Child Abuse Among JWs.

Originally posted by FMF
Sometimes it seems like there are one or two or three or more attempted personal insults and ad hominems in almost every one of your posts, robbie.

I was merely commenting on your own words FMF, dont push it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are two issues under discussion here FMF, the issue of child abuse which is a
criminal offence and the issue of how the congregation deals with those who
perpetrate crimes of this nature, whether they admit their guilt or not. What can be
done if a person refuses to admit their guilt and there are no other witnesses? the
victim must g ...[text shortened]... l now state why this will lead to an underestimation of the
extent of any alleged child abuse.

robbie: "If the victim reports it to an elder prior to anyone else, then the elder is morally responsible to report it to the authorities who will conduct an investigation."

galveston75: "If this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim."

The incompatability of these two statements is the cause for concern. It is an indication that there is a gap between your understandably carefully put together JW corporate policy and the unconvincing nature of what we must presume - from galveston75's comment [about it depending on the "wisdom of the elders"] - is the reality on the ground.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I was merely commenting on your own words FMF, dont push it.

No, robbie, you misquoted me and you added words that changed the meaning of my words. It was for all intents and purposes just another attempted ad hominem on your part.

Originally posted by FMF
robbie: "If the victim reports it to an elder prior to anyone else, then the elder is morally responsible to report it to the authorities who will conduct an investigation."

galveston75: "If this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim."

The inc ...[text shortened]... omment [about it depending on the "wisdom of the elders"] - is the reality on the ground.

no there is no discrepancy, as i have explained, the Gman is talking of a case where
the individual refuses to acknowledge their guilt, the elders will conduct an
investigation as will the civil authorities, you have still not stated why, despite the
extensive reasons i have given, why our procedure will lead to an underestimation of
any reporting, despite being asked twice.

Originally posted by FMF
No, robbie, you misquoted me and you added words that changed the meaning of my words. It was for all intents and purposes just another attempted ad hominem on your part.

no, i did nothing of the sort, here is your statement again,

the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and
deflect criticism is encouraging

it lays its emphasis not on protecting children, but on a corporate identity and was
according to you, produced merely on a self serving basis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no there is no discrepancy, as i have explained, the Gman is talking of a case where
the individual refuses to acknowledge their guilt, the elders will conduct an
investigation as will the civil authorities, you have still not stated why, despite the
extensive reasons i have given, why our procedure will lead to an underestimation of
any reporting, despite being asked twice.

The two statements are incompatible, robbie. If the procedure is as galveston75 describes it, clearly the extent of abuse will be underreported.

Sorry to other posters for reposting this, but robbie just sidesteps it over and over again. I will paste it here again:

galveston75 said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting to protect the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim. Where do the laws of the land - or even JW corporate policy - empower the "wisdom of the elders" in the way he claims? Where does it make 'how to proceed' the business or prerogative of "the elders"? What is the legal and corporate policy definition of "repent" and the definition of "satisfy"? How is this 'satisfaction' and 'repentance' measured? How can it be anything other than troubling when, in galveston75's clearly stated view, it is then a case of what "could" happen - in terms of informing the authorities - "if" these certain things happen?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, i did nothing of the sort, here is your statement again,

the corporate policy that JW lawyers drew up in order to protect the organization and
deflect criticism is encouraging

it lays its emphasis not on protecting children, but on a corporate identity and was,
according to you, produced merely on a self serving basis.

The word "merely" is yours. Not mine. You have added the word "merely" to what I in fact said. It is you who is trying to create an "emphasis".

Please stop this ad hominem stuff robbie. It adds nothing to the validity or impact of your posts.

Originally posted by FMF
The two statements are imcompatible, robbie. If the procedure is as galveston75 describes it, clearly the extent of abuse will be underreported.

Sorry to other posters for reposting this, but robbie just sidesteps it over and over again. I will paste it here again:

galveston75 said that if the accused did not repent or satisfy the congregation and wanting n - in terms of informing the authorities - "if" these certain things happen?

ok, i see that after having answered it now for the third time, with extensive reasoning
you will not answer why it will lead to an underestimation of any reporting, despite
being asked three times and you simply reiterate the same statements, without
reason, again and again. Your opinion, while valid is not enough FMF, its not enough to
state, i think it will lead to an underestimation of reporting, we need reason and the
Gmans statement, made with reference to an individual who shall not admit their guilt
is not a reason at all.

Originally posted by FMF
The word "merely" is yours. Not mine. You have added the word "merely" to what I in fact said. It is you who is trying to create an "emphasis".

Please stop this ad hominem stuff robbie. It adds nothing to the validity or impact of your posts.

I need not create any emphasis, the emphasis is already in the statement, i have simply
(am i allowed to use simply with accusation), brought it to the fore, you cannot escape
it FMF, they are your words.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, i see that after having answered it now for the third time, with extensive reasoning
you will not answer why it will leads to an underestimation of any reporting, despite
being asked three times and you simply reiterate the same statements, without
reason, again and again. Your opinion, while valid is not enough FMF, its not enough to
st ...[text shortened]... , made with reference to an individual who shall not admit their guilt
is not a reason at all.

