Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
What happens when a convicted sex-offender leaves prison?
Does the state have a duty to inform everybody who has children that he's an offender? For the next fifty years? And can you sue the state if they don't, and you get molested?
I think it sounds like the church went to reasonable lengths in this case. After all, all that they knew was that he felt the tit of his step-daughter. It's not an automatic conclusion that he will be a danger to children from then on. They don't mention how old the step-daughter was, but she had tits so she wasn't a baby.
It doesn't sound on the face of it that it's a case where everyone should be automatically be informed for the next ten years or more.
You could argue that they should, but it's not what happens at the moment.
Does the state have a duty to inform everybody who has children that he's an offender? For the next fifty years? And can you sue the state if they don't, and you get molested?
I think it sounds like the church went to reasonable lengths in this case. After all, all that they knew was that he felt the tit of his step-daughter. It's not an automatic conclusion that he will be a danger to children from then on. They don't mention how old the step-daughter was, but she had tits so she wasn't a baby.
It doesn't sound on the face of it that it's a case where everyone should be automatically be informed for the next ten years or more.
You could argue that they should, but it's not what happens at the moment.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
Start holding psychiatrists criminally responsible for the actions of their patients that they let free. Same for parole boards. Doctors can be faulted for failing to detect a disease, hold them to the same standard for failing to detect a mental disease.mistermack wrote:What happens when a convicted sex-offender leaves prison?
Does the state have a duty to inform everybody who has children that he's an offender? For the next fifty years? And can you sue the state if they don't, and you get molested?
I think it sounds like the church went to reasonable lengths in this case. After all, all that they knew was that he felt the tit of his step-daughter. It's not an automatic conclusion that he will be a danger to children from then on. They don't mention how old the step-daughter was, but she had tits so she wasn't a baby.
It doesn't sound on the face of it that it's a case where everyone should be automatically be informed for the next ten years or more.
You could argue that they should, but it's not what happens at the moment.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I posted this (not exactly) in response to Warren's post, but let me posit this to all parents out there:
So, if A molested your daughter/son once, and B, a person of trust knew about it and said nothing to you or the police, but simply told them to stay away and A continued to molest your daughter/son, you wouldn't hold B responsible even in part for the continued molestations?
So, if A molested your daughter/son once, and B, a person of trust knew about it and said nothing to you or the police, but simply told them to stay away and A continued to molest your daughter/son, you wouldn't hold B responsible even in part for the continued molestations?
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I wonder if Catholic priests would be treated the same way?
If someone confessed to a priest in confession that he'd touched his step-daughter's tit, could the Catholic Church be sued, if he went on to abuse? And the priest had kept secret what he heard in confession?
This could bring the confessional to an end.
Not that that bothers me.
If someone confessed to a priest in confession that he'd touched his step-daughter's tit, could the Catholic Church be sued, if he went on to abuse? And the priest had kept secret what he heard in confession?
This could bring the confessional to an end.
Not that that bothers me.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
As a parent you would. But that's different to being able to sue someone.maiforpeace wrote:I posted this (not exactly) in response to Warren's post, but let me posit this to all parents out there:
So, if A molested your daughter/son once, and B, a person of trust knew about it and said nothing to you or the police, but simply told them to stay away and A continued to molest your daughter/son, you wouldn't hold B responsible even in part for the continued molestations?
Not everyone has the gift of seeing into the future. Your responsibility for the actions of others has to stop somewhere. People can have loads of reasons for doing nothing. Fear, love, stupidity, and loads that I can't think of.
Basically, doing the right thing, and having a legal obligation are two different things.
Is there a legal obligation to report hearsay?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I feel differently about monetary damages, which I think are far less of a punishment, particularly for an organization, than going to prison, frankly.
And it sends a strong message. Don't religious organizations sell themselves as being ethical and just? So, they have a higher duty to do the right thing AND what's legal. It's a position of trust.
And, the jury came up with the award amount, didn't they? So it wasn't just one judge handing down a sentence.
And it sends a strong message. Don't religious organizations sell themselves as being ethical and just? So, they have a higher duty to do the right thing AND what's legal. It's a position of trust.
And, the jury came up with the award amount, didn't they? So it wasn't just one judge handing down a sentence.
From the article:Warren Dew wrote: So the perpetrator is not on the hook for the money. Sounds like it was just a scheme to extract money from the church.
Well, maybe they won't have as much money to pay for all those stupid magazines they try to shove down your throat at your door. Too bad, eh?The jury also awarded $7 million in compensatory damages. Kendrick - who is now a registered sex offender living in Oakley - was ordered to pay 60 percent of that judgment, with the rest coming from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the legal entity of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I'm sure that this was never about getting money from Kendrick.
He's a private individual, and probably doesn't have millions. They knew that.
It's all about having a go at a cash-cow. The church.
I would bet big money that an appeal will reverse this decision. What these people hope is that someone will settle out of court, even if they didn't do anything wrong.
I'm no friend of churches, but I hope the JW church wins this one.
He's a private individual, and probably doesn't have millions. They knew that.
It's all about having a go at a cash-cow. The church.
I would bet big money that an appeal will reverse this decision. What these people hope is that someone will settle out of court, even if they didn't do anything wrong.
I'm no friend of churches, but I hope the JW church wins this one.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I was raised in the JW cult, quit when I was 18, but I can speak from experience. My sister was involved a 'situation', however it is JW policy to let the hierarchy of the 'society' handle such situations and NOT to go to the, legal, authorities. Generally such things never go beyond the congregation 'elders', but occasionally (mostly when one or more elders are actually involved in the 'situation') it is brought to the attention of the circuit overseer (the man, always a man, who oversees a circuit of congregations, or churches if you like) who consults the district overseer (oversees a collection of circuits) who then passes it on to the society HQ in Brooklyn who then despatches a special agent JW who investigates the matter and doles out punishments as he sees fit (ranging from removal of good standing to disassociation to disfellowshipping). It is all handled in-house. As this is the standing policy of the JW cult you can see why they'd be held responsible as a whole.mistermack wrote:I don't get it. Why is the church responsible?
Does it have a duty to police it's members? I never heard of a church being responsible for what the congregation do.
It would be different if he was a paid or unpaid person in charge of some organised section, but it seems that he wasn't.
What if he's been a member of a golf club? Would they be responsible?
I can't see this surviving appeal. But it is America, I suppose.
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I hope you made this remark out of ignorance of JW policy and procedure.mistermack wrote:I'm no friend of churches, but I hope the JW church wins this one.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
I have no respect for them, but I just hate money-grabbing law-suits even more.PordFrefect wrote:I hope you made this remark out of ignorance of JW policy and procedure.mistermack wrote:I'm no friend of churches, but I hope the JW church wins this one.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
mistermack wrote:I have no respect for them, but I just hate money-grabbing law-suits churches even more.PordFrefect wrote:I hope you made this remark out of ignorance of JW policy and procedure.mistermack wrote:I'm no friend of churches, but I hope the JW church wins this one.

This is one individual along with lawyers, being a compensated victim. This, versus an entire organization of individuals grabbing money for what, to prostelytize their bullshit and nonsense and protect criminals?
I go for the fix.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
The church is not responsible for, nor does it have a duty to police it's members, but that is not at issue. The issue is that the church is taking positive steps to prevent knowledge of crimes committed by its members to come to the attention of secular law enforcement bodies and courts. It's called 'obstruction of justice', and as per the JW's letter, which can be peroused here in full, it is official policy.mistermack wrote:I don't get it. Why is the church responsible?
Does it have a duty to police it's members? I never heard of a church being responsible for what the congregation do.
That policy has little to do with principle. The motive for it is primarily venal: to protect the coffers of the church. Here are a some extracts. Firstly, the order to shut the fuck up:
- Elders share the obligation to shepherd the flock. However, they must be careful not to divulge information about personal matters to unauthorized persons. There is "a time to keep quiet," when "your words should prove to be few." (Ecclesiastes 3:7; 5:2) Proverbs 10:19 warns: "In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly." Problems are created when elders unwisely reveal matters that should be kept confidential. Elders must give special heed to the counsel: "Do not reveal the confidential talk of another." (Proverbs 25:9) Often the peace, unity, and spiritual well-being of the congregation are at stake. Improper use of the tongue by an elder can result in serious legal problems for the individual, the congregation, and even the Society.
While we as Christians are ready to forgive others who may wrong us, those in the world are not so inclined. Worldly persons are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their "rights" have been violated. Some who oppose the Kingdom preaching work readily take advantage of any legal provisions to interfere with it or impede its progress. Thus, elders must especially guard the use of the tongue. Jesus faced opposers who tried to "catch him in speech, so as to turn him over to the government." (Luke 20:20) He instructed us to be "cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves" in such situations. (Matthew 10:16) Where such a threat exists, our position as elders should be in line with David's words: "I will set a muzzle as a guard to my own mouth, as long as anyone wicked is in front of me."-Psalm 39:1.
The reason for it follows immediately:
- In recent years, this matter has come to be a cause for increasing concern. The spirit of the world has sensitized people regarding their legal "rights" and the legal means by which they can exact punishment if such "rights" are violated. Hence, a growing number of vindictive or disgruntled ones, as well as opposers, have initiated lawsuits to inflict financial penalties on the individual, the congregation, or the Society. Many of these lawsuits are the result of the misuse of the tongue. As elders, remember that ill-advised statements or actions on your part can sometimes be interpreted legally as violating others' "rights."
The letter concludes thus:
- Appreciate the Importance of Maintaining Confidentiality Elders must exercise extraordinary caution when it comes to handling confidential information about the private lives of others. Do not mistakenly minimize the gravity of a breach of confidentiality. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information can result in costly lawsuits. Even if a lawsuit turns out favorably, valuable time and energy that could have been devoted to Kingdom interests will be lost.
From this it is pretty clear that responsibility for its brethren or duty to police them is at issue. Obstruction is. The obstruction is even more pointed in a letter sent by the British branch of the watch tower bible and tract society to all its bodies of elders in January 2001. That letter instructs the elders, to ward off incriminating information being discovered through legal searches of their documents and files by transcribing it to new forms, sending those forms to head office and destroying the original documents.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
Nah, not me. I've got no sympathy for any churches, but in this case, they're not grabbing money off anybody. This woman isn't a victim of the church, she's a victim of a man.maiforpeace wrote:mistermack wrote: I have no respect for them, but I just hate money-grabbing law-suits churches even more.
This is one individual along with lawyers, being a compensated victim. This, versus an entire organization of individuals grabbing money for what, to prostelytize their bullshit and nonsense and protect criminals?
I go for the fix.
I don't think in a case like this, where the man touched a girl's breast, there is either a legal or moral obligation to report it to the police, or publicise it to all and sundry.
It was primarily a family matter. I assume that the mother was told, and the main responsibility was hers. If he went to the elders, it was in confidence, he went for help, and they seem to have taken appropriate steps, much more than the Catholics ever did.
To go to the police against the mother's wishes would have been a complete breach of trust.
About thirty years ago, I had a girlfriend who confided in me that her father used to abuse her.
She made me promise not to do anything or say anything, and I kept my word. It was hard, but a promise is a promise, and she was twenty, so she was entitled to handle it any way she thought fit.
It never occurred to me for even a second, that if he abused anybody else, it was MY fault.
Maybe it should have, but it didn't.
I still don't think it would have been. In any case, if I reported it, and she refused to confirm it, where would it have got anyone?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
@ hermit,
I would put that down to the same advice as a solicitor would give.
It's hardly surprising, as it's such a shit society, that they anticipate law suits. But that's law suits against the church, over actions BY the church.
I don't see how you can connect that with this case. It wasn't a church matter. The elders were asked for help and guidance in a family matter. They had a moral obligation to respect the confidence of the family.
I would put that down to the same advice as a solicitor would give.
It's hardly surprising, as it's such a shit society, that they anticipate law suits. But that's law suits against the church, over actions BY the church.
I don't see how you can connect that with this case. It wasn't a church matter. The elders were asked for help and guidance in a family matter. They had a moral obligation to respect the confidence of the family.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Silent Jehovah's Witnesses
Do you see a problem with a church being successfully sued for obstructing the course of justice by failing to report criminal acts to the proper authorities and going even further, by destroying documents containing incriminating evidence and sending others to a location that is "out of harm's way"? I think the plaintiff had a good case for claiming that the church actually bears part of the responsibility for what happened to her because of what it did/didn't do.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests