is what happens when you let people that know absolutely nothing about an issue loose on the internet, every issue for them becomes a moral one and rationality breaks down into a one dimensional, judgemental, finger pointing,

Do you think it is wrong to see the issue of child sex abuse as a moral one and do you think it is wrong for us to be judgmental about its perpetrators and instances where it is covered up?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Jehovahs Witnesses do not have a confessional procedure like the Catholic church in which a priest acts in the capacity of a confessor and a kind of intermediary with God. Nor is it ritualised in the sense of prescribing a set course of action as penance for the sin, 'say ten hail Marys and you will be ok'. Elders of Jehovahs witnesses do hear conf ...[text shortened]... against ignorance.

Raise any issue and these dullards will use it as a pretext to moralise.

So there are situations where an Elder can hear of some serious offence which is treated in confidence unless the "Law" requires that it is reported. When you say the "Law" I'm working under the assumption that you mean the relevant nation state's laws rather than JW internal rules. You seem to be saying that if a member of the JW's confesses to an Elder the Elder is required to report some offences and that confidentiality does not apply in cases such as child abuse whether local legislation mandates that or not. Have I understood that correctly?

When one's talking about an organisation that doesn't have policing powers there are limits to what they can do in such circumstances. I don't think the JW's, or most other organisations, can realistically be expected to investigate these cases, this is what the police are for. A realistic expectation would be that the organisation has procedures to prevent the opportunity for such an offence arising where they have any control, for example making that there is never a situation where an adult who isn't one of the child's parent is left alone with a child during a JW event. Not suppressing the victim and not attempting to prevent them talking to the policing authorities is another one and this is where the controversy lies - at least off this website - this is why I said it was basically the issue. You answered this point quite well.

I'm not desperately interested in your feud with FMF.

Originally posted by DeepThought

So there are situations where an Elder can hear of some serious offence which is treated in confidence unless the "Law" requires that it is reported. When you say the "Law" I'm working under the assumption that you mean the relevant nation state's laws rather than JW internal rules. You seem to be saying that if a member of the JW's confesses to an Elder the Elder is required to report some offences and that confidentiality does not apply in cases such as child abuse whether local legislation mandates that or not. Have I understood that correctly?

Something that interests me is why would whether reporting is technically "mandatory" or "not mandatory" have any bearing on a decision to let law enforcement authorities know when a crime as serious, say, as sex with a child has occurred? What is the benefit (and for whom) of keeping such crimes secret from the authorities and from society as a whole?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]So there are situations where an Elder can hear of some serious offence which is treated in confidence unless the "Law" requires that it is reported. When you say the "Law" I'm working under the assumption that you mean the relevant nation state's laws rather than JW internal rules. You seem to be saying that if a member of the JW's confesses to an Elder th ...[text shortened]... t (and for whom) of keeping such crimes secret from the authorities and from society as a whole?

I'd imagine it's the difference between organisational policy and individual conscience. If the offence is on the JW's list of things to be reported then it's reported as a matter of policy. If it's not on the list then the rules don't require that it be reported, and what the individuals think they ought to do determines the outcome. Since robbie seems to have said that abuse of minors is an offence for which reporting is mandatory your second question shouldn't arise assuming the local group follow the rules.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd imagine it's the difference between organisational policy and individual conscience. If the offence is on the JW's list of things to be reported then it's reported as a matter of policy. If it's not on the list then the rules don't require that it be reported, and what the individuals think they ought to do determines the outcome. Since robbie seems ...[text shortened]... ing is mandatory your second question shouldn't arise assuming the local group follow the rules.

I do not see how a person with certain religious beliefs can label themselves with the word "Elder" - or be labelled by other people [with the same religious beliefs] with the word "Elder" - and can therefore invoke something called "penitent privilege" and unilaterally or collectively declare themselves justified/permitted to keep serious crimes secret from the authorities. I think it's unconscionable. And I don't think it matters one whit whether "reporting is mandatory" or not. I think that an organization should take action against any of its members who try to cover up sex crimes against children.

Originally posted by FMF
I do not see how a person with certain religious beliefs can label themselves with the word "Elder" - or be labelled by other people [with the same religious beliefs] with the word "Elder" - and can therefore invoke something called "penitent privilege" and unilaterally or collectively declare themselves justified/permitted to keep serious crimes secret from the ...[text shortened]... n should take action against any of its members who try to cover up sex crimes against children.

But as far as I can tell from what robbie has said their own rules compel them to report cases of child molestation and this overrides "penitent privilege". You seem to be insisting that they should always report cases of child abuse and, unless I've seriously misunderstood what the words "mandatory reporting" mean, they do. You seem to be arguing that if they did not have the rule that it was mandatory to report these things then some Elders would not report them, so you're trying to condemn them on a counterfactual - which is probably what's annoying robbie.

Besides, are you going to take on the Catholic Church on this as well. As far as I know the rules of the confessional in Catholicism are completely confidential and there is no reporting of these things.

Originally posted by DeepThought

But as far as I can tell from what robbie has said their own rules compel them to report cases of child molestation and this overrides "penitent privilege". You seem to be insisting that they should always report cases of child abuse and, unless I've seriously misunderstood what the words "mandatory reporting" mean, they do. You seem to be arguing that if they did not have the rule that it was mandatory to report these things then some Elders would not report them, so you're trying to condemn them on a counterfactual - which is probably what's annoying robbie.

You seem to be ignoring the findings of, for example, the Royal Commission in Australia charting five decades of systematic cover up and the bullying of victims who were forced out of the organization after making accusations, and robbie's insistence that all this has somehow been proved "demonstrably false".

Originally posted by DeepThought
Besides, are you going to take on the Catholic Church on this as well. As far as I know the rules of the confessional in Catholicism are completely confidential and there is no reporting of these things.

If a Catholic turns up on this message board and seeks to justify, rationalize, make excuses for, downplay - or even just deny - the cover up of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church, then rest assured that they will 'taken on'.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]But as far as I can tell from what robbie has said their own rules compel them to report cases of child molestation and this overrides "penitent privilege". You seem to be insisting that they should always report cases of child abuse and, unless I've seriously misunderstood what the words "mandatory reporting" mean, they do. You seem to be arguing that if t ...[text shortened]... accusations, and robbie's insistence that all this has somehow been proved "demonstrably false".

But in that case they were either breaking their own rules or in the meantime the rules have been changed. I haven't looked at the Royal Commission's report and was going by what it said in robbie's post. My first observation is that "penitent privilege" does not apply when there is an accusation, it applies when someone is confessing. The second is that your complaint seems to be not with their formal rules, but with their actual behaviour. So the complaint there would be that "mandatory reporting" is a little empty if no reporting takes place.