Procedure one: victims are encouraged to go to the authorities and there will be no repercussions for the victim.

Procedure two: (1) search for second witness (2) establish that one cannot be found (3) then the wisdom of the elders is exercised upon the facts and situations (4) this leads the "elders" to a decision on how to proceed (5) wait to see if the accused repents or (6) if he does, see whether it satisfies the congregation (7) then, if the victim has got through (1)-(6) then the authorities could be notified by the victim.

I believe that procedure two will result in less abuse cases being reported to the authorities than procedure one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I need not create any emphasis, the emphasis is already in the statement, i have simply
(am i allowed to use simply with accusation), brought it to the fore, you cannot escape
it FMF, they are your words.

I have described the JW policy as encouraging and reassuring. I never described it as "merely" anything. You added the word "merely". You are trying to add something of your own to what I said and what I clearly meant and what I have reiterated clearly now almost half a dozen times. I did not assert that the JW policy did not have "the victims best interests at heart", as you have claimed. You are misquoting me, and yo're adding to what I actually said, robbie. I thought you'd apologized for doing this already?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Procedure one: victims are encouraged to go to the authorities and there will be no repercussions for the victim.

Procedure two: (1) search for second witness (2) establish that one cannot be found (3) then the wisdom of the elders is exercised upon the facts and situations (4) this leads the "elders" to a decision on how to proceed (5) wait to ...[text shortened]... dure two will result in less abuse cases being reported to the authorities than procedure one.[/b]

procedure one, victims are encouraged to go to the authorities

procedure two, victims come to elders, elders have moral obligation to inform
authorities irrespective if there are witnesses or not, to question the accused, use their
discernment and wisdom to ascertain the facts, and provide support for victim.
Victim also encouraged to approach authorities.


now FMF you will explain why you have any reasonable doubt why an elder or body of
elders will not follow through on this direction, as yet you have provided nothing.

Originally posted by FMF
I have described the JW policy as encouraging and reassuring. I never described it as "merely" anything. You added the word "merely". You are trying to add something of your own to what I said and what I clearly meant and what I have reiterated clearly now almost half a dozen times. I did not assert that the JW policy did not have "the victims best interests at ding to what I actually said, robbie. I thought you'd apologized for doing this already?

no you described Jehovahs witness policy as self serving with specific intent to 'protect
the organization' and 'deflect criticism' (your words), which makes it clear that its
primary purpose is, according to you, not to provide protection for children, but to save
face, indeed, how else are we meant to interpret your terms, 'deflect criticism' and
'protect the organisation', clearly you make no reference to any children and the
policies intended purpose which one would hope is to provide protection, but instead
draw attention to 'protecting the organisation', and to 'deflect criticism', why is that FMF?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you described Jehovahs witness policy as self serving with specific intent to 'protect
the organization' and 'deflect criticism' (your words), which makes it clear that its
primary purpose is, according to you, not to provide protection for children, but to save
face, indeed, how else are we meant to interpret your terms, 'deflect criticism' ...[text shortened]... ntion to 'protecting the organisation', and to 'deflect criticism', why is that FMF?

I didn't use the words "self serving". These are your words, not mine. I didn't say anything about the policy's "specific intent". Once again, these are your words, not mine. I didn't claim to be talking about "its primary purpose" - your words not mine, again - nor did I claim policy's purpose was "not to provide protection for children". I didn't make any such assertion. These are your words. They are not my words. I didn't use the expression "save face". This is an expression that you have introduced into this discussion, not me. You say I "make no reference to any children" and yet that is what we have been talking about for pages and pages of this thread and - indeed - what else is a corporate child protection/anti-child abuse policy supposed to be about if not child protection? You're just making it up here, robbie. I have said repeatedly - is this the seventh time or eighth time now? - that the JW anti-child abuse is both encouraging and reassuring. You have resorted to adding words that I didn't say and making stuff up. This to my mind amounts to nothing more than a large scale and truly clumsy ad hominem with a generous helping of red herring.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
procedure one, victims are encouraged to go to the authorities

procedure two, victims come to elders, elders have moral obligation to inform
authorities irrespective if there are witnesses or not, to question the accused, use their
discernment and wisdom to ascertain the facts, and provide support for victim.
Victim also encouraged to appr ...[text shortened]... or body of
elders will not follow through on this direction, as yet you have provided nothing.

As I said in the post further up the page, I believe that procedure two - i.e. procedure that galveston75 described in answer to the concerns raised by the OP - will result in less abuse cases being reported to the authorities than procedure one. Your endorsement of galveston75's explanation can only be interpreted as being a tacit admission that what he describes is the troubling reality on the ground as opposed to the far more encouraging and reassuring 'official' policy of the JW organization.