|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2014 0:05:46 GMT -5
In all due respect emy, perhaps both you & sharon should do a bit more reading of posts than just "skimming" if you want to make accurate observations.
Yes, I grant that you both have many other commitments.
I do as well .
However, since one of my commitments is to post here, I am concerned that what I post is as accurate & honest as I am with all my other commitments.
I'm confused. What are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2014 0:55:00 GMT -5
I presume this statement was made by Rational above as it is difficult to know which he quotes from other posts and which are his own comments. I know I need to change the colors on my screen so that the differences show up more. Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination." Woww, specialists in the field of sexual abuse do not advocate parents acting alone. There are many reasons for this. One is, most parents do not have the skills or knowledge about sexual abuse to know if abuse is occurring. If they did the abuse may not have occurred in the first place. Also, a significant amount of abuse occurs in the home right under the nose of or by the parent. And if a parent was sexually abused themselves they are more likely to go into denial or the opposite, be over protective. Also abusers in the family like to isolate their family, act alone and avoid authority figures. Most parents are not equipped to pick up the signs of sexual abuse until it is too late. How many victims say that they tried to tell someone but the person did not take it seriously, or they were accused of lying. Many victims say they tried to tell someone but no one would listen - meaning the parent did not pick up what the child was saying. Kids don't tell for fear of not being believed. Many feel more comfortable telling authority figures than their own parents. Keeping the abuse within the family is not a good idea and one that only serves the perpetrator not the victim. Moving an abuser to another location. To move the offender means he may be able to offend again with people who do not personally know his offending, where as keeping him in a meeting where they know he is an abuser they are more likely to keep an eye on him. Moving the offender just moves the problem. Moving him is for the victim if he offended someone who attends the same meeting - fellowship or Gospel. A victim should not have to be in the same room or location as the offender and he should be moved from that meeting. I know there are 2 things here, one about moving an offender who may not be within the family and the other when the abuse occurs within the family, but most refers to either situation. Reading over some of these posts I feel that Clearday and fixit are two who have a good grasp on the topic of CSA. No doubt Clearday and fixit do have a good grasp on CSA. I believe Rational and DMG do also. Since you seem to believe that Rational advocated "keeping it in the family," I'm assuming you have not read the entire thread. However, I am not going to try to state Rational's or DMG's positions for them. I'd like to comment on the scenario in 2 ways. If the perp who was moved to another meeting WAS convicted, then the meeting group should have examined his conditions of release to determine if he was in violation by being in their meeting. If so, he surely should have been reported. If he was not convicted, then moving him would be one option, but it doesn't take into consideration that he might turn to non-f&w children. As I understood her, that was DMG's concern. Since there was that much suspicion, surely one shouldn't be worried about the "authorities" being bothered" by unwarranted suspicion. Moving him was indication the suspicion WAS warranted, and thus reportable. In any case, the meeting should be commended for taking action. Possibly their action was not far-reaching enoough.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2014 0:56:23 GMT -5
In all due respect emy, perhaps both you & sharon should do a bit more reading of posts than just "skimming" if you want to make accurate observations.
Yes, I grant that you both have many other commitments.
I do as well .
However, since one of my commitments is to post here, I am concerned that what I post is as accurate & honest as I am with all my other commitments.
I'm confused. What are you referring to? I was referring to this post of yours on: 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12Did I misunderstand your post ? 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
Post by emy on 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
23 Jul 2014 at 14:16 SharonArnold said: "Yep. No winners here. In fact, everyone who has been a part of the TMB community (and extended TMB community) is poorer for every member who decides it is no longer worthwhile to participate here. And poorer for everyone who might have had something to say, and has decided not to, because they feel that any of their posts could never withstand the level of scrutiny and ill-will that has been so evident here."
"Very much agree with this!"
....
"Yep. We are all losers, except anyone with a vested interest in curtailing productive discussion about the 2X2 community. That is, unless, going forward, we learn new ways of being and of communicating in this forum."
"Or anyone with a vested interest in curtailing a lot of the positive presentation of the fellowship we love and enjoy."
"I’m just a skimmer here (too many other commitments), but from a glance this morning, it seems while the men have been hammering out finer details here, some of the women have been off contributing to extremely positive threads elsewhere. Truly, there is not going to be peace on earth, until the women are in charge! "
Yours was in red and Sharon's was in black.
Have I misunderstood what you meant by saying that you agreed with Sharon?
She was talking about "skimming" and "commitments?"
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2014 1:21:13 GMT -5
If there was nothing to report, if there was no suspicion why was if suggested that the person be moved to a different meeting location? If there was suspicion why wasn't it reported? Again, if there was nothing to report why were they concerned enough to move the person to a different meeting location? Just because they felt like it? Or was it to protect the children? To protect them from what? Danger from someone that they suspected might harm the children? Why is it that no one seems to understand what agencies mean when they advise to report suspicious behavior? The primary example given is that of a convicted offender, in which case there is nothing to report. I don't get your statement, WH. Maybe I'm missing a link, but why would you say there is nothing to report when a convicted offender shows signs of offending again?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2014 1:38:57 GMT -5
I'm confused. What are you referring to? I was referring to this post of yours on: 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12Did I misunderstand your post ? 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
Post by emy on 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
23 Jul 2014 at 14:16 SharonArnold said: "Yep. No winners here. In fact, everyone who has been a part of the TMB community (and extended TMB community) is poorer for every member who decides it is no longer worthwhile to participate here. And poorer for everyone who might have had something to say, and has decided not to, because they feel that any of their posts could never withstand the level of scrutiny and ill-will that has been so evident here."
"Very much agree with this!"
....
"Yep. We are all losers, except anyone with a vested interest in curtailing productive discussion about the 2X2 community. That is, unless, going forward, we learn new ways of being and of communicating in this forum."
"Or anyone with a vested interest in curtailing a lot of the positive presentation of the fellowship we love and enjoy."
"I’m just a skimmer here (too many other commitments), but from a glance this morning, it seems while the men have been hammering out finer details here, some of the women have been off contributing to extremely positive threads elsewhere. Truly, there is not going to be peace on earth, until the women are in charge! "
Yours was in red and Sharon's was in black.
Have I misunderstood what you meant by saying that you agreed with Sharon?
She was talking about "skimming" and "commitments?"
I didn't make any comment on that part of her post. I was agreeing that we are all poorer when a valued poster leaves and I was adding items to what agenda some who may be attempting to "curtail" posting are involved with. (That possibility has crossed my mind, but I try to ignore it and assume no one wants to run someone else out of the forum.)
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 26, 2014 3:42:59 GMT -5
The primary example given is that of a convicted offender, in which case there is nothing to report. I don't get your statement, WH. Maybe I'm missing a link, but why would you say there is nothing to report when a convicted offender shows signs of offending again? Emy, from what I understand he wasn't showing signs of offending, but was just taking interest in children/being overly friendly with them. Being friendly with children is not an offence. We have all known people who like kids, are good with them, and like to spend time with them more than most adults do. That is not an offence, even though it may look curious. But, if a person with known CSA history was in my meeting and was exhibiting such behavior, I would not feel comfortable, and one solution would be to assign him to a meeting without children. There could be other approaches as well, but none of them would involve reporting him, since talking to children/playing with them after the meeting is not a reportable offence. That's why in other churches they have policies in place that prevent known CSA offenders from taking part in children's ministries - they don't report them for coming to church or for being friendly with children, but prevent them from having too much contact with children in the first place. So, this thread from CD's point of view was all about preventing abuse, not about what to do when we are suspecting abuse. Some misunderstood that there were reportable signs of abuse, and took it from there. That's where the disagreement started. My understanding is that the meetings acted responsibly in taking measures to prevent future abuse as much as possible in their power.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2014 9:31:28 GMT -5
Once again I don't have good Internet access, but there's not much to add. Just so you know I'm not ignoring anyone.
DMG, did you read the link I provided to you? I can't believe you did, or else you're not having a very good day. No worries as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2014 10:43:02 GMT -5
The primary example given is that of a convicted offender, in which case there is nothing to report. I don't get your statement, WH. Maybe I'm missing a link, but why would you say there is nothing to report when a convicted offender shows signs of offending again? This is what I didn't understand either. On the original thread I also commented on this because it sounded like the same old behavior was happening again and so they moved him to where there were no children.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 26, 2014 13:49:27 GMT -5
After reflecting on the post by Dennis, it is probably time to move on from this topic. I doubt that asking a simple question another 100 times will produce an answer and, at the end of the day, what does it matter. Parents need to take the responsibility to protect their children and not place that responsibility with others. Let the authorities resolve criminal cases, or suspected criminal cases, of abuse. My apology to all those who have been annoyed! True! repeating what I said another 100 times won't change anything!
I will join you in an apology to those who have annoyed.If Rational and DMG are in apology mode, how about an apology for personal attacks on Clearday? Likening him to scabies was not very friendly! Again you have distorted what I posted. The example of the 4-year old being flashed is an example of what qualified as child sexual abuse that had no immediate effect on the victim nor any discernible effect for the time the child was under observation. If anything it is an example of a case where what is considered child sexual abuse does not have an effect on the victim. It has been my observation that children of that age group really don't care if people are wearing pants or not and I spend an extraordinary amount of time putting pants back on my grandchildren every time we get ready to leave the house! What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. This is not just my observation but in revisiting posts it is clear that it happens with many who post opposing views. Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
This does happen with many who post opposing views to his.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 26, 2014 13:55:57 GMT -5
I was referring to this post of yours on: 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12Did I misunderstand your post ? 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
Post by emy on 24 Jul 2014 at 00:12
23 Jul 2014 at 14:16 SharonArnold said: "Yep. No winners here. In fact, everyone who has been a part of the TMB community (and extended TMB community) is poorer for every member who decides it is no longer worthwhile to participate here. And poorer for everyone who might have had something to say, and has decided not to, because they feel that any of their posts could never withstand the level of scrutiny and ill-will that has been so evident here."
"Very much agree with this!"
....
"Yep. We are all losers, except anyone with a vested interest in curtailing productive discussion about the 2X2 community. That is, unless, going forward, we learn new ways of being and of communicating in this forum."
"Or anyone with a vested interest in curtailing a lot of the positive presentation of the fellowship we love and enjoy."
"I’m just a skimmer here (too many other commitments), but from a glance this morning, it seems while the men have been hammering out finer details here, some of the women have been off contributing to extremely positive threads elsewhere. Truly, there is not going to be peace on earth, until the women are in charge! "
Yours was in red and Sharon's was in black.
Have I misunderstood what you meant by saying that you agreed with Sharon?
She was talking about "skimming" and "commitments?"
I didn't make any comment on that part of her post. I was agreeing that we are all poorer when a valued poster leaves and I was adding items to what agenda some who may be attempting to "curtail" posting are involved with. (That possibility has crossed my mind, but I try to ignore it and assume no one wants to run someone else out of the forum.) I'm sorry that I didn't understand what you meant.
You can be sure that I have no intent to "curtail" anyone posting here.
I am a believer that freedom of speech is absolutely necessary to have a democracy.
I believe that everyone profits when everyone is able to have their turn to speech in the "public square." I have been a long time member & at times board member of the ACLU.
Unfortunately, my own posts lately have had to be an attempt to correct a misrepresentation of what I had said.
I hope that is over.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2014 14:32:18 GMT -5
If Rational and DMG are in apology mode, how about an apology for personal attacks on Clearday? If you can point to a post where I made a personal attack on Clearday I will apologize. If you can't, I expect an apology from you. I have asked you several times to backup what you claim - so far nothing. I wonder if this time will be different.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 26, 2014 14:42:55 GMT -5
What is frustrating and tiring about having a discussion with CD is that his replies frequently distort the facts so it appears that the posts of others support his beliefs. And then an extraordinary amount of time is spent correcting what amounts to lies that have been posted. And it does appear to go around and around because even after the error has been pointed out it is often repeated and needs to be corrected again. Rational, you started the above post speaking to CD, then changed to speaking about CD. If you have a problem with what you consider to be lies, why not simply address those issues? A sweeping statement that CD writes lies is not helpful. Then DMG jumps in to support you and says CD is like scabies. Seems pretty personal to me!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2014 16:18:52 GMT -5
I think I was wrong. In the Beginning.....
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 26, 2014 21:28:02 GMT -5
I don't get your statement, WH. Maybe I'm missing a link, but why would you say there is nothing to report when a convicted offender shows signs of offending again? This is what I didn't understand either. On the original thread I also commented on this because it sounded like the same old behavior was happening again and so they moved him to where there were no children. Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't reference the original thread easily. However, I would offer this independently of the situation which CD referenced. The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. This is common in other churches - e.g. conditions placed on a convicted offender who wishes to attend church. I find the idea that a church can only act on reportable incidents and only by involving the authorities, preposterous. So did Clearday. I do differ slightly with him or just have a sharper view on how grooming behaviours are to be prevented - but the authorities have no role in this whatsoever. It's the responsibility of the church, and to do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility. On that I agree with Clearday, and I make no apologies for that point of view.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2014 21:40:54 GMT -5
This is what I didn't understand either. On the original thread I also commented on this because it sounded like the same old behavior was happening again and so they moved him to where there were no children. Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't reference the original thread easily. However, I would offer this independently of the situation which CD referenced. The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. This is common in other churches - e.g. conditions placed on a convicted offender who wishes to attend church. I find the idea that a church can only act on reportable incidents and only by involving the authorities, preposterous. So did Clearday. I do differ slightly with him or just have a sharper view on how grooming behaviours are to be prevented - but the authorities have no role in this whatsoever. It's the responsibility of the church, and to do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility. On that I agree with Clearday, and I make no apologies for that point of view. First of all, you need not apologize for what you believe. The way it was worded led me to believe that there was some grooming going on that concerned them so they moved him to another meeting. Now I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it was a good thing to do as a temporary solution. However, because it sounded like he was paying too much attention to the children that it was possible it also should be reported to the authorities. I felt that if he was a known offender that it would be a violation of his parole and authorities should be notified as well as getting him away from the meeting children. I do think that the protection of a child is everyone's responsibility. We all should have a responsibility to protect if we see something happening that is harmful. So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2014 22:27:29 GMT -5
First of all, you need not apologize for what you believe. The way it was worded led me to believe that there was some grooming going on that concerned them so they moved him to another meeting. Now I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it was a good thing to do as a temporary solution. However, because it sounded like he was paying too much attention to the children that it was possible it also should be reported to the authorities. I felt that if he was a known offender that it would be a violation of his parole and authorities should be notified as well as getting him away from the meeting children. I do think that the protection of a child is everyone's responsibility. We all should have a responsibility to protect if we see something happening that is harmful. So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess. I must have missed CD's explanation of why reporting was not an option. I do not disagree with the meeting move, but I do agree with DMG that it only protects a small group of children. His community at large might not be alert to the possible grooming behavior.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2014 22:28:52 GMT -5
The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. Yes.Yes. The problem is that there was stated concern that the person was paying too much attention attention to children. The move to a different meeting location was motivated by the suspicion that the person may re-offend. If that was not the case there was no reason to move the person to a different meeting location to protect the children. It was a reportable incident. The church can act however it wishes. The RCC did and the F&W did - convinced people not to report their suspicions and moved suspected people to other locations.Nope, because the suspicions that people had that his presence was a danger to the children was not reported. No one has ever claimed the parents were not to do anything. This is one of the fabrications - that for some reason if the parents did not move the individual, there were no other options and they were doing nothing, all but abandoning their children - turning over parenting to the authorities.Of course not. Of course the parents could talk to their children and explain their concerns, address the individual directly and set some limits and boundaries, keep their children with them while attending meeting, etc. But none of those options were considered - move the person to a different meeting location or it is an abdication of parental responsibility. Is it really necessary to state that because the parents are not doing one thing that they are doing nothing?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2014 22:31:38 GMT -5
I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I also missed that explanation. Why was reporting a person who caused people to fear for the safety of their children based on his behavior not a reason to report him to the authorities?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 26, 2014 22:43:38 GMT -5
First of all, you need not apologize for what you believe. The way it was worded led me to believe that there was some grooming going on that concerned them so they moved him to another meeting. Now I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it was a good thing to do as a temporary solution. However, because it sounded like he was paying too much attention to the children that it was possible it also should be reported to the authorities. I felt that if he was a known offender that it would be a violation of his parole and authorities should be notified as well as getting him away from the meeting children. I do think that the protection of a child is everyone's responsibility. We all should have a responsibility to protect if we see something happening that is harmful. So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess. I must have missed CD's explanation of why reporting was not an option. I do not disagree with the meeting move, but I do agree with DMG that it only protects a small group of children. His community at large might not be alert to the possible grooming behavior. Yes, that's something I never quite understood as I've stated above. But it seems that he was just being friendly with the children and it wasn't enough to report? So they moved him just to be safe. I still feel it could have also been reported and have him moved to be proactive.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 27, 2014 1:00:04 GMT -5
True! repeating what I said another 100 times won't change anything!
I will join you in an apology to those who have annoyed. If Rational and DMG are in apology mode, how about an apology for personal attacks on Clearday? Likening him to scabies was not very friendly! Clearday does this all the time, -distorts what someone posts.
It is so frustrating trying to have a discussion with him that I finally just blocked his posts. He is like a slippery eel, distorts the facts AND even what he has said before, -all the while maintaining differently.
I think that he relies on the maneuver of going around and around on a subject until people get confused and they believe his opponent is either the culprit or is being tedious.
This does happen with many who post opposing views to his.
He is like scabies, once under your skin he can make life miserable.
Fixit ~ In all fairness to both parties here, it was Dmmichgood and not Rational who made that remark about scabies shown above. Rational may have made some derogatory comments about CD's posts due to frustration over his point of view being misconstrued or distorted in some of CD's responses, but I can't remember him attacking CD personally by employing descriptive language as demonstrated (underlined) above. However, I only followed the thread so far and quit posting altogether when a sequel arose, so perhaps I missed something in transition shared later on that you can clarify for us all?
Rational's response to Clearday....
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2014 1:19:01 GMT -5
So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess. CD never said to not report him. No one said that, that I can recall. Some were saying to report him INSTEAD of allocating a different meeting.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 27, 2014 1:21:06 GMT -5
I don't get your statement, WH. Maybe I'm missing a link, but why would you say there is nothing to report when a convicted offender shows signs of offending again? Emy, from what I understand he wasn't showing signs of offending, but was just taking interest in children/being overly friendly with them. Being friendly with children is not an offence. We have all known people who like kids, are good with them, and like to spend time with them more than most adults do. That is not an offence, even though it may look curious. But, if a person with known CSA history was in my meeting and was exhibiting such behavior, I would not feel comfortable, and one solution would be to assign him to a meeting without children. There could be other approaches as well, but none of them would involve reporting him, since talking to children/playing with them after the meeting is not a reportable offence. That's why in other churches they have policies in place that prevent known CSA offenders from taking part in children's ministries - they don't report them for coming to church or for being friendly with children, but prevent them from having too much contact with children in the first place. So, this thread from CD's point of view was all about preventing abuse, not about what to do when we are suspecting abuse. Some misunderstood that there were reportable signs of abuse, and took it from there. That's where the disagreement started.
My understanding is that the meetings acted responsibly in taking measures to prevent future abuse as much as possible in their power. Maja ~ I believe you "hit the nail on the head" as to where this thread went astray and miscommunication began, as underlined above in your post. Now I can retire for the night being satisfied over the mystery being solved as to why things went off track in the first place, causing such a commotion and misunderstanding between posters. Thank you for your input and being so observant here!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2014 1:21:15 GMT -5
This is what I didn't understand either. On the original thread I also commented on this because it sounded like the same old behavior was happening again and so they moved him to where there were no children. Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't reference the original thread easily. However, I would offer this independently of the situation which CD referenced. The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. This is common in other churches - e.g. conditions placed on a convicted offender who wishes to attend church. I find the idea that a church can only act on reportable incidents and only by involving the authorities, preposterous. So did Clearday. I do differ slightly with him or just have a sharper view on how grooming behaviours are to be prevented - but the authorities have no role in this whatsoever. It's the responsibility of the church, and to do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility. On that I agree with Clearday, and I make no apologies for that point of view. I'm with CD on that as well.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 27, 2014 1:36:45 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't reference the original thread easily. However, I would offer this independently of the situation which CD referenced. The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. This is common in other churches - e.g. conditions placed on a convicted offender who wishes to attend church. I find the idea that a church can only act on reportable incidents and only by involving the authorities, preposterous. So did Clearday. I do differ slightly with him or just have a sharper view on how grooming behaviours are to be prevented - but the authorities have no role in this whatsoever. It's the responsibility of the church, and to do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility. On that I agree with Clearday, and I make no apologies for that point of view.
I'm with CD on that as well. Fixit & What Hat ~ I share the same opinion as you both and agree that to "do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility." I also make no apologies for sharing this point of view as a mother concerned about the well being of children within a situation that could get out of hand. Better to remove the CSA threat to a childless meeting where the temptation to offend would not be there in the first place. Being proactive in this way would insure the safety of children from potential harm from a convicted sex offender and would also give peace of mind to the parents in such a situation.
However, perhaps I would also suggest that the overseers take this a step further and ex-communicate anybody who has been convicted of such perverse actions towards children from the fellowship meetings altogether. Workers have ex-communicated people for far less offenses in the past and removed privileges for D&R, but seem pretty complacent when it comes to immoral behavior towards children, allowing convicted CSA offenders to remain within meetings, attend conventions, and participate with no restrictions. Honestly, something is pretty warped with this picture, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 27, 2014 3:59:38 GMT -5
I'm with CD on that as well. Fixit & What Hat ~ I share the same opinion as you both and agree that to "do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility." I also make no apologies for sharing this point of view as a mother concerned about the well being of children within a situation that could get out of hand. Better to remove the CSA threat to a childless meeting where the temptation to offend would not be there in the first place. Being proactive in this way would insure the safety of children from potential harm from a convicted sex offender and would also give peace of mind to the parents in such a situation.
However, perhaps I would also suggest that the overseers take this a step further and ex-communicate anybody who has been convicted of such perverse actions towards children from the fellowship meetings altogether. Workers have ex-communicated people for far less offenses in the past and removed privileges for D&R, but seem pretty complacent when it comes to immoral behavior towards children, allowing convicted CSA offenders to remain within meetings, attend conventions, and participate with no restrictions. Honestly, something is pretty warped with this picture, IMHO?
Faune, as you point out, in an organization that excommunicates people over divorce and remarriage, over TV's, over saying "you" in prayer instead of "thou" (yes, it happens, believe it or not!), I also find it mind-boggling that they wouldn't excommunicate a CSA offender! It would make sense to excommunicate such, have them face legal consequences of their behavior, then attend Gospel meetings, re-profess, before being accepted into fellowship again, and then only with defined restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2014 8:22:16 GMT -5
Emy, from what I understand he wasn't showing signs of offending, but was just taking interest in children/being overly friendly with them. Being friendly with children is not an offence. Did you suspect that this individual might abuse children? Were you acting on that suspicion or simply because you did not want to be in the same meeting? So you do think the individual presented a threat to the children. Yet this threat was not worth reporting? I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you suspected the person was a threat or the decision to move him to a different meeting location was based on something else.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2014 8:24:28 GMT -5
...over saying "you" in prayer instead of "though" (yes, it happens, believe it or not!) Well I can support that! Now if it was over saying 'you instead of 'thou' I think you have a case!!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 27, 2014 8:47:31 GMT -5
Emy, from what I understand he wasn't showing signs of offending, but was just taking interest in children/being overly friendly with them. Being friendly with children is not an offence. Did you suspect that this individual might abuse children? Were you acting on that suspicion or simply because you did not want to be in the same meeting? So you do think the individual presented a threat to the children. Yet this threat was not worth reporting? I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you suspected the person was a threat or the decision to move him to a different meeting location was based on something else. I did not suspect anyone of abusing children. I was not in that story - have never met the man, was never been in the meeting mentioned. Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. You can not report someone for having been sentenced for CSA. But you can limit his involvement with children.
|
|