Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'philadelphia inquirer'.
Found 1 result
With regard to the April 25th story, ‘Silent Witnesses,’ about Jehovah’s Witnesses and child sexual abuse: Some significant facts are omitted, and some background facts that are included are misrepresented, leading to condemnation of a religion that otherwise has a reputation for fine works and conduct. “Overall, they’re nice, sincere people” says vehement critic Barbara Anderson, referring to the “rank and file.” The video of Jared Kushner, from before campaign days, speaking of the Witnesses from whom he would buy their Brooklyn buildings is almost unheard of in its praise—Witnesses are persons of “high integrity” with whom “a handshake deal means something,” he says. How can this be if the leadership is as vile as the reporter represents them? Plainly, something is missing. No topic is more incendiary than child sexual abuse. In no other area is a person’s viewpoint so determined by experience. Few evils are more widespread. The organization InvisibleChildren.org reports that, in the United States, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old—despite years of emphasis on punishing perpetrators. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ relationship to the pandemic can be viewed through a different lens than the Inquirer views it. The Watchtower organization was proactive at a time when few others were, investigating reports of this and other forms of wrongdoing within their ranks, and it is through this policy of vigilance that they come to be identified with this moral crime. In fact, any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact the case. The Book of Romans says “You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?’ Few, if any, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses followed through on this obviously necessary self-examination. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, states that “clear guidelines for best [child protective] practice were not established until the 1990s,” during or even after most of the JW abuse cases under review. Thus, the Witness organization walked in largely uncharted territory, for the purpose of identifying this most pernicious group so as to apply discipline, often expulsion, to safeguard other congregation members, and to ensure that pedophiles could not slip unnoticed from one congregation into another (as they could anywhere else). To some extent, condemnation of the Watchtower for this proactive policy is a prime example of the cynicism: “No good deed goes unpunished.” The fourteen persons that Mr. Gambacorta interviewed appear to be from a Reddit forum “devoted exclusively to ex-Witnesses,” who “discuss the absurdity of their experiences.” I have no reason to challenge the experiences the fourteen relate, and whether their perspective on what they report is the final word, I am in no position to say. However, it is inexcusable for the Inquirer article to link to an ex-Witness forum of 20,000 members, and not also to a Watchtower downloadable child-protection policy packet plainly showing that most its insinuations are untrue: