With Regard to Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Sexual Abuse

[TrueTomHarley]

According to the group InvisibleChildren.org, 1 out of 5 children in the United States will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old. It follows that you should be able to look anywhere and find a bumper crop of abuse cases. Most likely, child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness community is significantly less prevalent than in the greater world. The reason abuse is linked with Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the latter make a point of investigating wrongdoing in their ranks for the purpose of applying discipline and safeguarding congregation members from such ones. There are cumulatively a lot of child sexual abuse cases, but there are many more anywhere else. However, they are never linked with religion (how often do you hear religious affiliation when an abuser is nabbed by the authorities?) because no one else is proactive enough to look into such things in their own ranks.

Witnesses worldwide attend annual Regional Conventions, for (usually) three days of instruction based upon Bible teachings. During 2017 a section dealing with child sexual abuse was a part of the program. Especially emphasized was the fact that a perpetrator is likely to be someone a child knows and trusts. If a relative, or friend, or anyone else, seems overly attentive to your child, it is a reason to be watchful, said the program speaker.  If there are tickling sessions, if there are sleepovers, if there are trips alone to the public restroom, if—there were several other scenarios. They are all potential red flags: maybe harmless, but maybe not, and the parent must be aware.

Nobody, but nobody, assembles their entire membership as Jehovah’s Witnesses did and reviews detailed scenarios under which abuse might happen so that parents, the first line of defense, can educate their children and themselves. Thus the Witness organization is quite proactive at combatting what has turned out to be a worldwide pandemic.

It is not accurate to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden to contact outside authorities in the event of child sexual abuse; plain statements appear on both their printed and digital literature that they are free to do so. I would not challenge, however, that many, especially in the past, have been loath to do so, as it is the very opposite of what they aspire to be and of what they advertise.

The new ebook addresses the topic in a chapter of 9000-some words. After relating matters pertaining to the Russian ban, Part 2 explores the accusation s made against the Witness organization and the defences on might make. (Pedophile charges did not come up there, but they do in other areas)

The ebook is entitled Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia, and can be downloaded for free in PDF and EPUB version at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620

There is also a version that is exactly the same except that all quotes from extremist sources are redacted: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/826384

Chapter 12 is entitled Pedophiles.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is not accurate to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden to contact outside authorities in the event of child sexual abuse; plain statements appear on both their printed and digital literature that they are free to do so.

I think you have done some great work on the topic, which I have read in your book, and I hope you continue to share more widely. I've told you I don't agree with all your implied statistics, but I think you are on the right track and the trend of the numbers favors your ideal conclusion (about where the numbers probably point).

I think that the specific problems in this matter are being cared for as well as possible under the circumstances. Our big problem is historical. And we have to do better in justifying why we are so adamant about the two-witness rule for this crime, but not for other crimes and sins. Actually we have to work on being more just.

I have never dealt with a sexual abuse case, but know persons who have. (I have dealt with a physical abuse case and emotional abuse.) I have also spoken with a person (a circuit overseer uncle) who dealt with a few, sexual abuse cases and he admits that elders were ALWAYS told not to contact outside authorities, and ALWAYS to advise victims and their families not to go to outside authorities. But this is not the case any more. We finally have this part fixed from the perspective of policy, at least.

But the two-witness rule is still a real problem. If you have a child who is abused, and you absolutely know the child was abused, but didn't witness it, and the abuser didn't admit it, then the congregation can do nothing. But neither can you tell anyone in the congregation. (Technically, this is true even if went to the authorities and the evidence was not clear to them.) Typically, after about 10 to 15 years of living with the guilt and shame and repression and multiple psychological issues, the child will finally need to say something to someone -- and they are now guilty of slander from a congregational perspective. It's a trap that effectively pushes the victim out of the organization. It's easy to see why there are cases where it would be better for a millstone around the neck of such a person who stumbles these little ones.

[Witness]

News break:   https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2018/05/24/man-charged-jehovah-witness-sex-assault-kingdom-hall-red-lion/641968002/

If this has already been posted elsewhere, someone can delete my comment.

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's easy to see why there are cases where it would be better for a millstone around the neck of such a person who stumbles these little ones.

Did you get to the part yet where my pioneer partner opens a quarry, files a DBA of ‘Mike’s Millstones’ and is doing a brisk business?

I don't do much '2 witness' in the book other than to comment that it might be useful in other areas. That way, we would not have the current fiasco of an accusation alone ruining a person as happens constantly on media, all the more so if the accusee is someone unpopular. Time was when you had to prove things. 

That said, with plain statements in print and digital that anyone is free to report abuse to outside authorities, surely any victim will fell free to do it. Those plain statements will also serve to correct any who would raise objections to it.

I am not aware of the two witness rule not being applied across the board for all wrongs. it is bedrock of Western law, after all, or was until recently.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am not aware of the two witness rule not being applied across the board for all wrongs. it is bedrock of Western law, after all, or was until recently.

