|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 28, 2008 21:43:37 GMT -5
Howdy, rational and I have shared several PM's concerning child abuse. I valued his input and views on the subject when dealing with the issue concerning TS here in Minnesota. We didn't always agree with each other, but we were able to communicate our thoughts just fine. I agree with him that the biggest step is to educate parents and children concerning this issue. Likewise I got a lot of good information from Jesse Lackman over the last several months. Scott
|
|
|
Post by no name on Mar 29, 2008 0:23:38 GMT -5
Scott, I think what is bothersome to some people is that Rational's approach to this issue is, well, rational - and not based on hysteria, witch-hunting, or total condemnation of the entire fellowship. I also don't think that Rational's arguments are in any way an indication that he somehow condones child molestation. Reality <snip> Makes absolute sense to me ! What is it that makes you feel the parents, or guardians, of a child have no responsibility in protecting their children from harm? Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2008 2:00:11 GMT -5
It is not, and never has been, apparent to ME that 'rational' is okay with permitting a confessed child abuser continued access to children. Of course, and this should be obvious to anyone with children --- However it is very very clear that 2x2 leadership would rather permit confessed child molesters unregulated access to the friends children than admit that it is a problem in the fellowship. I don't honestly believe that 2x2 leadership likes the idea of child abuse, but childrens welfare is subordinate to the reputation of the group. This puts literally thousands of innocent children at risk -- and very very few, even of the knowledgable on the issue, even blink an eye. I agree that proffessing parents are the most import protectors of their childrens interest -- however it is not education they need on the subject -- rather de-programming regarding the divinity of 'the work'.
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Mar 29, 2008 5:02:10 GMT -5
Reality <snip> Makes absolute sense to me ! What is it that makes you feel the parents, or guardians, of a child have no responsibility in protecting their children from harm? Let's make this absolutely clear. No one rejects the fact that parents should take responsibility for the children, be educated in child abuse matters and do all they can to protect their children from abusers. That is not the issue. The picture that Rational is painting from his posts, either intentionally or unwittingly, is that the buck stops with the parents, absolving every other member or tier of society (including perpetrators) from responsibility in these issues. Clearly this outlook whether intended or not, is at variance with the remainder of society. In short. If anyone has reasonable grounds to suspect a child is being abused by anyone (including their parents), that person should inform the appropriate authorities who will make relevant investigations into the matter, either to substantiate or allay these suspicions. The education of parents and children is only the beginning of measures which should be (and are) taken in society to protect children as much as is possible from the predations of child molesters. Rational comes across to myself at least, to be putting all his eggs in the one basket with his views on this matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2008 8:30:49 GMT -5
What is it that makes you feel the parents, or guardians, of a child have no responsibility in protecting their children from harm? Let's make this absolutely clear. No one rejects the fact that parents should take responsibility for the children, be educated in child abuse matters and do all they can to protect their children from abusers. That is not the issue. The picture that Rational is painting from his posts, either intentionally or unwittingly, is that the buck stops with the parents, absolving every other member or tier of society (including perpetrators) from responsibility in these issues. Clearly this outlook whether intended or not, is at variance with the remainder of society. In short. If anyone has reasonable grounds to suspect a child is being abused by anyone (including their parents), that person should inform the appropriate authorities who will make relevant investigations into the matter, either to substantiate or allay these suspicions. The education of parents and children is only the beginning of measures which should be (and are) taken in society to protect children as much as is possible from the predations of child molesters. Rational comes across to myself at least, to be putting all his eggs in the one basket with his views on this matter. I agree about the multi-level of protection for children from sexual abuse. I also will agree that the first and major level of responsibility lies with parents. I also agree with the important function of the legal system in dealing with the kind of issues that it can deal with. (Sexual crime against minors is an area where the legal system is least equipt to deal with, because on the one hand, by