|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2018 13:05:12 GMT
So I had an invitation in my screen door for the memorial this Saturday.
I always wondered why protesters don't take the opportunity to crash these things. They blanket the neighborhoods with them and have special campaigns, they are generally outnumbered 2:1 and yet everything goes off peacefully. Maybe in suckier places, it's experienced, but I have never seen a hiccup although I have seen a stray protester or two at their assemblies.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2018 13:55:17 GMT
My source quotes a Royal Commission which states, clearly, there has been a cover up. This is a story repeated in many other news outlets not just Reveal. What do you have when you seriously say "Still nothing to indicate for at least 25 years, probably longer, that JW's have a policy of covering up molestations." but just this bald, and somewhat distasteful, assertion of the complete opposite?
Or, see here:
Where doing the right thing has to be forced out of the JW church. It is not hard finding a continuing association with child abuse and some of the religious on the net. Denying it mean you are doing what they are doing, which makes a bad thing worse. But no doubt you have your reasons.
Unless they can avoid the consequences of their heinous acts, using special pleading, of course EG: The jury is still out on that. In some cases, literally. The Royal Commission couldn't be any more reputable, the verdict more damning. I am sorry that you appear to be in a state of denial. To be honest your playing down of religious child abuse is rather distasteful and flies in the face of facts.
In any case, none of what has been said affects what has always been my main point: the observation that Christians can be just as guilty as any other supposedly upstanding members of society of child abuse, notably of the institutionalised kind, where one might reasonably expect that the followers of any good god would always set the best example .
Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 29, 2018 14:21:15 GMT
it provides clear evidence that they haven;t done anything to cover up stuff for at least 25 years. That's the second time on this thread that you've made that claim. First you said: Nothing to indicate? How about the link that YOU provided on a thread that YOU started. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/81481/faithleaks The Watchtower documents on your link date from 1999 to 2012. Newsweek took the trouble to examine all those documents, and I posted on your thread the following: 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
So, two months ago (the age of that thread) you posted a link showing that the WT had indeed tried to "cover up stuff" in the period covering from 6 to 19 years ago. But now you're trying to pass off the notion that there is "nothing to indicate for at least 25 years, probably longer, that JW's have a policy of covering up molestations." Poor memory about what you posted on this topic only 2 months ago?
(And whether "25 Years Without Covering Up Child Sex Abuse" is a good endorsement for a church is a separate question.)
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2018 14:39:25 GMT
it provides clear evidence that they haven;t done anything to cover up stuff for at least 25 years. That's the second time on this thread that you've made that claim. First you said: Nothing to indicate? How about the link that YOU provided on a thread that YOU started. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/81481/faithleaks The Watchtower documents on your link date from 1999 to 2012. Newsweek took the trouble to examine all those documents, and I posted on your thread the following: 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
So, two months ago (the age of that thread) you posted a link showing that the WT had indeed tried to "cover up stuff" in the period covering from 6 to 19 years ago. But now you're trying to pass off the notion that there is "nothing to indicate for at least 25 years, probably longer, that JW's have a policy of covering up molestations." Poor memory about what you posted on this topic only 2 months ago?
(And whether "25 Years Without Covering Up Child Sex Abuse" is a good endorsement for a church is a separate question.)
leaders they are talking about are at the congregation level.
There is nothing systemic to a couple of low level managers trying to cover up something and JW's as an organization still pay the price for that by losing money, something I have never disputed. But please feel free to ignore that again like you do in all of your posts. EDIT: The reason I bring up the 25 years threshold is because that is based on the info provided by FF's sources. If it goes back further than that, then fine, but for at least 25 years of evidence, the organizations response to sexual abuse has been exactly the same and shared to the public as well as their followers since it is readily available in press releases, court documents, & their literature. Basically I'm not controlling the timeline, you guys are. I will happily condemn them for something that goes unanswered from the 1930's if one has it.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 29, 2018 17:17:35 GMT
That's the second time on this thread that you've made that claim. First you said: Nothing to indicate? How about the link that YOU provided on a thread that YOU started. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/81481/faithleaks The Watchtower documents on your link date from 1999 to 2012. Newsweek took the trouble to examine all those documents, and I posted on your thread the following: 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
So, two months ago (the age of that thread) you posted a link showing that the WT had indeed tried to "cover up stuff" in the period covering from 6 to 19 years ago. But now you're trying to pass off the notion that there is "nothing to indicate for at least 25 years, probably longer, that JW's have a policy of covering up molestations." Poor memory about what you posted on this topic only 2 months ago?
(And whether "25 Years Without Covering Up Child Sex Abuse" is a good endorsement for a church is a separate question.)
leaders they are talking about are at the congregation level.
There is nothing systemic to a couple of low level managers trying to cover up something and JW's as an organization still pay the price for that by losing money, something I have never disputed. In a company, when a low level manager mishandles a situation in a way that goes contrary to top management policy and makes the company publicly look bad, that low level manager gets disciplined in some way. Where (either within the past 25 years or earlier) do we see an example of even one "low level Watchtower manager" involved in a cover up being sanctioned or disciplined by top management? Nowhere. When there's plenty of examples throughout the world of "low level JW managers" trying to cover things up, and none of them are penalized by top management, that shows the problem is systemic. And when top management, as recently as 2014, refuses to provide a court with documents relating to a cover up lawsuit (and persists in refusing in the face massive, ever growing fines), that only further indicates a systemic problem.
Continue to minimize this all you want. Keep dismissing it as some low level managers who don't follow instructions. The public record shows it to be much worse that that.
But how could it be that a church that claims to be the one that is actually guided by God's Holy Spirit wouldn't have handled child sex abuse allegations in the morally right way all along, a way that would set them apart from other organizations that don't have God's spirit to guide them? wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002074 wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000242 (Just a rhetorical question.)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2018 16:18:46 GMT
There is nothing systemic to a couple of low level managers trying to cover up something and JW's as an organization still pay the price for that by losing money, something I have never disputed. In a company, when a low level manager mishandles a situation in a way that goes contrary to top management policy and makes the company publicly look bad, that low level manager gets disciplined in some way. Where (either within the past 25 years or earlier) do we see an example of even one "low level Watchtower manager" involved in a cover up being sanctioned or disciplined by top management? Nowhere. When there's plenty of examples throughout the world of "low level JW managers" trying to cover things up, and none of them are penalized by top management, that shows the problem is systemic. And when top management, as recently as 2014, refuses to provide a court with documents relating to a cover up lawsuit (and persists in refusing in the face massive, ever growing fines), that only further indicates a systemic problem.
Continue to minimize this all you want. Keep dismissing it as some low level managers who don't follow instructions. The public record shows it to be much worse that that.
But how could it be that a church that claims to be the one that is actually guided by God's Holy Spirit wouldn't have handled child sex abuse allegations in the morally right way all along, a way that would set them apart from other organizations that don't have God's spirit to guide them? wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002074 wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000242 (Just a rhetorical question.)
Cool would make more of an impact as a Christian if he defended the victims of child abuse rather than the institutions which have been caught up in the scandal, often on good evidence.
|
|