Sheep and Goats

Category: Pedophiles

  • A Sloppy Piece

    The June 20th Philadephia Inquirer article is rather a sloppy piece but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked.

    All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them…embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades.

    When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that the bare facts of the abuse case is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.

    I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it to two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. This story appears to be what he had in mind.

    I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme – a familiar staple of journalism and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint the Inquirer, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles.

    Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become standard fare, and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report.

    It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.

  • What Any Story About Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Sexual Abuse Should Always Include

    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: ‘Few others, if anyone at all, 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.

  • With Regard to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Sexual Abuse

    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.

    I am a practicing Jehovah’s Witness in the United States and have written a 160K word ebook, available without cost, addressing the topic in a chapter of 9000-some words. I suggest it as background reading for increased context and accuracy. The overall theme of the book is that of the religious organization being banned in Russia as extremist.

    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

    Chapter 12 is entitled Pedophiles.

     

  • Frothing Mad Over Out of Control Child Sexual Abuse

    Here is a 14 year-old girl who sexted an explicit picture of herself to her boyfriend via Snapchat – and he spread it about widely. Guys will do things like that and girls should not be dumb.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/414031-aclu-girl-selfie-child-porn/

    She is looking at 10 years felony jail time for violation of Minnesota's child-porn law. The ACLU spokesperson defending her says this is a "teachable moment" for parents to inform the girl that her actions have consequences. Tell me about it.

    It is also a "cautionary tale," the ACLU adds. Yes. It IS cautionary for a 14 year old trying to live in an insane world supplied her by adults that pushes powerful social media tools, a sexually promiscuous culture, and then ten years for making use of them.

    Only RT.com picks this story up (besides local media), probably in a quest to embarrass the West, but that is hard to do because the West routinely embarrasses itself yet feels no embarrassment. To the contrary, it parades around in its wisdom. 

    Meanwhile – ‘wisdom from the mouth of babes’ – the girl says “Sexting is common among teens at my school, and we shouldn’t face charges for doing it. I don’t want anyone else to go through what I’m going through.” Of course. It is a no-brainer. It is not that what she did wasn’t wrong – it is that the entire adult world should be prosecuted ahead of her. That way, there will be no room left in jail for the child.

    In a greater context, the story highlights the absolute failure of the world to vanquish pedophilia, which it has declared public enemy #1 – with its frothing take-no-prisoners, pulling-their-hair out frustration over making no dent in the pandemic, and so wildly overswinging to compensate. It is the frenzied carpenter who misses the nail and then furiously hammers ten times more, again missing each time. This is how it is with zealots who see their cause and nothing else – and the world is full of such people.

    It mirrors the Arizona law of 2015 criminalizing contact with the private areas of any child under 15 REGARDLESS OF INTENT. Prosecutors did not back down even when it was pointed out that the law criminalizes parents changing diapers. No “sane or reasonable prosecutor” is going to misuse the law that way, they said. That is reassuring, but what about the insane and unreasonable ones? Will the law be repealed? Not easily. Just try repealing it and political enemies will scream you are being soft of pedophiles – no politician dares risk that.

    Meanwhile, Jehovah’s Witnesses, of all people, get caught in the cross-fire of pedophilia for doing what no other religion attempts to do. Where there are reports of wrongdoing in their midst, they investigate, so as to keep the congregation morally clean – an obligation they feel before God. There is the unfortunate by-product that their name is always attached to pedophiles within their ranks, something that happens nowhere else. No other faith dreams their members should actually apply Christian conduct in their lives. No other faith looks into such things – preach Sunday and be done with it – and thus rarely learn of them. Thus pedophiles, who appear to be every third person on the planet, especially when the statute of limitations is forever, and the 14-year old and folks changing diapers are included, are never ever identified with any religion (unless they are clergy), with but a single exception.

    The book I am almost finished with about Witness persecution in Russia will contain individual chapters on all charges made against Witnesses. ‘Pedophilia’ will be one of them, even though the subject did not arise there, strangely. It has arisen most everywhere else and it is only a matter of time there. The Russian embassy to the U.S. recently did mention the topic in a tweet, attempting to justify its ban – the first such mention I have ever seen, despite years of flinging dirt in that country to see what will stick.

  • Jim Boeheim and Joe Paterno

    By now, Joe Paterno must be down at the community center, spending his days over hands of euchre and cups of coffee with the other geezers. A month ago he was head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions, but no more. His downfall was sudden and spectacular. I thought he got a raw deal and said so last post.

    Having got that off my chest, I was prepared to move on. You don't win them all, and when you lose, do it graciously. Don't go beating a pet peeve into the ground, as though you have no life of your own. Besides, it's not as though I can't see the other side of the argument. I can. So I'm turning my attention to less sordid things, so as to get this blog back on its normal lofty plain, when along comes another salvo in Rochester's home-town paper, the Democrat and Chronicle, that drags me into it all over again!

     

    Now, you must recall that JoePa fulfilled his legal obligation, reporting a child abuse allegation to his superiors. No one argues that point. But second-guessers came along to assert that he should have gone beyond what law required…..forget the superiors, he should have gone himself to the cops. Okay. Perhaps. He himself, with the wisdom of hindsight, which all of us have in spades, has said he wished he'd done more. So naturally, I assumed that reporting compliance for those with legal obligation must be close to 100% percent. Doesn't that make sense? Surely, compliance must be well nigh universal in order for pundits to so readily broaden the reporting net to include those with “moral” obligation, as they did with Joe. Was I ever wrong! Says the D&C article of November 11, 2011:

    “….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…” 

    Two thirds!! Two thirds of those required to report suspected abuse to police don't do it! So how is it that Joe Paterno, who was not required to report to police, yet did report to his bosses….how is it that he gets fired?! I tell you, this is so arbitrary….this so closely resembles a witch hunt, that you just have to cry foul. I suppose a witch hunt is okay if you actually catch witches, but the two thirds who should be fired…..if fired is the agreed-upon penalty….have they all been fired? I don't think so.

    Further confounding my best intentions to put this subject behind me is that it started up all over again, with another coach from another college, much closer to home. Syracuse! Only 90 miles east of where I live. I've been to Syracuse many times, usually when I was on my way to somewhere else. There, two stepbrothers have just accused a Syracuse Orangemen Assistant Coach of molestation. To my knowledge, no one's saying [yet] that longtime Head Coach Jim Boeheim knew or should have known about it. But, alas, his initial response was (not surprisingly) to defend his longtime associate, calling the accusations “a bunch of a thousand lies” (one of the boys' own father said so, too) motivated by a grab for money.

    That was a mistake. For an ESPN tape has surfaced of a phone call made years ago by the assistant coach's wife to one of the parties saying her husband does indeed “need help” and “has issues.” In the light of some substance to the charge, Boeheim has quickly retracted: "What is most important is that this matter be fully investigated and that anyone with information be supported to come forward so that the truth can be found. I deeply regret any statements I made that might have inhibited that from occurring or been insensitive to victims of abuse."

    It may be too late. For one brief moment, Coach Boeheim failed to assume that his long-time associate accused of child abuse was automatically guilty, by mere reason of the allegation. He reacted emotionally. Mike Paul, a New York based “crisis consultant” has predicted he is “toast.”  “I believe Boeheim has an attitude problem the same way Joe Paterno had an attitude problem, where they are saying: 'This is my program. I built it. You won't say anything negative about me, my coaches and my game.'”

    What is it with these characters, so ready to assign an “attitude problem” to anyone who has built something? It just burns me up when people assume, completely without evidence, that anyone who has ever worked with a molester, guys like Boeheim or Paterno, must somehow be complicit, that they must wink and nod and say “ah, well, that's just Bernie doing his thing. But who cares? I've got a program to run, and no one's going to say anything bad about it!” There's a mentality there that I just can't fathom. I swear, I'm an old dinosaur, getting older all the time, completely out of touch. Still, as the dust begins to settle, less hysterical views can be heard, and here is a blog post examining “Why Joe Paterno should sue for libel and journalists should lose their jobs.” Yeah! (but they won't)

     

    They're horrible people, just like Romulus said, those who would molest children. You want to catch them and put them away, perhaps for life if the offense is serious enough. But it's also the damage they do to those who legitimately work with young people….coaches and teachers and counselors and pediatricians and so forth. All these folks come under suspicion whenever a pervert is nabbed. What's their real motive for choosing their line of work, people wonder. It's as if molestation is the only reason anyone would want to work with the young.

    For example, a former coach of youth sports, Bob Cook (who, not to misrepresent him, is critical of JoePa) says: “The most upsetting thing about many child-protection rules is they assume any adult is capable of doing something bad. If you think of yourself as a good person, and the people around you as good people, you can’t help but be taken aback. You can’t help but think a wall has been put between yourself, the children you coach, and the families you deal with. It’s a wall that seems patently ridiculous when, in the case of the Catholics involved in my Virtus meeting, were tight-knit, south side Chicago parishes where families had known each other for generations.”

    You know, the depravity of child sexual predators is enough to catapult efforts to catch them into a national crusade. I understand that. But I also think the intense focus stems from it being the one crime that people can get their heads around. And do something about! “We may not be able to stop terrorism,” they say, “or economic ruin, or hunger, or global warming, or natural disasters, but….by God…we can stop perverts molesting our kids!” But, in fact, they can't even do that. Two thirds of those required by law to report allegations don't.

    Why don't they? Well, I'd guess it's because one wants to be sure a charge has real substance before turning a colleague, a patient, or friend, over to the police, who are apt to descend upon that one's house with TV cameras and reporters and make that one's life a living hell. Now, if the allegation turns out to be true, few will care, but if it is not true, it's a little hard ever to look that person in the eye again. The media retraction will be a little tiny footnote somewhere, which nobody will see….it won't be a screaming headline, as was the allegation.

    That's what that D&C article identified as the reason: the two thirds fail because “they are uncertain of whether abuse occurred, are fearful of making false accusations, or are unsure of their obligation.” In fact, that is why ESPN, who sat on their tape for eight years, despite media readiness to point fingers at anyone else who would hold back, kept their own mouths shut: they did not "report the contents of the tape, because no one else would corroborate his story."

    Twenty years into the war against pedophiles, they still keep popping up everywhere. Have they always been around, or does today's culture spawn them? Or both?

    *************************

    Read ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’   30% free preview

    Starting with Prince, a fierce and frolicking defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A riotous romp through their way of life. “We have become a theatrical spectacle in the world, and to angels and to men,” the Bible verse says. That being the case, let’s give them some theater! Let’s skewer the liars who slander the Christ! Let’s pull down the house on the axis lords! Let the seed-pickers unite!

     

     

     

  • JoePa Gets Fired

    You watch. Now that they've canned Joe Paterno, they'll pull the statue down at Penn State. And once they do, moralizing media folk will up and stomp all over it, just like the Iraqis did to Saddam Hussein.

    300px-Paterno_memorial

     

    What is it that rankles me about Penn State firing the 84 year old Nittany Lions head coach? Why should it even register? I don't know anything about college football, and had you asked me a month ago who Joe Paterno is, I would have drawn a blank. That is, until he became national villain of the week….the top, if not the only, news story for that short time. Then everybody knew who he was, even me.

    It was Gunsmoke's Matt Dillon, believe it or not, who put this all into focus for me. ME TV runs that old show locally for the benefit of those steadily closing in on geezerhood… guys like me. A recent episode features a “strict, but honest” agent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who has stirred up all kinds of mischief toward local Indians. At show's end, however, he has an epiphany. Why… he's been wrong all along….the Indians are in the right! Full of remorse, he tells Marshall Matt Dillon that he'll tender his resignation to the Bureau tomorrow. But Matt replies something like…..get this….."I don't think that will be necessary. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and it looks to me that you're just the right man for this job.”

    That would never happen today. Back when that show was filmed you could blunder for the longest time, yet be redeemed in a second by heartfelt repentance. Today it's the exact opposite. You can serve nobly for the longest time, yet be trashed without redemption for a single misstep. Isn't that why nobody knows anything today? One mistake in word or deed, and it's “off with his head!” leaving only inexperienced clods running the show.

    Now, Joe Paterno's decades-long performance as Penn State's head coach has been impeccable, without blemish. Nobody says otherwise. In a world routinely rocked by scandal and exploitation, he's kept his program clean. A few excerpts on the man, from the website GoPSUSports.com:

    "He's putting together this winning program, but meanwhile he's teaching 17-, 18-, 19-year olds how not to screw their lives up, how important education is, how important it is to have social acumen," All-America linebacker Greg Buttle told the San Antonio Express-News in 2007.Joe_Paterno_Sideline_PSU-Illinois_2006

    Obviously not a person of misplaced priorities, Paterno always has concentrated on seeing that his student-athletes attend class, devote the proper time to studies and graduate with a meaningful degree. He often has said he measures team success not by athletic prowess but by the number of productive citizens who make a contribution to society.

    He is, simply put, the most successful coach in the history of college football — a fact that was validated during the 2001 season when he moved past Paul "Bear" Bryant to become the leader in career wins by a major college coach. He also is one of the most admired figures in college athletics, an acknowledged icon whose influence extends well beyond the white chalk lines of the football field.

    In an exceptional display of generosity and affection for Penn State, Paterno; his wife, Sue, and their five children announced a contribution of $3.5 million to the University in 1998, bringing Paterno's lifetime giving total to more than $4 million. The gift was believed to be, Penn State Vice President for Development Rod Kirsch said, "the most generous ever made by a collegiate coach and his family to a university.

     

    Okay. Got it? He's a good guy. A role model. A name you could fling back at smart-alecks when they tell you smugly that “nice guys always finish last.” What could possibly cause a man like this to be sacked in disgrace?

    Joe's sin is that he heard an allegation of child sexual abuse nine years ago and reported it to his bosses, as he was legally obligated to do. But now, nine years later, the report appears to be true. An assistant coach running a separate private charity is accused of abusing seven children….maybe more. As though Joe should have foreseen this, the charge is made: why didn't he do more? Why didn't he go straight to the police with the allegation, Surely…..hang whatever the law says…..going just to his bosses was not enough!

    Today in the United States, tracking down pedophiles has become a national obsession, if not hysteria. They're not easy to track. Pedophiles don't drool or act perverted. They fit right in with respectable society. And they are seemingly everywhere. Now one has been found right among Penn State's own staff. So Joe is out. He should have known, he should have acted, he should have gone beyond the law, so the feeling goes.

    What of his sterling record? USA Today calls him a “man who set the standard for ethical behavior in the tawdry world of college football,” and  “he kept the program's reputation clean — remarkably so for a program that made its home in the national ranking” for all of his 46 year tenure. Doesn't mean a thing.

    What of his remorse? "This is a tragedy," he's said. "It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Doesn't cut it, Joe. This is not a Matt Dillon Gunsmoke world. This is a new “gotcha” world, where folks delight in taking down public figures.

    What of loyalty for past service? Not a bit of it. Tolerance for human error or weakness? Nope.

     What of this verse? Doesn't it apply somehow: "Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye."  (Matt 7:3-5)  No, it doesn't apply. Not anymore. People do nothing but point fingers today, totally ignoring (as everyone's mother used to say) that when you point a finger, three fingers are pointing back at you.

    When news broke that Joe had been fired, those who knew him best, those who'd been most positively influenced by his lifelong integrity…namely, the Penn State student body….responded in a quite predictable way: they rioted. Mobs of kids took to the streets shouting “We want Joe!” They pulled down lampposts. They overturned a TV truck, thinking (probably correctly) that it represented those hoping to turn local events into a national circus. It took cops in riot gear to send everyone home.

     

    Now, the other side of the coin is the ongoing battle to stamp out child abuse. And don't get me wrong. It's a worthy battle. No one's saying that those who molest children ought not be punished. No one's saying that those legally obligated to report allegations ought not be called to account if they fail to do it. Joe acquits himself well here. His flaw is not legal, for he did everything legally required. His flaw is said to be “moral,” since the legal answer didn't take the alleged pedophile out of circulation. Moreover you run a huge risk defending anyone who's perceived to have fallen short in any way in the fight against child sexual abuse. “So you approve of child sexual abuse yourself, do you, Sheepandgoats?” they'll say. “Are you also a pervert?” Or, what about the people you hang out with? Do they approve of perverts?” I tell you, it's risky. The media certainly took no such risks. They scolded Joe at every turn, overlooking his irreproachable career, overlooking the three fingers pointing back at themselves.

    But there's a reason you turn a “moral” obligation into a legal one. It's because the “moral” course to take is often highly subjective. People don't reach identical conclusions. Harping on one's “moral” obligation allows for Monday morning quarterbacks to attribute motives…invariably bad ones….though they know nothing of the actual circumstances. All Joe did was fail to relate an inspecific allegation directly to the police. I don't like to assume that when someone does that it betrays that they don't give a hoot about protecting kids. After all, people routinely ignore warnings when their own lives are at stake…evacuation orders in the face of impending natural disaster, for instance. God help us if we someday decide automatically notifying police is the gold standard in other arenas of life, say in the event of a traffic accident. It won't be enough to assume one of the ten cars already stopped will have called 911. You'll also have to stop and do it yourself, or else fail your “moral” obligation and have your license revoked.

    Anyone my age remembers when you never ever heard of child sexual abuse, and thus assumed it didn't happen. And how within ten years, proven allegations had vaulted it to chief national evil, eclipsing any other wrongdoing. I mean, it took a staggeringly short time to go from unheard of to #1. Now, I don't disparage it's newly revised status…I really don't, but people don't turn on a dime. And the older the person is, the more time the pivot takes. I can readily picture Joe saying “Look, I'm not a pervert. I don't like perverts. I don't hang out with perverts. I never knew there were many perverts. And yet now all of us are on “pervert alert,” with everybody under suspicion!” Now, as it turns out, we are on pervert alert here, but it takes an 84 year old awhile to get his head around it. For crying out loud, Joe remembers (as do I) when you swam nude in the YMCA pool, boys and men alike, with no thought of impropriety whatsoever. A letter (11/16/11) to USA Today states: I'm sure my father would have done exactly as Paterno did [being a product of his time], notifying only his superiors, and he also probably would be as dumbfounded about the outcome of events as Paterno might be.” Yep. Same with my dad.

    The times they are a changing, and you'd better keep up. That's Paterno's real sin: being a relic of the past. Seething with moral outrage, USA Today asks searing (in their opinion) questions, such as “Why didn't Paterno notify law enforcement of the 2002 shower-room incident? Was he protecting his saintly image as "JoePa"…." [No you moralizing idiots! If he was protecting his saintly image, he would have reported it, for nothing is more saintly these days then turning in a molester. And he did turn him in, so he likely thought, by relating it to the ones with legal responsibility.]

    The newspaper continues: "Or was he blinded by a 30-year friendship with Sandusky and unable to believe he could do such a thing?” Notice here how friendship is portrayed as a flaw, as if life would be so much better if we dropped that antiquated custom and treated everyone as a suspect. Look, sometimes friendship can blind one to the faults of another, perhaps it did so in this case, but it will be a sad [though predictable] day if we fail to cut a person slack for that shortcoming.

    But the thinking that prevails today is expressed in another letter (also 11/16/11) to USA Today: “I find it heartbreaking that those college kids reacted to finding out that their hero inadequately addressed allegations of child abuse by rioting in support of him instead of rising up against him. [rising up against him! Why not also lynch him?] As a base human reaction, that is disgusting.” Another source says that, instead of defending Joe, they should have been aghast for the seven victims. Yes, that's how people think today.

    But it's just possible that those students, the ones who knew Joe best, realized 1) that Joe's role in the abuse was zero, and his role otherwise, if he even had one, was very limited, 2) that he apologized sincerely, 3) that he has four and a half decades of sterling service to his credit, plus 4) he's given millions of dollars to both university and community in his lifetime, 5) that tens of thousands of people die each day, butchered or starved through human depravity, with no one at all held accountable. And perhaps even 6) that they themselves will graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt with few job prospects in sight, victims of a worldwide fraud, also with no one being held accountable, fraud aided and abetted by today's leaders. In other words, those seven victims, bad as the crimes against them are, are hardly the only ones victimized by human wickedness, so as to be the undisputed focus of national attention.

    ***************************

    Read ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’    30% free preview

    Starting with Prince, a fierce and frolicking defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A riotous romp through their way of life. “We have become a theatrical spectacle in the world, and to angels and to men,” the Bible verse says. That being the case, let’s give them some theater! Let’s skewer the liars who slander the Christ! Let’s pull down the house on the axis lords! Let the seed-pickers unite!

     

     

  • Pedophiles and Smear Campaigns

    On the one hand, I can certainly see it. The boy was molested, repeatedly, by the same individual, over a long period of time. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Of course.

    On the other hand, it was an organization that was held accountable, and that organization has one of the strongest child-protective policies of anyone, and they've had it for a long long time. Ironically, that long track record, which you would think would play in their favor, was used against them. If they've had it for a long long time, and yet pedophiles still slip in on occasion, (just like banks still get robbed) they should have strengthened it! They were negligent! Sometimes you try to be proactive, and all you do is make yourself a bigger target to those who don't like you. Whereas, if you hide your head in the sand, and wail, Sergeant Shultz-like, “I know nothiinng,” you come out better.

    At any rate, early in 2010,  a Portland, Oregon jury deemed the Boy Scouts of America responsible for the above gross sexual abuse of a child, and assessed a judgment of $18.2 million in damages. That's said to be the largest such verdict in American history on behalf of a single plaintiff.

    Eighteen million is a lot of dough. What's one person ever going to do with it? But it plays into that uniquely Western notion that tons of money is the way to compensate for anything. Sometimes I think much anti-West sentiment is stirred up through that mindset, especially among nations where family ties are still strong. Some foreign national is killed through Western action. “Gee, that's a shame,” is the response, “oh well, here's some money.” (though, not $18 million) Who can forget the French peasant in Tale of Two Cities who wasn't satisfied with silver coins tossed from the coach of the aristocrat which had run down his child?

    Of course, I suppose you can argue that, if money truly is the god of society, then anything short of a huge monetary penalty will have no effect. You can't shame or guilt anyone, so the theory goes, since we've ridden ourselves of those concepts. Thus a representative of the plaintiff's legal team stated afterward his belief that the Boy Scouts have undertaken a truly noble and important task in mentoring young boys, for which they are to be commended, and its his sincere hope that the $18 million judgment will impress upon them the need to do it better. Now, that is an American sentiment if ever there was one. I guess I'd be more persuaded if that team plowed their one-third of the take back into charitable causes, perhaps even the Boy Scouts themselves, with the stipulation that it be used for anti-pedophile purposes. And perhaps they did. Do you think so?

    Now, I'm no Boy Scout. I'm Tom Sheepandgoats. And whereas, in my second paragraph, I alluded to the fact that some may not like a given organization, does anyone really not like the Boy Scouts? Oh…maybe in these days of contempt for authority, here and there some will look askance at their practice of stuffing kids into uniforms and directing them to earn badges, as if preparing them for later military careers. In the main, though, Boy Scouts are highly regarded. They teach responsibility. They take you out camping. They teach you how to tie knots.

    However, I belong to an organization that many loathe, Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't teach you how to tie knots. They wake you up when you're sleeping in late. But, like the Boy Scouts, they also report having a child-protective policy that outclasses that of anyone else. So enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses reacted with glee when, long after the Catholic priest pedophile scandal broke, Jehovah's Witnesses, too, were accused of harboring pedophiles. I admit, I was stung. Nothing in my long association with the faith lent any credence to such accusations. But they have persisted down to this day.

     

    They are, however, bogus.

    Not that child molestation has never occurred among our people. Of course it has. We are people. And in an organization of several million people, you're going to find many examples of anything. What is bogus is the attempt to draw a parallel between us and the never-ending reports of churches, schools, even Boy Scouts, in which young boys are victimized by leaders.

    This is not hard to discern, if one has the motivation to look beyond the hysteria. Take this excerpt from a 2002 New York Times report, for example. On the surface, it looks pretty damning:

    “But the shape of the [JW] scandal is far different than in the Catholic church, where most of the people accused of abuse are priests and a vast majority of the victims were boys and young men. In the Jehovah's Witnesses, where congregations are often collections of extended families and church elders are chosen from among the laypeople, some of those accused are elders, but most are congregation members. The victims who have stepped forward are mostly girls and young women, and many accusations involve incest.”

    “Some of those accused are elders.” How many? Eleven, in the course of 100 years* All others are “laypeople,” though doubtless some are Ministerial Servants, roughly the equivalent of deacon.

    To the extent it's true, you can't be proud of it, can you? Yet what is really being said? If you expand the base by…say, 30 or 40 fold to include, not just clergy, but also laity, and if you broaden the definition of child abuse to include, not just young boys, but also “girls and young women,” then and only then do you find numbers and percentages among Jehovah's Witnesses comparable to the leaders of these other groups! Put another way, if you want to catch pedophiles in most groups, you need search no further than the leaders. But if you hope for the same catch among Jehovah's Witnesses, you need to broaden your search to include everybody!

    I could be wrong, (fat chance!) but try tracking child abuse among the laity of the Catholics or Evangelicals, as is done with Jehovah's Witnesses. Computers would fry trying to list all the names, I suspect. It's a little hard to say for sure because nobody, to my knowledge, has ever done it. Only Jehovah's Witnesses are so scrutinized. Why JWs and only JWs?

    Sheesh, Sheepandgoats! You make it sound as if you don't care about cases of abuse among your own people! Not so! Every such instance is shameful, make no mistake. But it's also shameful that those who despise JWs would hold them to a standard 30-fold higher than that of anyone else, yet act as though they are comparing apples to apples. So, have at it! Someone show some initiative and keep track of any other group. Let me know how it turns out with the Catholics, the Evangelicals, the Politicians, the Atheists, the Environmentalists, yes…even the Boy Scouts, or anyone else. I'm pretty confident. After all, if the leaders of JWs are the cleanest of anyone [eleven bad ones in 100 years] due to the application of Bible principles, surely the same will be true among the rank and file.

    Some, to their credit, have been able to see though the deliberate smear campaign. For instance, here is a site from someone who compares instances of gross sexual abuse among the various religions. The author states:

    “Quakers, Reformed Jews, and (surprise surprise) Jehovah’s Witnesses have so far shown a pretty low incidence of abuses.”

    And why is it “surprise surprise?” Because, quite obviously, someone has deliberately, and with some success, endeavored to distort the facts.** I won't go so far as to call them “Silent Phonies,” for I've no doubt there are genuine victims of child abuse among them. I won't even say that the following case is typical. But doesn't it appear that those who coached the victim here are more interested in discrediting the Watchtower than they are in helping victims of abuse?

    "In Canada, Ms B brought a civil lawsuit against the elders of her former congregation and the WTBTS asking for $700,000 dollars concerning her child abuse at the hands of her father who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they were negligent, breached their duty, advised her against contacting the authorities, and against seeking professional help. What did the court find?"

    "Presiding Judge Anne Molloy ruled that the WTS and elders were not at fault and did not contribute to or promote in any way the child abuse that took place. The court said, "There is no foundation on the facts to support an award for punitive damages. Most of the allegations against the defendants have not been established on the facts. The defendants who interacted with the plaintiff did not bear ill will toward her. They accepted the veracity of her account, were sympathetic to her situation and meant her no harm. The claim for punitive damages is dismissed."

    Apparantly irked that the case was mostly frivolous, Judge Molloy ordered the plaintiff to pay all legal costs of the defendent. Had the Watchtower insisted on this aspect of the verdict, the plaintiff would have been bankrupted. However, they did not.

    But what really gave me the warm and fuzzies was this response from a blogger who (it will be apparent from his R-rated language) absolutely loathes Jehovah's Witnesses. His words, particularly in the comment section, could hardly have been phrased more abusively. He slams us with every stock internet slam there is, just about. So I called him on one.

    Now, you have to be careful doing this. You don't challenge him on everything, and you don't challenge him on something over which you'll get creamed…..in short, something that is as much a matter of viewpoint as fact. Frankly, I did get creamed on the first point I raised (about blood transfusion), but not the second. And a poor colleague of mine was pretty much crucified for trying to explain other aspects of our beliefs. But when I challenged him on his sexual abuse accusations, he responded:

    “You know, I've got a nice glass of wine, Muddy Waters is singing about "Champagne and Reefer" and I'm feeling generous. I'll back down from that one. (Plus, I did a little more research…) You do have an acceptable track record on the subject……"

    I wouldn't really call it “acceptable.” But I know what he means. Compared to most, JW occurrence is very low. It won't be “acceptable” until it's gone, and given the nature of imperfect humans, that doesn't seem very likely. (I hope this fellow doesn't consequently take down his page. HA! I've got it saved in case that should happen.)

    It's a relatively small concession, to be sure, since I otherwise can't set foot on that site without being spit upon. I had to endure a lot of abuse to gain it, I assure you. But gain it, I did.

    …………………………………..

    *In 2007, JWs settled a number of abuse cases, which made a huge on-line splash among opposers. This statement was released to the media at that time:

    "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse. Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide are united in their abhorrence of this sin and crime.

    We do not condone or protect child molesters. Our elders expel unrepentant sinners who commit this crime. In the US over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations. During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However the incidence of this crime among Jehovah's Witnesses is rare. Congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws. We do not silence victims. Our members have an absolute right to report this horrible crime to the authorities."

     ………………………………….

    **The aforementioned site offers a shrewd analysis for the varying levels of gross sexual abuse observed in various religions: “But the incidence of child abuse is not traceable to religion as the main cause, but rather permissiveness towards clergy misconduct, lack of accountability, and absence of tracking known abusers. Denominations that have a documented infrastructure, an internal investigation process, and an appeals process have far fewer incidents of abuse than those that do not. Religions that simply put up higher hurdles for men to get ordained have a lower incidence of abuse. After all, why would a child molester spend 8 years learning ancient Hebrew when he can attend Hyles-Anderson for one year, drop out once he picks up the lingo, and then declare himself a Christian Fundamentalist preacher?”

     

     

  • Pedophiles, Priests, and Jehovah’s Witnesses

    People thought he’d sweep it under the rug. After all, he’s not supposed to be a touchy feely guy. Don’t they call him “God’s Rottweiler?” And the sordid mess didn’t even happen on his watch….why should he take the heat?

    Instead, Pope Benedict tackled it head-on. While still en route for his April 2008 U.S.A. visit, he told reporters he was deeply ashamed for all the pedophile priests. ''It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission … I am deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future…..We will do everything possible to heal this wound.''

    It was a true Oprah moment, the time that Americans love best. A rending apology [preferably with tears] from the top guy. Now, at last, Americans can “put it behind us,” “come together,” and “move on.” They love to do all these things….but only after Oprah moments…..and perhaps not so readily in matters involving religion, which is under the looking glass today.

    Benedict won the highest praise that can be bestowed upon anyone in this country: "Basically, he seems like a nice guy, said John Allen Jr., a senior correspondent with the National Catholic Reporter. The man whose Jehovah’s Witness cousin remembers as a “naughty boy,” who was “everywhere he shouldn't [have] been….when I think today of what we did, it's a wonder that [we are] alive," was, at age 81, in the eyes of American Catholics, at exactly the right place at the right time. A childhood prankster no more.

    …………………………………………………………..

    For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest, neither anything carefully concealed that will never become known and never come into the open.    Luke 8:17

    …………………………………………………………………………….

    Twenty years ago could anybody have foreseen the upcoming child sex abuse scandal among priests? Who would have imagined such a thing? Yet, a 2003 report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice concluded that .2% of all U.S. priests had been proven abusers…..less than the popular imagination has it, no doubt, but still one heck of a lot of priests, considering the influence each has (4% of all priests have been accused, but not proven). Heightening the furor was the revelation that church authorities knew about the perversion, but did little to stop it. Instead, accused priests were transferred parish to parish, sometimes with brief periods of counseling. In the new parish they’d carry on as before, among a new batch of unsuspecting children.

    But the real shocker for me was the accusation, several years later, that Jehovah’s Witnesses, too, harbored pedophiles! Nobody wants to be accused of that, and nothing in my 20 year experience with the faith gave credence to the accusation.  Could it possibly be true, or was it just dreamt up and kept alive by soreheads upset with JWs for other reasons? You wanted to flat out deny that such things could ever happen among our people. Unfortunately, we are people, and one can’t quite go that far.

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the last 30 years, it’s that child sexual abuse is rampant in society, eclipsing anything anyone could have envisioned. Everywhere kids are, sexual abuse exists. Scouting organizations. Schools. Neighbors. All the time we read of respected persons in the community, even leaders of various sorts, caught with computers bursting with child-porn. Child molesters especially abound in the extended family and the step-family. It’s a sick world, as the slightest glance at the newspaper ought to daily convince anyone. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t claim to be immune to perverse influences. In general, though, applying Christian teachings equip us to resist those influences to a greater degree than run of the mill society.

    In the United States there are currently 80,000+ elders serving in over 12,000 congregations. In the past 100 years, only eleven of them have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits. In seven of those lawsuits, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Is this to say no other lawsuits have been filed naming Jehovah’s Witnesses? No. But it’s this figure that must be used if one wishes to compare their organization with large churches in which pedophilia has been shown to be rampant among the clergy. It’s plain that there is no comparison.

    Doubtless, additional lawsuits have involved ministerial servants, roughly the equivalent of deacons. All remaining lawsuits pertain to congregation members or their family, not “clergy,” and the lawsuits attempt to hold the parent organization accountable. No other religious organization, to my knowledge, has been subjected to the same scrutiny. Most of these case also have been dismissed. Some appear to be largely efforts to malign the Watchtower organization. This one, for example. Some cases, however, have been settled. Even one instance is shameful, make no mistake. But in an organization of several million people you will find many instances of almost anything.

    Some of the criticism stems from a policy which you would think would be a good thing. Jehovah’s Witnesses police themselves. Elders in every congregation are prepared to hear disputes among congregation members that they themselves have not been able to resolve. They also hear allegations of wrongdoing and are authorized to impose various forms of discipline up to, and including expulsion from the congregation. “Church discipline” used to be practiced by many organizations….it is not unique to us. Many decades ago, however, church members tired of being disciplined, so most churches gave it up. Not so Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, critics contend that makes them “insular.”

    In such a climate, a case of child sexual abuse might be brought before local elders, instead of secular authorities, and the elders might be stymied by the matter being one person’s word against another…..how are they to know which party is truthful? The secular authorities would have been stymied by the same thing until very recently…..in any contest between a child and an adult, the adult’s word was generally accepted, and children were hushed up, even by parents too shocked to consider the implications of sexual abuse. But within a few short years, child sexual abuse captured popular attention. It jumped from something you never heard about to something you heard about constantly. Surely people my age remember how sudden was the change of consciousness. “One person’s word against another” was no longer enough……after all, how likely were there to be witnesses? Ones accused of molestation were suddenly confronted with those who specialized in the field, who probed thoroughly, and who often came up with corroborating evidence.

    Might there have been real victims who went to congregation elders, rather than police, who later regretted not doing it the other way around? It's possible. Some have claimed those circumstances and have became embittered….it’s not too hard to understand. Others who don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses for philosophical and other reasons take up the complaints as if they were their own. Most states have laws now decreeing that any allegation of sexual abuse be reported to the police. Congregation elders comply with these laws, but in the early days such laws did not exist, and people did the best they could based on current, not later, thinking.

                                            From the blogs:

     

    The written policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that a known child molester convicted may never be appointed to any position of oversight in any congregation. In this country, many states require that allegations of child sexual abuse be reported to police. Elders comply with this law. However, in addition to whatever consequences may come from police involvement, committees within the congregation themselves investigate. Penalties within the congregation can range up to disfellowshjpping (shunning). I’m not sure what more can be done to demonstrate seriousness on this issue. It is more than most religions do. You can’t shoot abusers.

    “The policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that a known child molester convicted may never be appointed to any position of oversight in any congregation.”

    That’s all?! Shunning–at least! He should never be allowed near your church again and in any country he should be reported to the police! The right thing is to denounce all such behavior sharply! Otherwise people are unaware of his tendencies and he victimizes someone else. (Which is what the school systems have been doing with molesting teachers, in many places, I’m sorry to say–just getting rid of them and not telling anyone and he or she goes elsewhere and starts over there. With the same behavior.)

    “Shunning–at least! He should never be allowed near your church again and in any country he should be reported to the police! The right thing is to denounce all such behavior sharply!”…..Isn’t that what I just said? Shunning-yes, it happens. (and who else takes such measures?) And reporting to the police – yes, it happens. After which the full might of the law is thrown at such a person. About 20 years ago, police notification began to be required for all allegations of child sexual abuse from anyone in position to learn of it….health workers, school personnel, clergy. Without police involvement it was feared that such conduct might be too easily swept under the rug. If the law is notified and fails to convict, it is slander to publicly label a person as a child molester. But in the congregation (the only place our words have any meaning) you can still warn persons so they are protected.

    "He should never be allowed near your church again." As you know, you legally cannot do that with any public place. What you can do is warn persons. Isn’t that among the effects of shunning? Depending on circumstances such ones may be publicly reproved. Again, it’s a policy that serves to notify all of the need for caution around such ones.

    But I repeat, this conduct is very unusual among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yes, if you scour the globe and bring all allegations together in one place – both substantiated and unsubstantiated, ranging from rape to touching a child’s knee – not just per annum, but all cases that have ever existed down through the years – yes, if you do all that, they accumulate, I grant you. But the broad picture is that child abuse is exceedingly uncommon among our people when compared to the world at large.

    ***************************

    Tom Irregardless and Me      No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash