Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You simply produce vile insinuations and expect the slime to stick, well I
am sorry FMF for you, if that's the best you can hope for, truth has a potency all of its own and cannot be thwarted in that way.

The guilty verdict against the JW organisation is not "vile insinuations" and "slime".

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't expect Watchtower and Awake! to cover the case if the appeal is lost? Don't members of your denomination have a right to hear about this kind of thing from their organisation?

Elders share the obligation to shepherd the flock. However, they must be careful not to divulge information about personal
matters to unauthoriz er from WBTS TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1 July 1989

This is not a personal matter, its a court case, you really should read the text you base
your statements on, prior to posting them which brings me to a point that you failed to
answer before. If I go to a Catholic priest for absolution on a serious matter of sexual
misconduct, in confidentiality, will I expect that priest to reveal the details of my
confession and iniquity to the congregation on the following Sunday, if not , why not?
Surely you went to confession FMF? ow many times were your confessions revealed to
the congregation? and why are the ministers of Jehovah's witnesses expected to be
different in this way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I asked you to explain it within the context, twice, you have failed to do so.

You didn't understand why I was questioning why, up until two days ago, you were still insisting that the abuse was only "alleged", only then to slip the the admission that there was no "dispute" about the abuse into one post in amongst a flurry of posts? You didn't understand what my question about your claims that it was "alleged abuse" meant?

Originally posted by FMF
You didn't understand why I was questioning why, up until two days ago, you were still insisting that the abuse was only "alleged", only then to slip the the admission that there was no "dispute" about the abuse into one post in amongst a flurry of posts? You didn't understand what my question about your claims that it was "alleged abuse" meant?

I understand they were made in reply to a statement about defending the perpetrator
over the victim, why if you are not saying that i am defending the perpetrator over the
victim, did you produce the statement, in that context, is it just a random assertion that
you were making? do you normally answer specific statement with random assertions,
unrelated and totally abstract?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is not a personal matter, its a court case, you really should read the text you base
your statements on, prior to posting them which brings me to a point that you failed to
answer before. If I go to a Catholic priest for absolution on a serious matter of sexual
misconduct, in confidentiality, will I expect that priest to reveal the detail ...[text shortened]... ation? and why are the ministers of Jehovah's witnesses expected to be
different in this way?

This defence has not worked for the Catholic Church. Why do you think it works for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I understand they were made in reply to a statement about defending the perpetrator
over the victim, why if you are not saying that i am defending the perpetrator over the
victim, did you produce the statement, in that context, is it just a random assertion that
you were making? do you normally answer specific statement with random assertions,
unrelated and totally abstract?

You are quoting yourself, not me. I was taking issue with your insistence that the abuse was "alleged" while then also claiming it was "not disputed".

Originally posted by FMF
This defence has not worked for the Catholic Church. Why do you think it works for Jehovah's Witnesses?

I want to know why, its an issue i have not previously considered, why has it not
worked for the catholic church, were your confessions revealed to the congregation, if
not, why not? Is it because its a criminality? Must a criminality be revealed? Is that it?

Originally posted by FMF
You are quoting yourself, not me. I was taking issue with your insistence that the abuse was "alleged" while then also claiming it was "not disputed".

so you simply ignored that my statement contained the terms, defending the
perpetrator against the victim and carried on with your quest to understand why I was
saying it was alleged abuse (prior to reading the court transcripts) and not disputed
(after having done so), I see. I should expect some more random abstract statements
in the future, ill be sure to look out for them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I want to know why, its an issue i have not previously considered, why has it not
worked for the catholic church, were your confessions revealed to the congregation, if
not, why not?

If you can cite a case where sexual abuse charges were brought against the Catholic Church but were thwarted because the sexual abuse committed by someone in a position of power was "confidential", then do so. It would be pertinent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you simply ignored that my statement contained the terms, defending the
perpetrator against the victim and carried on with your quest to understand why I was
saying it was alleged abuse (prior to reading the court transcripts) and not disputed
(after having done so), I see. I should expect some more random abstract statements
in the future, ill be sure to look out for them.

You are quoting yourself, not me, robbie. What I was putting to you about your claims that the abuse was merely "alleged" was crystal clear.

Originally posted by FMF
If you can cite a case where sexual abuse charges were brought against the Catholic Church but were thwarted because the sexual abuse committed by someone in a position of power was "confidential", then do so. It would be pertinent.

I suspect it may have something to do with it being a criminality, i dunno, i dont know enough about it myself to be honest and different laws apply in different localities and under different circumstances.

Originally posted by FMF
You are quoting yourself, not me, robbie. What I was putting to you about your claims that the abuse was merely "alleged" was crystal clear.

and out of context as well. So i have not defended the perpetrator against the victim? in your eyes, thankyou, what a warm and glowing feeling that gives me to think you were merely trying to ascertain the truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and out of context as well

You are quoting yourself, robbie. Whether you think you were quoting yourself "in context" or "out of context" is a matter for you, not me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So i have not defended the perpetrator against the victim?

You are certainly defending the Jehovah's Witness organisation - the perpetrator in the case we are discussing - against its victim, Candice Conti. But Kendrick, for his actions? No.