TrueTomHarley

JW insider: Child sexual abuse is bad stuff - nobody argues it is not. We're agreed. But one can't help but shake his head at how fragmented this system is. The same society that puts the physical welfare of children on a razor's edge of alertness sells them down the river in so many other ways - by sticking them with poor education, by fleecing them for $$$$$$ and lifelong debt when they go for higher education, by spying on them with AI toys so as to sell them more stuff, by promoting policies destructive to families, thus depriving children of an emotional foundation, by embracing every new sexual model of living, by saturating them with violence on TV and internet, by not effectively punishing bullies. Somewhere i read that a child can more readily survive sexual abuse than they can persistent bullying, yet that goes on all the time. The outside world is very selective in its zeal to protect children. Would that even a fraction of the wrath of those who would defend children in one arena be applied to the others. Suicide of youngsters is endemic today. Please don't tell me that even eliminating child sexual abuse would solve the problem. This world collectively couldn't care less about children - if it did, it would remedy the above concerns. Ironically, the JW organization that some would love to take down does much to promote the interests of children in most of these other areas. Even on sexual abuse, they have produced one of the best videos out there: Protect Your Children. I mean, C'mon! - an organization that does that is going to wink at child sexual abuse?

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/mandatoryreporting.pdf (from Anna's post) Wow. It was actually considered to make every American a mandated reporter? If there was suspected child sexual abuse anywhere, everyone would legally bound to report it with legal consequences if they did not? It is the ultimate Hail Mary proposal from persons besides themselves that they cannot make a dent in child sexual abuse. And to think there are some in this forum who would have us believe that the JW organization is the lynchpin holding child abuse together. They ought to preface their every comment with their mission statement: eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses - and then go on to make their point.

"No wonder Geoffrey Jackson pleaded with the Australian Government to make mandatory reporting the law in every territory!" Did he really? If so, that should have been the first fact highlighted in any discussion of this subject, for it is the obvious answer. It goes back to a point raised earlier in this thread: If going beyond the law is so important, then why doesn't that become the new law? Even human governments, hopelessly disunited on every topic, ought to be able to come together on this one. Is there anything more reviled today then pedophilia? Nothing in the world should be easier than to pass laws mandating reporting in every jurisdiction? Why have they not done it? I hope I am not being too cynical if i suggest that it is because some like it just the way it is. The way it is is confusing and it allows for Monday morning quarterbacking. It allows for political grandstanding. It allows for sermonizing about failure to 'go beyond the law.' It allows for imputing motives - invariably bad ones - to anyone who is perceived to have fallen short in the fight against pedophiles. Careers are built on being "tough on pedophiles," but they are all undermined if the course is made simple. It could be so simple and straightforward. Brother Jackson apparently pleaded for it to be so. It's obvious he wants to eliminate sources of confusion or ambiguity. He wants it straightforward. There is no reason it should not be, as he and any other person of common sense asks. That is - unless there are parties that find it to their advantage for the situation to be less-straightforward, so as not to deny them the opportunity to rail against those they hate. Many times I approach situations embarrassed at being cynical, only to find I have not been nearly cynical enough.

I've tried to take the post down. Please remove it.

No. But I will do whatever I do in accord with your rules. It is for you to tell me what they

Most churches get around these problems by not having any standards. There are no investigatory committees for misconduct at churches where the daily text every day is "Anything Goes." However, in churches that still care about the conduct of its members, that still endeavor to keep its ranks clean, as the Bible advises should be done, what are they to do when an issue of pedophilia comes up? Witness and Ann argue that they should make themselves arms of the State. They should forget their scriptural role to shepherd the flock and invite in the State to conduct their hearings for them - the State, whose members may love the church or may hate the church, depending on who is at hand at the time. They may love the Bible. They may hate the Bible. Yet they are to be the arbiters of church policy, says Witness and Ann. No church that has standards of right and wrong determined by God will agree to this anywhere. Only in places like Russia, where the 'house' church is an arm of the state and is only allowed to exist if they embrace that role. Victims here are always free to go to state authorities. Nobody says otherwise. But they must go to them. They can't expect the congregation to make itself an extension of the government. The organization will report when legally mandated. There hardly seems a point to it, since the State drops 95% of what they already have. But reports will be made. If there is some screwup and they are not, there will be a price to pay, and they will thereafter get their act together to more closely comply with reporting law.

Nobody is saying for a moment that victims cannot go to authorities. Nobody has any issue with that. I will say, in passing, that I have not read any of the links that Intrepid Traveler has pleaded with me to read. He is not my friend. I know that if there are any culpable circumstances, they will be underlined and bolded. If there are any mitigating circumstances, they will be ignored I almost count it as an act of loyalty to not read his links. I am not ashamed to side with the organization the facts convince me is being used by God today. Nobody else comes remotely close replicating the work they do in telling Kingdom good news. These people are my friends. If I don't read Intrepid's links, I do not feel I am putting blinders on myself, for I am perfectly willing to concede they may, in essence, be true. Maybe our guys did screw up. If so, they'll adjust their ways. If it results in the payout of some 'dedicated funds,' there is no positive way to spin that. But even that can be put in perspective. The dedicated funds would be much greater anywhere else, where no one, like clergy, and especially like attorneys, work without receiving significant remuneration. I am also genuinely concerned about damaging Intrepid Traveler's health. He is so clearly having an orgasm over this issue that if he learns I have responded to his pleadings it may be the last straw before his splitting a gut.

If they have ever failed to comply with law, then they have erred and there will likely be a price to pay. They will use lawyers to negotiate a settlement. Everyone else does - why should they not? The general rule is that they comply. Any investigative body looks only at cases where they, for whatever reason, have not. Maybe such cases accumulate - I don't know. Maybe our people have erred in handling some matters. Or maybe laws have been retroactively interpreted to skewer a people that some hate. I lean toward this latter view because I know our people, but once again, I don't really know. But the term 'loophole' would not exist if laws were straightforward. The two-thirds quote comes from an article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and it was written in connection with the Penn State - Joe Paterno scandal: “….it's a mistake to think that the failure of Penn State authorities to report the abuse is a rarity....Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so....."I think that we fail miserably in mandated reporting," said Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Kristina Karle...”

"And why is it that a law is necessary to twist the arm?" What a stupid question! It is required to go beyond the law? Then why doesn't that become the new law? Isn't that the purpose of laws? One would think no law would be easier to write, for pedophilia is everywhere condemned. Please don't tell me that legislative bodies today don't know how to write laws. So write a more demanding law if that is such a valuable thing. Why do authorities not do it? I don't really know. Perhaps they do not want to legalize hearsay. Perhaps they are discouraged that existing laws go unheeded. But in the meantime, it is necessary only to comply with current laws regarding pedophilia. In fact, you may get in trouble if you 'go beyond the law.' If I was a pedophile, and my church handed over data on me when they didn't have to, and normally should not due to clergy-penitent confidentiality, which is the same as lawyer-client confidentiality and doctor-patient confidentiality, I would sue the pants off them. On the New York State Thruway, the law is 65 MPH. Do you drive 55, so that you can go beyond the law. Make the law 55 if that is the proper course to take

The general rule is that where the law requires the names of even suspected abusers to be handed over to secular authorities, the JW organization will do it. That's further than most go. Two thirds of those required by law to report persons they suspect of pedophilia, such as medical people, do not do it.

The question is not whether or not child sexual abuse has occurred among Jehovah's people. Of course it has. We are people, and child sexual abuse is viral today - it is everywhere and seemingly uncontrollable. What I address is the pleading hope of opposers to paint JWs as a hotbed of abusers. It's a ridiculous charge, and they know better, for they are not overly stupid. But their primary concern is to take down a religion they hate. Elsewhere I have written of the backdrop that must be considered when reading any story of pedophilia involving any group.

I worried some at first that opposers might latch onto Tom Irregardless and Me and try to sink it with bad reviews simply because they hate JWs - not sure if they would do that or not, for not all are intellectually dishonest. But now that I have a number of positive reviews, even if they wrote bad ones, I would play the contrast, writing something like: '8 positive reviews and then the apostates discovered it - that says it all.' It could be put in the book's metadata, which one sees before any reviews. If anything, it would help the book, which does not treat anyone, least of all opposers, in a hateful way. I received a very kind and lengthy review of Tom Irregardless and Me from Ivor E. Tower. Authors are grateful for a review of one or two lines. Mr. Tower goes several paragraphs and illuminates some of the ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ characters. He is a non-Witness scholar who has written extensively about Jehovah’s Witnesses and his real name is recognizable to studious readers of Watchtower material: “Tom Harley’s Tom Irregardless and Me has been described as “a romping and riotous defense of Jehovah's Witnesses and their place in today’s world.” This really sums up the book, which is a light-hearted look at numerous aspects of the Watch Tower Society from the perspective of a practicing Jehovah’s Witness in the US. “To the outsider, Jehovah’s Witnesses may seem deadly serious and preoccupied exclusively with their religion and the Society’s own publications. Harley dispels this stereotype. The book is about real people and issues, although the author has changed the names of rank-and-file members to preserve name anonymity. Tom Irregardless is an elder who uses the spurious word “irregardless” liberally in his Bible talks. Other characters include John Wheatnweeds, who hinders members from their house-to-house ministry by spending inordinate amounts of time expounding the text of the day before they set out. Then there is posh brandy-sipping Bernard Strawman, who receives frequent visits from the publishers, but continues to raise facile objections to their faith. Vic Vomidog, an apostate, repeatedly seeks to hamper their work. Other chapters are about real JW celebrities such as Prince, who is the subject of an entire chapter. “Despite being light-hearted throughout, Tom Harley raises serious issues such as flag salutes, Darwinism and creationism, theocratic government, the paedophile scandals and the dangers of online grooming of minors, and the accuracy of the New World Translation of the Bible. Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications. “My favourite part of the book was the parody of Mickey Spillane near the end, where Tom Harley envisages a house-to-house publisher acting like one of Spillane’s macho characters. For those who don’t know, Spillane was a novelist whose books were renowned for their sex and violence, until Spillane converted to become a Jehovah’s Witness in 1951 – a decision that drastically changed his writing style. “Tom Harley states that he hopes Tom Irregardless is “entertaining but serious at heart”. This sums up the book well. It’s a good read, while providing valuable insights into life as a JW.” I’m very grateful to Mr. Tower. They line up around the block for a recognized name like John Grisham or Stephen King, but it is extraordinarily difficult for a new writer to break into the ranks. ‘Recall how many books you have purchased in the past year from a totally unknown writer,” one source advises. “Now you know why you should not become an author."

The backdrop of all pedophilia stories is that authorities are frothing over their inability to make a dent in child abuse. We all know it. You can't throw a stone in any direction without hitting ten pedophiles. The authorities drop 95% of what is thrown to them. We all know that, too. Constantly we hear of crimes against children by people who were already on the sex offender registry, which is so watered down with 'innocuous' offenders that it is worthless as a tool to law enforcement. The young man who had sex with his underage girlfriend whom he later married does not belong on the sex offender list. The Economist Magazine in 2009 (easily searchable) ran a series on just how chaotic and useless such lists are. Today such lists are mostly a tool of public shaming or even revenge - they do little to protect children. The authorities who must monitor internet child porn in order to do their jobs liken it to Medusa - one look and you turn to stone. The battle is not being won. It is being lost, and authorities are pulling their hair out over it.

Not specifically. I think it is common knowledge that a patient google search would uncover. It is ignored because .....people gots to get high!

These days cigarette smoking is maligned in the media. It is strange that marijuana smoke is not, for it is physically more harmful to the lungs.

To undergo such a struggle and to think, rightly or wrongly, that it would have been different with greater education, is a significant grievance. To stay loyal under such circumstances shows a laudable love of God. I got around all this by not learning the truth until after my education days were done. Today Witness parents are encouraged to take an active role in their offspring's future plans so that they will be able to support themselves decently. But that was not so much the case in the past. Guiding one's child in career or job choice was often a catch as catch can affair - many parents did not do it, sometimes through neglect, but usually through inexperience.

