Court rules in favor of clergy perp

[purple]

Now that I've got your attention......
Here's a recent court decision disallowing a civil suit to proceed against a church for failing to report known molestation. This is in spite of a law requiring them to report it. The court is saying the church officials' desire to keep it confidential prevails over the law, and there is no special relationship between the church and parishoner such that the church would be expected to take protective measures (as in a school-student relationship). They are also saying there is no civil $ remedy for churches that fail to follow the law.

BTW, the perp was convicted criminally in 2000.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...5/berry081.htm

This group allegedly has a secret database of perps and an official policy discouraging involving police. http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm

[BabyRider]

Ok. There's a bunch of language in that link that I don't pretend to understand, and it's very lengthy, and I admit not having the patience to read the whole thing, but am I understanding this right? This "church" (I use the term loosely in regard to Jehovah's Witlesses) is NOT "obligated" to report abuse under the law? What about a moral obligation? How about just pretending, for a minute, that you have a conscience? It's becoming as bad as the friggin' Catholic church that hides, transfers, protects and lies for it's clergy who molest children.
If someone has the patience and vocabulary to read that whole link, please fill me in on what I missed, or if I'm mistaken. Being Jehovah's Witlesses, I bet I'm not.

I tried to get through it too. I dont understand how being and elder is not being a 'minister' which would make them a mandatory reporter. That they specificly gave council to oppose the law is also defiant.

But I think BR's right, if they didn't violate the letter of the law, they violated the spirit of the law and failed to protect an innocent child from further damage. That makes them guilty as well.

But what really bothers me at all is that this was brought this high in a court system at all. If that church cared at all they would have made restitution as best as possible for their own conscience sake.

[BabyRider]

Originally Posted by Far Rider

If that church cared at all they would have made restitution as best as possible for their own conscience sake.

Well, there's your catch, Far. I know about this "church", and what the members are capable of, from close personal experience. They DON'T care, about anything except their own ideas, and anyone who disagrees with them is unworthy. It's so extreme, I know of a person raised in this "church" who, at 3 years old was so brain-washed by their teachings, when he saw his fathers Christmas tree, he stated that it was "the work of the devil." 3 years old. These Jehovah's Witlesses are out-and-out dangerous. And they're growing in leaps and bounds. Think "cult" and "Waco" and poisoned kool-aid. Whackos, each and every one of them.

Originally Posted by BabyRider

Well, there's your catch, Far. I know about this "church", and what the members are capable of, from close personal experience. They DON'T care, about anything except their own ideas, and anyone who disagrees with them is unworthy. It's so extreme, I know of a person raised in this "church" who, at 3 years old was so brain-washed by their teachings, when he saw his fathers Christmas tree, he stated that it was "the work of the devil." 3 years old. These Jehovah's Witlesses are out-and-out dangerous. And they're growing in leaps and bounds. Think "cult" and "Waco" and poisoned kool-aid. Whackos, each and every one of them.

Wow... uh I got called into work today and while waiting, for someone, I talked with one of the patients... she was waiting for her brother to come pick her up, who was late because her daughter will not ride in the same car with her, and the son had to take her somewhere first. This woman said the JW church elders told her daughter to have no contact with her.

It would seem the parishners do whatever the elders say???

She didn't tell me why they said that, could be a very good reason, but thats some power they have!

[nvalleyvee]

I call BULLSHIT on any abuse.

[purple]

Thank you all for your interest in my post. I was forced to become a JW when I was a child and escaped as soon as I was old enough. I was not kicked out (which causes them to shun/not speak to you as one poster described), so I am not a rejected person with an axe to grind. I left because of significant concerns with the mind control, false prophecies of the end of the world (which they deny but are readily available in their literature), and mean-spiritness I experienced among people who claim to be god's one and only true religion.

After I left, I became a social worker for a time and ended up treating JWs in a hospital. It was then that I found out of the horrendous conspiracy to cover up child molestation and other abuse going on within the organization. I personally was involved in treating victims. One victim was experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and severe depression after being raped for years by her father, a current JW elder. The elder tried to control every aspect of her treatment. He told her he had been forgiven by his fellow elders and was still considered her spiritual head. (Patient was an adult.) Thus she was required to continue social and religious contact with him, though it was terribly traumatic for her. He also insisted she continue having sex with her husband--not even taking a temporary break during her treatment so she could avoid having flashbacks during sex! There is no compassion or logic there! She was told she would be shunned and kicked out of the religion if she did not comply with any of those requirements or if she reported it to the police or media.

The JW literature specifically discourages contact with the police. The secret elders' manual says that victims must utilize "intracongregational means" to deal with it and that contacting the police may result in the victim being sanctioned by the congregation if it "brings reproach" upon them as a group. The secret elders' manual also instructs elders to ensure victims confront their perps in person! Can you imagine being raped and then having to confront your rapist, especially if you're a child?

Additionally, no action is taken within the congregation if there are not a minimum of 2 witnesses to the crime. How many rapes have 2 witnesses? Not many. Why is this significant? Because:
a) The congregational action is usually the only action taken against the rapist.
b) If no congregational action is taken, the perp continues in good standing, allowed to socialize with children alone, serve in leadership positions, and yes, go out in people's neighborhoods preaching. You might have a pedophile or rapist knocking on your door! Other parishoners are not warned, so they could unknowingly invite a pedophile over to dinner or let them babysit.

There is a further caveat: Even if a person is seen before a congregational judicial committee (yes that's what they call 'em), there are witnesses, etc...if he/she repents, viola! The perp is back in good standing with no sanctions at all.

Please let me know if you have any other questions about this "religion". I have lots of info. You can visit the following sites too for more information:
www.silentlambs.org child abuse advocacy site for JW victims
www.jwinfo.50megs.com my informational site on JWs

Human Religion.