nature of the crime, witness are usually not present and forensic evidence is seldom available -- time gaps between offence and reporting the crime are often longer than most other crimes. on the other hand, suspected men are seemingly without legal rights as public opinion (which follows through to the legal system) most often condemns men just on the basis of a suspision. However it seems that there is a frantic effort by 2x2 supporters to absolve the most significant layer of responsiblity in these board discussion from any responsibility at all. Group leadership is clearly responsible as it teaches (under the threat of hellfire) to unquestioningly trust workers as the hightest form of living creatures on the earth ---- and at the same time will bend over backwards to absolve even clearly constituted sexual offenders from open wariness.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 29, 2008 9:17:56 GMT -5
Let's make this absolutely clear. No one rejects the fact that parents should take responsibility for the children, be educated in child abuse matters and do all they can to protect their children from abusers. That is not the issue. The picture that Rational is painting from his posts, either intentionally or unwittingly, is that the buck stops with the parents, absolving every other member or tier of society (including perpetrators) from responsibility in these issues. Clearly this outlook whether intended or not, is at variance with the remainder of society. In short. If anyone has reasonable grounds to suspect a child is being abused by anyone (including their parents), that person should inform the appropriate authorities who will make relevant investigations into the matter, either to substantiate or allay these suspicions. The education of parents and children is only the beginning of measures which should be (and are) taken in society to protect children as much as is possible from the predations of child molesters. Rational comes across to myself at least, to be putting all his eggs in the one basket with his views on this matter. Chey, with all due respect, your portrayal of Rational's point of view is absurd. He certainly does not need me to defend him, but I have to say it's a bit tiresome to read objections to his words that are not based on what he has written. I would recommend that you read THE WORDS and not whatever you seem to think appears between the lines.
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Mar 29, 2008 9:33:47 GMT -5
And you my dear Gene, go research my words as well as many of those of others who have countered Mr Rational on this very same subject. You just might find that absurdity lies in other baskets too !
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Mar 29, 2008 9:40:13 GMT -5
Further to the above Gene, throughout no small measure of this fairly lengthy thread Rational has consistantly misunderstood and misrepresented the postings of myself and others and has very often read into them and presented them as meaning something distinctly different from their intention.
Pray don't ask me for examples. Just put it to the vote !
|
|
|
Post by comment on Mar 29, 2008 13:00:27 GMT -5
The real debate here? Dealing with molestation of children. In our subculture "the truth" (yes, I go to meetings....but hopefully that isn't an issue I should have to defend here) mistakes and perhaps even crimes (in the context of current "public opinion" hence eventual laws) by overseers, parents and others HAVE occurred. That is clearly factual.
To paint an entire group (us) as condoning such behavior and in this day allowing it is just not accurate. Some of us baby boomers would blow the whistle, no, not in a heart beat, but when the appropriate order of things falls down. That is evident by the posts "Wings of...what ever it is called". Granted they are written by "exes", but I for one support the effort. And no I will not stop going to meeting even if I had knowledge (I don't) of an current incident. In the past would I ?? I don't know.
The children of close friends were molested years ago by an older professing child. The choice to not do anything legally or publicly was the choice of the parents and THE MOLESTED CHILDREN. The reason, they dealt with it through counselors and a loving family, including trusted F & W. Their choice. Granted it was years ago and the personal trauma continues. Whether I agree or the posters here agree is irrelevant... that was theirs to decide.
If my child were to have been molested back then by anyone..what would I have done...I don't know. I just don't know. My macho side would be to say I would shoot someone. I probably wouldn't. In reality, I would probably muddle through it with the best I could and likely make mistakes that could be pointed out years hence in postings somewhere.
For the self appointed heralds who trumpet broad brush portrayals of this fellowship, my head is not in the sand. But I too, am only a man. As are you. I am sorry for your personal experiences. You must deal and heal with it as you must, even if it means you must post vitriolically here. You don't have my respect. You post facts and opinions absent of the very charity we all need.
|
|
|
Post by scary on Mar 29, 2008 20:06:05 GMT -5
Those against exposing child molesters in the truth should see what a real witch hunt looks like: www.silentlambs.org/
|
|
|
Post by Accountable on Mar 29, 2008 23:34:00 GMT -5
Those against exposing child molesters in the truth should see what a real witch hunt looks like: www.silentlambs.org/This is the site we need to link to to blow the lid off. Then we need to hook up with John Quinionis from ABC and the secret will be no longer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 30, 2008 0:38:34 GMT -5
Let's make this absolutely clear. No one rejects the fact that parents should take responsibility for the children, be educated in child abuse matters and do all they can to protect their children from abusers. I am glad we agree on this point. This is absolutely incorrect and I challenge you to point out a single post where I have said or implied that anyone was absolved from child abuse. The buck doesn't stop with the parents but rather it starts with the parents. In many cases parents also need to be educated on how to deal with child abuse. This need is made clear with every post that attempts to point out that the parents have no responsibility in protecting their children. The parents need to educate their children. Children need to know they can tell their parents anything without fear or punishment or ridicule. The outlook is one you have fabricated from whole cloth based on your own preconceived notions rather than what has been posted. Exactly. Perhaps you could name another measure, other than education, that is taken by society. I have repeatedly asked for those who claim to have other baskets to tell us all what they are. Educate us please(Oops. Other than education!).
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 30, 2008 0:43:04 GMT -5
Further to the above Gene, throughout no small measure of this fairly lengthy thread Rational has consistantly misunderstood and misrepresented the postings of myself and others and has very often read into them and presented them as meaning something distinctly different from their intention. This is an easy claim to make. Can you support it? I would never ask you to do the impossible.
|
|
|
Post by John Rolland on Mar 30, 2008 6:55:29 GMT -5
I see a risk of this thread degenerating away from the main focus. It may be that rational and Chey are misunderstanding each other. Both seem to have some support for their views from other posters which seems to add weight to this possibility.
I would like to ask rational which of the following he or she supports. This might go some way to clarifying his or her true position on these matters and enlighten other posters. It might particularly enlighten Chey and clear up any misunderstandings he/she may have ?
1) All parents and children should be educated regarding child abuse issues.
2) All persons in charge of children and young persons should be educated regarding child abuse issues. This includes realtives, teachers, social workers and church group organisers etc. In fact anyone who at any time in connection with the course of their occupation or voluntary activities has in their charge or care, children and young persons.
3) Proper practices and procedures should be in place to safeguard as much as possible, children and young persons from abuse whilst under the custody, charge or care of professionals and volunteers, or persons other than their parents or other close relatives. This would include such things as requirement to report any suspicions or claims of abuse, ensuring one on one situations are avoided wherever possible, and so on.
4) Since this thread is about "child molesters in the (f&w's) church," then in this context and bearing in mind the unique opportunities workers have had to be not only left alone with children and young persons (so clearly pointed out by Edgar), but also the fact they have sometimes had charge or care of children of professing people unrelated to them, should workers not adopt procedures whereby they must ensure as far as possible that a situation does not arise where a solitary worker is left alone with a child, even for a short period of time.
5) Workers should take responsibility to report suspected instances of child abuse which involve either fellow workers or members of their church with any children whatsoever, or at least ensure that such reports are made by other appropriate persons, i.e. the parents, etc.
6) Everybody has a moral and civic responsibility to protect all children from potential abuse. The responsibility though being largely a parental one, nevertheless the responsibility should extend to everyone, particularly those who come into contact with children in the course of their profession, church fellowship, voluntary group and so on.
Thus, strict practices should be adopted to prevent as far as possible individual adults being left alone with unrelated children, especially on a one-to-one basis, along with:-
Strict reporting procedures should be followed wherever a suspicion of abuse arises.
The above includes only a few measures which can be taken over and above the education of parents and children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 30, 2008 11:10:03 GMT -5
I thought I had been clear on these points. I have read the posts from people with the various claims and have asked for examples of posts where I, for example, absolved anyone who had abused a child. So far I have seen nothing.
Yes. But this is not just an education regarding sexual abuse. It is teaching children how to interact with adults and be able to be safe and not afraid that every stranger is out to hurt them. There needs to be more open and direct communication between child and parent. If a 5 year old reports to her parents that “Mr X touched my labia” there is no confusion. Sure, you can tell children that people should not touch them in areas that are covered by their bathing suit but when the 5 year old is molested at home they are not wearing a bathing suit so there is a question, in a young mind, if any area is off limits. Of course, this means the parents must be comfortable discussing the specifics of the body. If a child does not know the actual names of specific body parts but only refers to them in generalized euphuistic, it is very difficult for an adult to learn exactly what happened. Children need to be taught they can stand up to adults and say “No.” and be able to stick with that until they can ask their parents.
All persons in charge of children and young persons should be educated regarding child abuse issues. This includes realtives[sic], teachers, social workers and church group organizers[sic] etc. In fact anyone who at any time in connection with the course of their occupation or voluntary activities has in their charge or care, children and young personseveryone. If you want to solve a problem that is widespread and happens at all levels of society, you need to educate everyone. This is not a problem that can be eliminated over night.
This is all part of the educational process. In any organization if you want people to behave in a particular way you have to first teach them how you want them to behave. Teach them why it is important. Teach them what happened when the procedures are not followed, and teach them what the consequences are should they fail to follow the procedure.
If the parents have been properly educated the children will not be left in situations where an adult is alone with a child. And yes, the workers should also be educated regarding the steps they should take so they are not in situations that could be construed as problematic. For example, if all workers were trained that they should not be left alone with children the one or two that were would stand out.
WorkersEveryone should take responsibility to report suspected instances of child abuse which involve either fellow workers or members of their church anyone with any children whatsoever, or at least ensure that such reports are made by other appropriate persons, i.e. the parents, etc.
Exactly. But the people must know what the rules are and where to make the report, etc. This is why the various states require people who do care for children be educated in regards to the rules. In our company the state required, for example, that all employees be educated in regards to sexual harassment in the workplace.
I agree. These measures are educational measures. Everyone has to learn how to deal with this issue. Parents, and other adults, need to listen to children. Even without specific education they are little bundles of information. But if, when they come forward and report that "Mr. X and I just played a game where we were tickling each other all over", the child is just brushed aside there is a possibility it will lead to more. If no one confronts Mr. X there is the idea that silence gives consent The child needs to be listened to and some determination needs to be made whether this is a problem to be reported or not.
Someone reported on one of these threads that some adult licked the face of their child in a way that was inappropriate. The amazing thins to me was that this was done in the presence of the parents.
What did their silence say to the adult? To other adults in the room? To other children (if there were any) in the room? We all know that even when we least expect it children are observing what is going on - "Note to self - face licking by an adult seems to be OK." Is that the message to send?
Someone jokingly sent me a PM suggesting the following: First show visitors your extensive gun collection. Then go shooting with them and demonstrate your skills. Then explain how much you love your children and feel protective. Then invite them into your house to meet your family!
As most people know, I do not promote violence. But I thought this was in a way a means of educating your guests about how you feel and what the ground rules are.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 31, 2008 11:14:10 GMT -5
rational,
Until abusers access to children is removed, all your spin is meaningless. You have endlessly promoted that abusers should have continued access to children (stay in the work) via their position of trust.
Frankly, I give you no more respect than the abusers themselves due to your position on this. I really wonder why you are so worked up about removing workers who abuse children. Is there something we should know?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2008 12:32:09 GMT -5
rational, Until abusers access to children is removed, all your spin is meaningless. You have offered no solution. Removing a known abuser removes only the least of the threats. The people who present the largest threat are the ones you do not know about. Once an abuser is known, it is a relatively simple task to keep children safe. I have not promoted that they should have access but rather that there is not a means to deal with someone who only has been accused with anecdotal evidence. I have asked you for you plan of removing the threat and so far you have failed to respond. OK Good to know. My position is that abusers should be tried and dealt with as the court dictates. You seem keen on assuming the stories are accurate and convicting them in what amounts to a 'kangaroo court'. If you have evidence that there is a threat, show the people who are impacted so they too will be aware of the threat and they can protect their children. Yes there is something you should know - I believe in due process and not the vigilante action you are suggesting. But once again - If you have a plan that will work better than telling the parents of the children who are in danger and allowing the parents to protect their children, please tell me. What is your plan for removing a worker that you suspect? Do you have that power? Can you influence someone that does? When I saw the information about IH I sent an email to my cousins in TX, who have young children, with the links to the information. They are now forearmed if their family should come into contact with IH. They emailed me and said they had a hint already but sent the information on to their friends.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 31, 2008 12:43:19 GMT -5
More spin...
At the end of the day, you are still advocating that abusers should continue to have access to children via their positions of trust.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2008 13:29:33 GMT -5
More spin... At the end of the day, you are still advocating that abusers should continue to have access to children via their positions of trust. This is untrue. I have stated time and time again that in the best case the accused would be tried and locked up. In the mean time - I trust that educating the families regarding the possibility of danger, showing them the evidence at hand, and allowing them to protect their children is the best solution. I am waiting for your solution as to how you are going to accomplish this removal that you have been promoting. I can't help but notice that you have never offered a solution.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 31, 2008 16:49:17 GMT -5
Nor do you notice that I didn't suggest I would offer one. So relax on that point.
So... why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Hmmm?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2008 17:39:08 GMT -5
Nor do you notice that I didn't suggest I would offer one. So relax on that point. So... why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Hmmm? I think the answer lies in the fact that it has not always been determined that they have abused children. When it has been proved that a worker abused children they are no longer in the homes presenting a danger to children. I think what you are asking is why should workers who have been rumored to have abused children remain workers. What you are suggesting is that, in the absence of a legal determination, someone acts as judge and jury, determines a person to be guilty, and removes them from their employment/situation. I apologize for asking you repeatably for a way to implement your suggestion. A mistakenly thought you had a workable solution. Solutions are easy as long as you do not have to consider the implementation.
|
|
|
Post by Kanga on Mar 31, 2008 18:22:38 GMT -5
OK Good to know. My position is that abusers should be tried and dealt with as the court dictates. You seem keen on assuming the stories are accurate and convicting them in what amounts to a 'kangaroo court'. Where do we sign up? Kanga and Roo
|
|
|
Post by no on Mar 31, 2008 18:35:18 GMT -5
Nor do you notice that I didn't suggest I would offer one. So relax on that point. So... why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Hmmm? Workers who are tried and found guilty, shouldn't and don't remain workers. Not all workers who are accused are guilty, what worker has been tried and found guilty and remains a worker? Some DO remain in the work because people do not report them to the police. IF they are tried and found guilty, then they no longer remain workers. How do we 'know' these workers are guilty? Because the same people who tell us, didn't report the assult to the police at the time. I'm not pointing fingers at the victim, they are seldom the only one who knows.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 31, 2008 18:50:22 GMT -5
Nor do you notice that I didn't suggest I would offer one. So relax on that point. So... why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Hmmm? I think the answer lies in the fact that it has not always been determined that they have abused children. When it has been proved that a worker abused children they are no longer in the homes presenting a danger to children. I think what you are asking is why should workers who have been rumored to have abused children remain workers. What you are suggesting is that, in the absence of a legal determination, someone acts as judge and jury, determines a person to be guilty, and removes them from their employment/situation. I apologize for asking you repeatably for a way to implement your suggestion. A mistakenly thought you had a workable solution. Solutions are easy as long as you do not have to consider the implementation. I see you were unable to respond to my post without rewording it first. Let's try this again: why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Now let's see if you can answer that without rewording it first.
|
|
|
Post by hello on Mar 31, 2008 18:57:41 GMT -5
Let's try this again: why should workers who abuse children remain workers? So this thread doesn't go on for another 26 pages ... Will you accept the answer of because they are workers?
|
|
|
Post by NWex on Mar 31, 2008 21:28:59 GMT -5
THEY SHOULDN't ! I'm amazed to hear that there are child molesters STILL in the ministry. I'm aware also of an elder who molested children. He relocated to another state, and last I heard still has a meeting in his home. The workers know about this too.
Meanwhile, since I was a divorcee, when I finally remarried (my ex had already remarried) I was ex-communicated.
|
|
|
Post by Your Story on Mar 31, 2008 21:35:42 GMT -5
To NWex: -----Start a new thread and tell us your story if you don't mind sharing. If you want too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 0:28:37 GMT -5
Let's try this again: why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Now let's see if you can answer that without rewording it first. Well, I came up with a list of 6 possible reasons. 1) If they stay in the work their location is known. 2) If their situation is advertised there is no downside in allowing them to continue preaching. 3) Staying in the work would allow them to apologize to their victims face to face. 4) They are ill prepared for any other occupation. 5) Keeping them in the work will prevent them from being out among other possible victims who might be unaware of their danger. 6) If they have not been convicted there is a small, but non-zero, possibility that they could bring legal action against those who who leveled the accusations against them.
|
|