The two-witness rule is a brilliant piece of jurisprudence. It actually forms the basis for a large part of scientific inquiry, too.

Past discussions here have already brought out some of the inequities and inconsistencies in the rule's application. I won't rehash them here. Read any of the first old "Flock" books carefully, however, and you'll see it easily. I'm not against the two-witness rule. Also, some news sources who have picked up on the issue have it completely wrong and have evidently thought that there has to be two separate witnesses to the crime, not including the victim.

The two witness rule needs to be updated to consistently include the "witness" of a previous crime of the same nature, the "witness" of strong circumstantial physical evidence, even (within reason) the "witness" of professionals outside the congregation who can confiscate computers, cell-phones, clothing, and understand all the types of evidence, including the strengths and weaknesses of each.

The two-witness rule in an open congregational setting such as in the Jewish city gate would have been quite different than the secretive version of congregational justice we have now. There should still be both "clergy" discretion and the rights of congregation members to "confess" in secret. Certain crimes rise to a level that should override the secrecy however. Many cases of child abuse are actually cases of incest, and often we hear about the danger of publicizing a crime that will likely, even if inadvertently, "shame" the victim, too. Again, however, some crimes rise to a level that will necessarily override even the privacy rights of victims.

Of course, if a congregation came close to the style of an open forum like a Jewish city gate, everyone in the congregation would know the accused child abuser. All parents would be wary and protective even if there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. But the entire congregation would also openly know the accuser and might know of reasons that the accusation could be a false one. Everything is open to a court of public opinion. A second accusation in front of the entire congregation, brought by someone else with no ties or biases toward the first accuser, however, would result in everyone in the congregation being even more clear about their suspicions, even if again there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. The openness cuts both ways, but will almost always result in more eyes upon the future suspicious activities of an accused abuser, which will either make his future crimes impossible, or result in a second witness for future crimes.

The two-witness rule without an open justice system is not the same thing it was Biblically when it is ripped so far out of context.

[TrueTomHarley]

Stories about child sexual abuse are not nothing, and it is easy to see why a journalist would go there. Chapter 12 of 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia' serves to supply background information, the absence of which leads to a seriously distorted picture.

The real story should never be ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses investigated child sexual abuse in their ranks but did some aspects of it wrong.’ The real story should be: ‘Nobody else even attempted the job.’ All Christian groups should have. In fact, any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact so. 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?’ The Witness organization was proactive at a time that no one else was to combat a great moral ill. They were not proactive enough, however, to realize that their vigilance made them de facto enforcers for the greater authorities.

Data found in Case Study 54 of the Australian Royal Commission suggests that a child is up to six times safer in the JW community than in the overall Australian world. Thus, the Witnesses vigilance along with their teachings have paid off. It is fine to handle a case of child sexual abuse properly. But it is far finer if the abuse does not happen in the first place. It is similar to calling in the grief counselors in the wake of a school shooting. Of course, it is a good thing to call them in, but how much better to not need them at all. A case of child sexual abuse ‘properly handled’ does not mean that it did not occur, and the child is only somewhat less damaged than if the case was properly handled.

In 2005, evangelical leader Ronald J. Sider wrote a book called ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,’ in which he observed that ‘church discipline’ was once an accepted aspect of many denominations, but in “in the second half of the twentieth century, it has largely disappeared.” Due to this, he laments, the conduct of the evangelical church member today is indistinguishable from that of the overall world, whereas the entire draw of the Christian religion is that it is to be an oasis from illicit conduct having free rein outside.

Important as it is to handle abuse cases properly, it is not so important as preventing them. JW’s vigilance and relative success in this should always be a part of any story about them. Otherwise, a reporter does his readers a disservice, painting one of the ‘cleanest’ organizations around as one of the foulest.

[JW Insider]

54 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

‘Nobody else even attempted the job.’

The Catholic Chuch still handles several aspects of it wrong, even though they have also put in place (on paper) much better processes that are more just and proper. An ex-JW who was involved in exposing the wrong aspects of our own processes was invited to the Vatican and met with several people there who were involved in the job of fixing their broken processes. The Australian commission found the JWs to be the slowest of several religions to take action, but the JWs finally did what other religions they investigated had already begun to do. So I'd be more careful about these claims that use expressions like "nobody" and "never."

[TrueTomHarley]

I am speaking of prior to any ARC or other investigation. I think most will not misunderstand the use of 'nobody' and 'never.'

Witnesses long made a point of looking at their own conduct with regards to applying what they learned of morality. Other religious organizations did not. "Preach to them Sunday, and let that be the end of it. If they apply it, they apply it," was, and still is, the predominant attitude.

[TrueTomHarley]

On the other hand, i will tone down the "nobody" to "others did not."

After all it is not my intention to wave a red flag before a bull.