|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 14, 2018 13:48:33 GMT
faithleaks.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness_Palmer_Congregation_Sexual_Abuse_InvestigationThis is actually pretty fascinating stuff. It will be interesting to see if: 1. People read all of it 2. They have already prejudged the info. Obviously I am biased as much as anyone and so far the letters from the organization are in line with what I've always argued, but the letters from the individual Kingdom Halls are pretty interesting as well (That congregation needs a lock on their file cabinet...) I haven't read it all. I was just on Digg and it was a news item, so I'm plowing through it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 14, 2018 13:56:21 GMT
One of the annoying things I'm running into is the documents are incomplete.
The file on this is pretty thorough and I assume it was all part of one packet unless someone had way too much time on their hands.
So why is there 1 page out of 2 or 2 pages out of 3?
It's annoying but maybe this is what people who leak private info have to deal with all the time. I'll ask Assange...
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 14, 2018 22:54:22 GMT
Meh, I made a start, but found my attention wandering. All those redacted names substituted by colour-coded splodges did my head in.
It would be nice to get a precis of each memo without having to go through every one. There are dozens of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 14, 2018 23:14:42 GMT
"1. People read all of it"
I didn't.
"2. They have already prejudged the info.:"
I'm not gonna say it did or didn't happen, but this is hardly the first sexual abuse scandal amongst JWs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 16, 2018 2:37:25 GMT
faithleaks.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness_Palmer_Congregation_Sexual_Abuse_InvestigationThis is actually pretty fascinating stuff. It will be interesting to see if: 1. People read all of it 2. They have already prejudged the info. Obviously I am biased as much as anyone and so far the letters from the organization are in line with what I've always argued, but the letters from the individual Kingdom Halls are pretty interesting as well (That congregation needs a lock on their file cabinet...) I haven't read it all. I was just on Digg and it was a news item, so I'm plowing through it. That's a lot of documents to read hoping to find something of particular note. What points from which documents would you want to call to our attention? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 17, 2018 16:49:51 GMT
From what I recall (from the old board) you argued that the Watchtower doesn't endorse sexual abuse. I and a couple of others pointed out that your argument was a straw man, since no one said the WT endorses sexual abuse. The charge is that the WT enables sexual abuse through procedures that "go easy" on perpetrators and go tough on victims. (As we have seen other churches do.) Or were you referring to some other argument of yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 17, 2018 23:14:06 GMT
faithleaks.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness_Palmer_Congregation_Sexual_Abuse_InvestigationThis is actually pretty fascinating stuff. It will be interesting to see if: 1. People read all of it 2. They have already prejudged the info. Obviously I am biased as much as anyone and so far the letters from the organization are in line with what I've always argued, but the letters from the individual Kingdom Halls are pretty interesting as well (That congregation needs a lock on their file cabinet...) I haven't read it all. I was just on Digg and it was a news item, so I'm plowing through it. That's a lot of documents to read hoping to find something of particular note. What points from which documents would you want to call to our attention? When I said that I hadn't read it all yet. That said, the ones from the HQ areas expected and in line with what they've always said - They have never hidden sex abuse. There's two letters from them that are pretty good. one is where they are giving the elders in one of the congregations directions about how to handle the pervert dude. Basically, don;t ever give him anything to do in the congregation for a host of reason. The last one is to the pervert dude himself where they explain that because he's a pervert dude it makes sense that his daughter has a restraining order against him and that he has to deal with his own problems that resulted in his screw-ups. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 17, 2018 23:25:01 GMT
From what I recall (from the old board) you argued that the Watchtower doesn't endorse sexual abuse. I and a couple of others pointed out that your argument was a straw man, since no one said the WT endorses sexual abuse. The charge is that the WT enables sexual abuse through procedures that "go easy" on perpetrators and go tough on victims. (As we have seen other churches do.) Or were you referring to some other argument of yours?
Actually, I don;t recall saying that except in the context of them being accused of endorsing it in the first place. It wasn;t like my thesis statement or something. To your original point, & I apologize if this is a straw man. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it so in order not to be wrong or dishonest about something, but the apology sticks. They don't enable sex abuse either and just like there were a bunch of stupid examples based on false accusations regarding that, you will find again, that there is nothing of note or basis based on this material either. So let's just get off your theme for a second to avoid the straw man allegation and I'll make my own statement: If you are interested in debating this topic, the goal is to hook the big fish since that is where you previous statements about enables comes from. It has to be because I have never dispute the mistakes of particular Kingdom Halls nor the notion that the HQ needs to pay the damages for something that individual KH does. What I did find interesting is that the Slate article that was on Digg did indeed imply some shady stuff from the HQ which is why I recommended reading all of it. However, once I read it, there was nothing to indicate they said anything wrong. Did you find something? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 18, 2018 2:00:45 GMT
From what I recall (from the old board) you argued that the Watchtower doesn't endorse sexual abuse. I and a couple of others pointed out that your argument was a straw man, since no one said the WT endorses sexual abuse. The charge is that the WT enables sexual abuse through procedures that "go easy" on perpetrators and go tough on victims. (As we have seen other churches do.) Or were you referring to some other argument of yours?
I don't know what article you mean. The only link I see on your thread is to Faithleaks. As for your link, I'm not going to read scores of pages all about one accused person. If you say there's nothing in them that justifies any serious criticism of the Watchtower, I won't argue with you. But the reporter from Newsweek (who is paid to read all those pages) would argue with you. While I see that the police did not charge the accused man after questioning, the article states: "The documents reveal that church leaders pressured the accuser and her husband not to report the abuse to secular law enforcement officials." www.newsweek.com/secret-documents-sex-scandal-jehovahs-witnesses-church-faith-leaks-776796 When a pattern is established nationwide over many years, then the charge of enabling is rightly leveled at the WT leadership. The government of Australia established that pattern and reported on it October '16. From their report, speaking of 1,006 WT members accused (since 1950) of child sexual abuse: "There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority."Also, "The sanctions available within the organisation’s internal disciplinary system are weak and leave
perpetrators of child sexual abuse at large in the organisation and the community." And this: The two-witness rule remains a current procedural rule that is applied today within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in all cases of complaints of ‘wrongdoing’, including child sexual abuse...the rule will more often than not operate in favour of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, who will not only avoid sanction but will also remain in the congregation and the community with their rights intact and with the capacity to interact with their victim. A complainant of child sexual abuse whose allegation has not been corroborated by confession by their abuser or a second ‘credible’ eyewitness is necessarily disempowered and subjected to ongoing traumatisation. To place a victim of child sexual abuse in such a position is today, and was 30 years ago, unacceptable and wrong." www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf So, this report shows how the Watchtower leadership policies have gone easy on perpetrators but tough on victims. Thus, they are guilty of enabling. The big fish was landed down under.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2018 14:40:55 GMT
Bump
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 29, 2018 14:49:43 GMT
tpfkar faithleaks.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness_Palmer_Congregation_Sexual_Abuse_InvestigationThis is actually pretty fascinating stuff. It will be interesting to see if: 1. People read all of it 2. They have already prejudged the info. Obviously I am biased as much as anyone and so far the letters from the organization are in line with what I've always argued, but the letters from the individual Kingdom Halls are pretty interesting as well (That congregation needs a lock on their file cabinet...) I haven't read it all. I was just on Digg and it was a news item, so I'm plowing through it. Like the Catholic Church all over again.
Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2018 14:53:16 GMT
|
|