I'm surprised that the above comment was allowed to stand here, for it has nothing to do with anything. Elsewhere this character was advised to take it out on the street when he likewise tried to hijack a thread to take down a religion he hates. He was advised to start a separate thread. Why should he think he can barge in here and sully a post which consists only of two Bible verses?

Here is a caption for Intrepid Traveller's posts: Please look at this dirt I imagine I've dug up about Jehovah's Witnesses. Please. Please Please, I've worked so hard on it. Please. i couldn't have made it easier for you. Look how I put the links right there where you can click them. Please do it. Please. Please Please. It's what I do all day every day. i hate them so. Click on the three links. Okay, well just one of them. PLLEEEEEZZE click on the links. Please. Please Please Please. Please Please Please. Please Please. I hate them and the work they do. If they were to go down there would be no one to carry on their Bible education work. The lowly ones would starve spiritually. I don't care. Screw the lowly ones. It's their own fault for being lowly. Please click on a link. Please. Please Please PLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our morons went on to build a massive infrastructure, even including an 880 language website, in order to declare the Bible's Kingdom hope to populations worldwide at minimal cost - a hope that transforms even their present life for the better. When your morons have done the same, then we can talk. So far they seem only interested in destroying, not building

Don't cross the librarian. Surely we learned that at school Don't cross the Librarian. Surely we learned that at school If fully documented reports should become available from someone who is just trying to be helpful, I won't read them, because I don't have to. I am fully willing to concede that our guys may have screwed up in a given case. Or it may be slander that someone positiively PLEADS with me to read - someone who says he is my friend. But I don't feel I need to read it, for even were it to be a clear victory for his side, it does not change the fact that our guys are our guys. It does not change the fact that our guys preside over a Bible education work - even producing a website with 880 languages - that nobody else feels they need bother with - 'to hell with the lowly ones,' they say. It does not change the fact that the JW policy on child abuse is among the strongest ones out there.

I like the song video; ‘Why We Went to Bethel.” I like that it is all children. Adults are in the background for support. They clap, sway, play instruments. But the centerpiece is the kids. If you weren’t paying attention, you might miss that it is shot in different countries, with different choirs of kids. That’s how seamless it has been produced by really capable people. I like the child that pops up at the end, “Thank you, Jehovah.” The brother who I think I would like in person will not join in the singing. He just won’t do it. But he will watch the Sergei vignettes just before, which are just as good. In fact, they are better.

I like Micael's comment. it is all the better for trying to put it in a language not his. Invite children along, or even require, for there is nothing but garbage on TV at home. But they speak when they are ready. They are not shamed if they don't, nor praised overmuch if they do. Like the blonde girl in the video who left the truth for 15 years - she had felt she must be the perfect child. From the book 'Tom Irregardless and Me:' (the story is true) "I had worked in the ministry once with Willie when he was seven. At the doors, I had introduced him, same as I once had with my kids – “Hi, I’m Tom and this is my friend Willie. We’re taking turns talking and…it’s his turn.” The boy would launch into his presentation. The householder might look at me expectantly, and I’d say: “sorry, it’s his turn.” As long as he was comfortable, it remained his turn. Presently he had decided he did not want to be introduced - just as my kids had decided. After all, the introduction was really for my sake, not his. Show up at the door with a waist high child, and it is the child who starts speaking? The householder looks at you as if to say: “what about it, dummy - cat got your tongue?” “Tell you what,” I said. “Not only will I not introduce you, but you can introduce me. Or you can take every door.” And that’s how it had gone. He took every door except one or two awkward ones which I handled. When a householder would look toward me, I would apologize and explain that I was far too bashful to speak."

Yes, you are possibly correct. But I will call them morons anyway, for purposes of this post. In some cases, they have been around and should know better. In other cases (of simple disagreement) it is the method - blaring a loudspeaker before passing thousands who pay not the slightest attention to you. But you offer food for thought, which is good.

One brother told me on the Questions articles (he wasn't being serious) (I think): 'I just read the question, then skip to the bottom to see whether I can do it or not.