|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2010 6:42:46 GMT -5
...OUR PARENTS did NOT teach us the dangerous persons in the fellowship...mine didn't believe it was possible...and so it was for Jean's parents...she got the blame because workers aren't that evil. Come on, it is NO broad brush, it happens and it still happens. Wait a minute Sharon. Your parents not providing you with sex education is not an issue with the F&W. It is an issue with people of their age. I doubt my Mom could say labia without blushing even now! And as far as Jean - that is not anything to base anything on. Her father observed the molestation and blamed his daughter. We are talking about a whole other type of crazy there. That was certainly a crime of opportunity. A child raised in a family where she said she never felt loved. And as she said it was not just one but a few men who took advantage of her. That was not a F&W issue but a dysfunctional family issue and a criminal who took advantage of the situation. Rational, all you say has a point....but I know that there were considerable number of parents that AFTER they joined the 2X2's became totally different in their parenting skills...I do not understand why, but a lot of them in the 40's and 50's got the impression from some of the workers that they had to turn into abusive and/or neglectful parents "in order" that the children would be well versed in the 2X2 faith and would not be spoiled. The proverb about sparing the rod would spoil the child was a big stress in that era i.e. One father became so abusive AFTER professing that he decided he could beat the "truth" into his children, whereas BEFORE he professed, he very seldom laid a hand on his children! I know in my family, that there was a great change in the extreme correctiveness and actually holding the children from being physically touched with love as is common with parents and children...it was for the sake of the child, so that they would not become spoiled. Childhood correction took a great turn with that generation of parents... I know a lot of children left home as soon as they were old enough to earn their way simply because of the punishing parenting. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2010 8:45:33 GMT -5
That's better, without your hysterical interpretations. There is no hysterical interpretation. It is a logic. Your premises: 1) Everyone has weaknesses. 2) The work creates opportunities that allows these weaknesses to be be acted upon. The only conclusion is that there would be a higher number of criminals in the work. Or have we finished? I am still going with the number 40 but would welcome some information that would support it or disprove it. I don't know what word you meant with "integrous". Brushing them aside? That is the whole point. Identify the criminals and have the authorities deal with them. Well, first of all, it is you that is making the claim without support. It is then your job to support the claim. I did state some numbers and explained how I arrived at them. You rejected them without any support. You have never quantified anything. The only thing you have said that is at all solid is that the environment of the work actually creates a a population with a higher number of sexual criminals than would be expected. The exact same arguments were used against the RCC and have so far been shown to be groundless. enforce - 1.)To compel observance of or obedience to. enforce = to give effect to, to put in force, to urge, to compel. Enforcing does not necessarily mean to use overt force to subject someone to set disciplines. Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them. There does not have to be an element of pressure.[/quote]So you believe that you can enforce a rule without force? Look at what you wrote: Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them.People "have" to comply. And if they don't? Will they be urged? And if they still refuse? Will they be compelled? You are forcing people to do as you wish - overtly or covertly. It is a different word and meaning. I do believe that by educating people you can then use that knowledge and over time reinforce the correct behavior as part of the educational process. Theoretical physics is a lame duck? Teaching people that, in terms of the possibility of sexual crimes, the workers are to be considered exactly as any other people they entertain in their homes is a lame duck? It is not hypothetical at all. It is the way CSA is dealt with. You do not know who the criminal will be. You cannot defend against every other adult in a child;s life. You have to teach children what they need to do that will be effective. I think the pattern we are looking at is quite clear. I guess we could teach children to just be quite because there is a non-zero chance that the sexual criminal may turn violent. Of course there are deaths. There are deaths when children are held for ransom and when they run across the street without looking. Yes. You can compel a child to attend school. You can force the teachers to present the required material. You cannot force a child to be learn. You cannot force a child to be educated. Ahh. I assumedthe quotes indicated a non-standard meaning but it was not explained. Thanks. Well, I have to agree that removing the workers from all contact with children would reduce the risk to the children. Is there any reason to select the workers as a group to restrict other than the fact they are a recognizable group? If preventing CSA is the real goal it would seem that restricting relatives would be more effective. And they are a group that is easily identified. They have a pretty high rate of CSA. The point is that you have never shown that the workers present any higher risk than any other group yet you want to restrict them. I don't believe there has ever been a case against a female worker yet I am assuming they are to be included in your ban. But you cannot know who is the criminal. Since it could be anyone, reducing the opportunity means restricting anyone who could be a potential molester - that is - everyone. The child is the person on the line when the crime is being committed. I am not advocating throwing anyone into any situation. You can not eliminate the possibilities. You have selected a group that, so far, has not been shown to have any higher incidence of this crime than any other group. True. But the material, laws or quantum mechanics in themselves do not educate. You seem to be into compelling people to do what you feel is best for them. Enforcing your rules. You shy away from the idea of using force but you cannot enforce a rule, and have people obey it, without force. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2010 10:10:50 GMT -5
Rational, all you say has a point....but I know that there were considerable number of parents that AFTER they joined the 2X2's became totally different in their parenting skills. his may well have been your experience. I grew up among a rather large group of professing families and I can only think of two that I would not say were bordering on abusing their children. It could have been what they were reading. Besides the bible there were the popular publications of the time that were not listening to people like Skinner who had shown that punishment was not a good teaching method. Having taught in a few different settings and seen the children and parents, I do not think the environment of the F&W religion caused any difference in the child abuse rate. It happens in all sorts of environments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 10:19:44 GMT -5
That's better, without your hysterical interpretations. There is no hysterical interpretation. It is a logic. Your premises: 1) Everyone has weaknesses. 2) The work creates opportunities that allows these weaknesses to be be acted upon. The only conclusion is that there would be a higher number of criminals in the work. This is where "blinkers" obstruct the wider viewpoint. A worker first professes then enters the work. That process shows a person of a higher integrity, i.e. uprightness and honest,than your average person in the street. This fact will be well agreed by most if not all professing people.
If these people are amongst the "elite" in society then their potential for offending in a criminal nature should be "less" than your normal average. However, if factors cause them to commit crime, the actual numbers of offenders may still be lower than the normal average, but much higher than expected. Or have we finished? I am still going with the number 40 but would welcome some information that would support it or disprove it. I hope we are, but I would be surprised if that's the case. In the meantime, no carpet should be left unturned. I too would welcome any valid data.I don't know what word you meant with "integrous". Brushing them aside? That is the whole point. Identify the criminals and have the authorities deal with them. There are different categories of crimes and criminals as well as different different causes.Well, first of all, it is you that is making the claim without support. It is then your job to support the claim. I did state some numbers and explained how I arrived at them. You rejected them without any support. You will need to refresh me on what you are driving at here. I have stated opinions backed up by strong suspicions and analogous information. Because we do not have data does not mean we should not act in a reasonable manner to tackle serious matters.You have never quantified anything. The only thing you have said that is at all solid is that the environment of the work actually creates a a population with a higher number of sexual criminals than would be expected. The exact same arguments were used against the RCC and have so far been shown to be groundless. "So far?" Can you show me this (again?). I have suggested the worker lifestyle "may" be responsible for some workers committing abusive crimes. I produced a lengthy document which clearly showed that "opportunity" was a main cause of crime, yet you throw it in the bin because it does not gel with your thinking!enforce - 1.)To compel observance of or obedience to. enforce = to give effect to, to put in force, to urge, to compel. Enforcing does not necessarily mean to use overt force to subject someone to set disciplines. Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them. There does not have to be an element of pressure. So you believe that you can enforce a rule without force? Look at what you wrote: Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them.People "have" to comply. And if they don't? Will they be urged? And if they still refuse? Will they be compelled? You are forcing people to do as you wish - overtly or covertly. Or "willingly!" Most people comple with educational legislation as well as governing practices and procedures. Enforcement ensures eneryone's right to a basic education is honoured.It is a different word and meaning. I do believe that by educating people you can then use that knowledge and over time reinforce the correct behavior as part of the educational process. As you well know, education by instruction alone has varying degrees of success. It is a very important part of the process but disciplines are required to ensure better effectiveness.Theoretical physics is a lame duck? Teaching people that, in terms of the possibility of sexual crimes, the workers are to be considered exactly as any other people they entertain in their homes is a lame duck? The work is a vocation. A profession if you like. It should be treated as such and subject to the same disciplines and controls as any other vocation or profession. Uniformity of standards. The first thing other vocations would be asking in the face of CSA cases is, "do we really need to stay in the homes where there are unrelated children or other vulnerable persons and take the accompanying risks? The answer is a resounding "no!"It is not hypothetical at all. It is the way CSA is dealt with. You do not know who the criminal will be. You cannot defend against every other adult in a child;s life. You have to teach children what they need to do that will be effective. Teach the children certainly. However, since you do not know where the danger may come from, put in place reasonable measures to reduce opportunities, since without opportunity, you cannot have crime. You cannot make a child the first line of defence. Theory is one thing, practice is something else entirely. It may work in X amount of cases, but in Y amount it may not. Don't take unnecessary risks! I think the pattern we are looking at is quite clear. I guess we could teach children to just be quite because there is a non-zero chance that the sexual criminal may turn violent. Of course there are deaths. There are deaths when children are held for ransom and when they run across the street without looking. A further case for reducing opportunities if at all possible.Yes. You can compel a child to attend school. You can force the teachers to present the required material. You cannot force a child to be learn. You cannot force a child to be educated. Ahh. I assumedthe quotes indicated a non-standard meaning but it was not explained. Thanks. More often than not enforcement measures do not require overt pressure to comply. Most drivers are happy to be educated that when driving through a town you obey the reduced speed limits. They do not feel under pressure to comply. They do not feel the force. It is those who fail to heed the education that require the force to be applied. In our everyday lives we happily accept enforcement measures without even thinking about them. Well, I have to agree that removing the workers from all contact with children would reduce the risk to the children. Is there any reason to select the workers as a group to restrict other than the fact they are a recognizable group? If preventing CSA is the real goal it would seem that restricting relatives would be more effective. And they are a group that is easily identified. They have a pretty high rate of CSA. The workers are selected here (by myself) for reasons that I've stated numerous times previously. This is a board dedicated to discussions about the F&W's sect. The workers are a primary focus in these discussions. The CSA and other abuse cases coming to light are about workers. In the main most people are shocked to learn that workers are capable of such things. My focus on these issues is the workers. I am also attempting to understand why such things have happened with such an integrous class of people. Rather than criminalise them and dispatch them, I try to offer understanding that there may be other factors which contribute to these occurrences.
Personally I do not believe that it is simply criminals who enter the work who commit these heinous crimes. That may be true in a very few cases, but in the main I don't believe that is the case. I suspect "none" or vert few have criminal records before entering the work. Oh don't tell me, I forgot. These are unsubstantiated views. I have no data to back them up. I do apologise.The point is that you have never shown that the workers present any higher risk than any other group yet you want to restrict them. I don't believe there has ever been a case against a female worker yet I am assuming they are to be included in your ban. No. The point is, there is an unacceptable risk within that group, something which has only in recent times come to light. I am not so much wanting to restrict workers. I want to protect children and one of the main ways to do that is to take all reasonable steps to reduce opportunities. Regarding female workers. Umteen times in the past I have pointed out that my focus is not limited to just CSA. Other types of abuses have been alluded to in these columns, including worker to worker abuse, which have involved female workers. One of my original statements in these matters was to look at ways of improving a worker's lot! I even was forced to create a separate thread on the subject. Did you contribute to it with any valid suggestions?But you cannot know who is the criminal. Since it could be anyone, reducing the opportunity means restricting anyone who could be a potential molester - that is - everyone. The child is the person on the line when the crime is being committed. I am not advocating throwing anyone into any situation. You can not eliminate the possibilities. You have selected a group that, so far, has not been shown to have any higher incidence of this crime than any other group. It is quite simply common sense. Take all "reasonable" steps (repeat "reasonable" steps) to reduce as far as possible the opportunities a potential perpetrator may have for committing a crime. I consider everything that I have suggested to be "reasonable" in the circumstances, especially when children and other vulnerable persons are involved. It is our duty to protect them because they can do very little themselves, even with all the theory forced upon them.
Restricting workers (vocation) from staying in the homes where there are unrelated children is no hardship to anyone. An inconvenience certainly (and in other cases a convenience!), but do a measure that is unreasonable if we are putting protection of the child before privileges of workers.
The laws of the land do not educate any more than a set of physics books. It is the study of this material that educates.[/quote]
But like the set of physics books they are powerful educational tools. Without them where is the study you talk about? These books provide an opportunity to study the subject material. Without that opportunity your ability to study physics or the law or whatever, is severely compromised.[/quote]True. But the material, laws or quantum mechanics in themselves do not educate. You seem to be into compelling people to do what you feel is best for them. Enforcing your rules. You shy away from the idea of using force but you cannot enforce a rule, and have people obey it, without force. [/quote] I refer to my earlier statement regarding enforcement. I think you have too much of a TV view over what enforcement is about. Take this board for example. There are rules which we have to abide by. We accept them and don't give them another thought. We are forced to comply in one sense, otherwise we do not get to participate, but on the other hand because we accept the necessary reasons for them we willingly comply.
Enforcement very often is agreeable to us. We see the common sense in it and enjoy the privileges that come with it. It is not injurous unless we break the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2010 14:47:48 GMT -5
This is where "blinkers" obstruct the wider viewpoint. A worker first professes then enters the work. That process shows a person of a higher integrity, i.e. uprightness and honest,than your average person in the street. This fact will be well agreed by most if not all professing people. This is where you start to modify your premises after you have stated your argument. You stated, without qualification, that all people had weaknesses. Now you are changing your stand. Why don't you restate it with the new conditions and we can look at it again. And by valid data I assume that you mean data you agree with since you have offered nothing to show why the numbers I stated are not valid. We are talking about CSA here. The only variation is in the age of the victim and the method of molestation You are asking me to present data that will refute an unsubstantiated claim you made. That is not the way it works. No, that is not what you said. And I produced several researched papers that pointed out that CSA was not a crime of opportunity (standard meaning - A crime of opportunity is a crime that is committed without planning when the perpetrator sees s/he has the chance to commit the act at that moment and seizes it. Such acts have little or no premeditation.). I referred you to the works of several criminologists who refuted your post. So you believe that you can enforce a rule without force? Look at what you wrote: Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them.People "have" to comply. And if they don't? Will they be urged? And if they still refuse? Will they be compelled? You are forcing people to do as you wish - overtly or covertly. Most people comply because they fear the consequences if they do not. There is no choice when there is enforcement. Some people my comply without the force. Some will have to be forced. I don't know this. You keep stating it but that does not make it so. If I am instructed not to look into the barrel of the mortar after I drop the round in, that instruction sticks! If I were doing the investigation I would be asking if there was any evidence to show that the overnight stays contributed to the number of CSA cases and then ask why the 'unrelated' clause was in the suggestion when it is a known fact that related guests present a much higher risk than unrelated guests. I am wondering if you have actually ever worked with the people committing these crimes and heard what their reasons were for molesting a child and what the process was. Stopping overnight stays and thinking it will have an effect is like telling a teenager that they cannot have members of the opposite sex in their room because it might lead to sex. It does not change the behavior - just the location. Of course they feel the force. That is why the vast majority of drivers speed when they feel they will not be caught. We all feel the force as soon as we see the flashing lights in the mirror. In our everyday lives we often evaluate the possibility of getting caught and weigh that with the penalty associated with getting caught against the benefit of breaking the law. Or as they say in criminology: man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. Odd. I thought protecting the children in the futute was the focus. OK. They have learned it. Workers are just like other folks and parents need to protect their children. These people are just people. There is no reason to think they are anything but average. And this would be a noble goal if the workers showed a higher rate of this problem than is seen in any other profession/group. I do not think it is either. I do not think that the cousin that molests became a cousin because he was a criminal. With the exception of pedophiles, most sexual molesters are simply criminals that have fixated for a period on people of an inappropriate age. the majority of these people go on to live normal lives following treatment. At least you are recognizing the need to have some data to back up your views, even if it was in te form of sarcasm. I did not. The people who did stated all that I would have said. I have always though it strange to expect adults to share rooms/beds. As someone who has traveled a fair amount, I refuse to share rooms and never expected my employees to do so either. Potential perpetrator = everyone. The steps to take are to focus on the education, care and management of the children after being certain that the parents are aware of the risks. Most people who make suggestions would judge them to be reasonable. Who has suggested using any sort of force except yourself? What theory? It is a simple fact. "If anyone tries to touch your _____ tell Mom or Dad." Not much theory there. I doubt there are many 11 year olds that would not understand that. And given that, so far, the victims have been prepubescent, they can definitely understand the situation. Again, what is this "unrelated" caveat? You seem determined to remove the workers from overnights unless there is a worker that would be considered to be in a higher risk situation. This is not, by and large, protecting children. Anymore than removing your shoes at the airport is protecting travelers. Sure, it is possible that there will be another "shoe bomber" but focusing on the shoes means that there are other methods that are not being focused on at all. Do you really think that deciding to have all people remove their shoes has prevented a bombing? It may be that you agree with the rules and would abide by them without being forced. But is you decide you do not agree then you are forced. Nope. If people agreed to the rules there would be no need to enforce them. Enforcement comes into play when a person breaks the rules and needs to be punished. Of course, you could argue that there are those who like the punishment. Enforcement means you are compelling someone to do something they do not want to do. And that is why people do not break the rules unless they decide that the benefit outweighs the punishment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 16:33:19 GMT -5
This is where "blinkers" obstruct the wider viewpoint. A worker first professes then enters the work. That process shows a person of a higher integrity, i.e. uprightness and honest,than your average person in the street. This fact will be well agreed by most if not all professing people. This is where you start to modify your premises after you have stated your argument. I think I have stated what most professing people think. That is why the shock factor is so high. I think you should re-read my OP's and threads just to refresh yourself just where I am coming from. You stated, without qualification, that all people had weaknesses. Now you are changing your stand. Why don't you restate it with the new conditions and we can look at it again. That is correct. I'm sorry if I didn't mention that people differ in the amount of self control or degree of weaknesses they have. The fact is, we are all weak in some form or another. We expect workers to be exemplary with regards to criminal conduct. Weaknesses need not be criminal. They may be immoral or anti-social, selfish etc! I hope we are, but I would be surprised if that's the case. In the meantime, no carpet should be left unturned. I too would welcome any valid data. And by valid data I assume that you mean data you agree with since you have offered nothing to show why the numbers I stated are not valid. We are talking about CSA here. The only variation is in the age of the victim and the method of molestation As you well know, my position is to address all manner of abuses, not just be limited by CSA. The data you provided (for workers/CSA) as you well know is very premature. Things are just coming to light. Look how long it took for the RCC to arrive at poper data. You will need to refresh me on what you are driving at here. I have stated opinions backed up by strong suspicions and analogous information. Because we do not have data does not mean we should not act in a reasonable manner to tackle serious matters.[/quote]You are asking me to present data that will refute an unsubstantiated claim you made. That is not the way it works. That is because neither of us has data. I have very valid suspicions based upon years of testimonies, analogous accounts, my own observations, etc, some of which have been provided even by current workers. These are not assembled into statistics, but are a sound basis for investigating the lifestyle of the sect, the means by which the data you seek might be gathered.
Are my suspicions (shared by many) invalid? Of course not. Do you seek an argument or do you seek the truth. The truth very often begins with reports and suspicions, NOT substantiating data.No, that is not what you said. And I produced several researched papers that pointed out that CSA was not a crime of opportunity (standard meaning - A crime of opportunity is a crime that is committed without planning when the perpetrator sees s/he has the chance to commit the act at that moment and seizes it. Such acts have little or no premeditation.). But it CAN be a crime of opportunity. We should not place too big an importance on premeditation vs sheer chance perpetration. The two are regularly interchangeable by criminals. Preparing for an opportunity or chance opportunities can be effectively combatted by reducing the opportunities by taking reasonable measures. I referred you to the works of several criminologists who refuted your post. So you believe that you can enforce a rule without force? Look at what you wrote: Merely putting in place a set of acceptable practices and procedures enforces these disciples as people have to comply with them.People "have" to comply. And if they don't? Will they be urged? And if they still refuse? Will they be compelled? You are forcing people to do as you wish - overtly or covertly. Most people comply because they fear the consequences if they do not. There is no choice when there is enforcement. Some people my comply without the force. Some will have to be forced. I don't know this. You keep stating it but that does not make it so. If I am instructed not to look into the barrel of the mortar after I drop the round in, that instruction sticks! I take it you drive a car. You are familiar with the driving laws of your country. You appreciate the need for controls and measures of the various road traffic stautes?
You want to learn to drive a car. 1) You need a licence and a roadworthy (legally complying vehicle). You pass your test after having sat a test, theory and practical. You are educated on road traffic procedures and road signage etc.
The Govt has forced you to comply with their standards. You don't complain because you know these are necessary to make driving safer, so you willingly comply.
Without these enforced standards and requirements, what would driving be like? If I were doing the investigation I would be asking if there was any evidence to show that the overnight stays contributed to the number of CSA cases and then ask why the 'unrelated' clause was in the suggestion when it is a known fact that related guests present a much higher risk than unrelated guests. Go to the top of the class with your opening line. You would be looking for evidence. Great. That's what we should be doing. Meanwhile because of the serious ongoing matters we should be taking measures to control opportunities for the perps.
You are determined to consider workers along with ordinary people, not even within the sect. Do you hold the same position with Catholic priests? Anyway, I've told you my focus. The investigation into CSA by Catholic Priests within the RCC. Is there a problem with a similar focus within the F&W's church? Noew to get another Brownie point. You have started your investigation into a religious sect. One of the things you investigate if there are influences within that sect which may contribute to the abuses you are investigating. Does that sound familiar?I am wondering if you have actually ever worked with the people committing these crimes and heard what their reasons were for molesting a child and what the process was. Stopping overnight stays and thinking it will have an effect is like telling a teenager that they cannot have members of the opposite sex in their room because it might lead to sex. It does not change the behavior - just the location. That was one of the very things I suggested in the intitial days of our debates on these issues. I have an understanding for errant workers and feel that they should form part of a study to try and get to the bottom of why apparently integrous people such as workers end up committing the types of things were are now hearing about. A truly investigative mind will look for reasons and causes, not just criminalise the offender. There may be mitigating circumstances which should be established and prescribed for.
Before we start to even think about changing the behaviour of a culprit, we first need to know who they are. Until they commit a crime we often just don't know who the potential suspects are.
This is a very serious matter of protecting children and other vulnerable people from abuses. Our investigation and protection measures start with the vulnerable and we must put into place all reasonable (again I repeat reasonable) measures to prevent opportunities of all kinds for perpetrators. Protect the child/VP first then build upon that.Of course they feel the force. That is why the vast majority of drivers speed when they feel they will not be caught. We all feel the force as soon as we see the flashing lights in the mirror. Road traffic laws are there to protect motorists and property from the actions of irresponsible drivers. Most people comply with the laws without feeling they are being forced to comply. They understand the reasons why. The force becomes felt when they are caught breaking the law.In our everyday lives we often evaluate the possibility of getting caught and weigh that with the penalty associated with getting caught against the benefit of breaking the law. That's right, and that's just ordinary, normally law abiding people. We weigh up the risks with minor offences. Now consider your more devious criminal. Does he not daily and "overnightly" weigh up the risks also? You just don't know what is going on in an apparently innocent head. First and foremost reduce opportunities by all "REASONABLE" means. Or as they say in criminology: man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. Do not discount the "irrational" choices of the criminal mind. Perhaps the most common explanation they will give (especially in sex crimes is "I don't know why I did it!" Now there's their rationale for you.Odd. I thought protecting the children in the futute was the focus. OK. They have learned it. Workers are just like other folks and parents need to protect their children. These people are just people. There is no reason to think they are anything but average. And this would be a noble goal if the workers showed a higher rate of this problem than is seen in any other profession/group. I agree. The current thread is about CSA. However, I have explained my overall focus and yes CSA is a large part of that focus. It's just that I believe all the abuse forms as well as providing a better lot for workers can be improved quite easily in the short term with a few reasonable measures, buying time for finer details to be worked out. I have found that focussing solely upon CSA ignores my position on the other abuses, which can be tackled equally effectively at the same time.
The workers may well be just average people, but that have an extraordinary lifestyle. They are regarded as way above average by the fellowship, impecable even. They have a position of trust that far exceeds "average!" I do not think it is either. I do not think that the cousin that molests became a cousin because he was a criminal. With the exception of pedophiles, most sexual molesters are simply criminals that have fixated for a period on people of an inappropriate age. the majority of these people go on to live normal lives following treatment. At least you are recognizing the need to have some data to back up your views, even if it was in te form of sarcasm. Sexual molesters are not simply criminals. Irrespective of what other categories of crimes they commit and are categorised by, they are also "sex offenders" who are specially prescribed for in law, at least in my country.
I have always recognised the need for data. However, its absence in the face of what I consider to be strong and valid suspicions will not hold me back from stating my opinions. That's often how the need for data is realised and investigations instigated.
My sarcasm? When I said all humans are weak, I was including myself! If you had not given me the opportunity to be sarcastic, it wouldn't have happened! I will now take this opportunity to apologise (seriously!).I did not. The people who did stated all that I would have said. I have always though it strange to expect adults to share rooms/beds. As someone who has traveled a fair amount, I refuse to share rooms and never expected my employees to do so either. Thank you. So at least you agree that some of the domestic arrangements of workers are "strange?"Potential perpetrator = everyone. The steps to take are to focus on the education, care and management of the children after being certain that the parents are aware of the risks. Most people who make suggestions would judge them to be reasonable. I do not disagree with education but instruction on its own, especially with vulnerable people is not only naive it is very dangerous. Who has suggested using any sort of force except yourself? I suspect you are viewing "force" in the respect of overt pressure, almost physical. Any practices and procedures which people must comply with is a form of force if the wish to participate in the activity of group prescribed for. All these groups like Ministrysafe recommend you design practices and prosedures for your own fellowship's circumstances. These are a form of force. They enforce/reinforce the educational instruction given.What theory? It is a simple fact. "If anyone tries to touch your _____ tell Mom or Dad." Not much theory there. I doubt there are many 11 year olds that would not understand that. Of course, my apologies. I forgot that all 5, 7 and 11 year olds act and respond exactly the same way and can easily stand up to strong., authoritative, persuasive adults. Sorry, but I live in the real worls - unfortunately. I rely on much surer methods.And given that, so far, the victims have been prepubescent, they can definitely understand the situation. Of course, but in a real life situation that may be the least of their problems.Again, what is this "unrelated" caveat? You seem determined to remove the workers from overnights unless there is a worker that would be considered to be in a higher risk situation. I am considering the work just like any other work or vocation and I believe that other works or professions would act similar to what I have stated. The only difference is they would be a lot quicker about it. As I have said. Children and other VP first-workers second. Design the lifestyle of workers around child protection, not the other way around. I consider that reasonable. Obviously you don't? This is not, by and large, protecting children. Anymore than removing your shoes at the airport is protecting travelers. Sure, it is possible that there will be another "shoe bomber" but focusing on the shoes means that there are other methods that are not being focused on at all. Do you really think that deciding to have all people remove their shoes has prevented a bombing? I will not be distracted by this shoe bomber nonsense. Removing opportunities for sexual perps will reduce CSA and other forms of abuse. It may be that you agree with the rules and would abide by them without being forced. But is you decide you do not agree then you are forced. The rules enforce the standards of the group. Most will agree with the rules and therefore are happy with them and do not find them injurous. By accepting the rules they enjoy the privileges they provide. The force of the rules becomes evident when breaches or non-compliance occurs. Nope. If people agreed to the rules there would be no need to enforce them. Enforcement comes into play when a person breaks the rules and needs to be punished. Of course, you could argue that there are those who like the punishment. Enforcement means you are compelling someone to do something they do not want to do. In my dictionary the term "enforce" is defined as "to put in force," "to give effect to," "to urge," "to compel."
Enforcement does not begin when all else fails. It regulates.And that is why people do not break the rules unless they decide that the benefit outweighs the punishment. [/quote] That's right. They are "forced" to consider the consequeces of their actions if they breach the "enforcing rules!" Those who comply with the rules accept the standards enforced. Those who don't comply feel the full weight (force) of the enforcement. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2010 16:59:27 GMT -5
Rational, all you say has a point....but I know that there were considerable number of parents that AFTER they joined the 2X2's became totally different in their parenting skills. his may well have been your experience. I grew up among a rather large group of professing families and I can only think of two that I would not say were bordering on abusing their children. It could have been what they were reading. Besides the bible there were the popular publications of the time that were not listening to people like Skinner who had shown that punishment was not a good teaching method. Having taught in a few different settings and seen the children and parents, I do not think the environment of the F&W religion caused any difference in the child abuse rate. It happens in all sorts of environments. I remember more then 1 older brother worker preach about the sparing the rod and spoiling the child on the platforms at convs. I also heard older workers talk to parents about their "permissive" stance with their children....the workers in the late 40,50 and 60's were wont to tell the parents how to raise their children....that has changed considerably. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2010 23:29:02 GMT -5
That is correct. I'm sorry if I didn't mention that people differ in the amount of self control or degree of weaknesses they have. The fact is, we are all weak in some form or another. We expect workers to be exemplary with regards to criminal conduct. This is the problem. This is where the education needs to start. Workers are people. Just people. Not quite. I presented data that is at least a starting point. You say it is not valid but you present nothing to support your statements. As far as your very valid suspicions - They might be proved to be valid at some point but they still are, after all suspicions. suspicions - suspecting something with little or no evidence. They are opinions, if you will. Perhaps valid. Perhaps invalid. If there was proof to support them they would cease to be suspicions. The search for truth often begins attempting to substantiate a theory. Your theory is that men who go into the work at some point become more apt to commit sexual crimes than they would have had they not gone into the work. One data point to support this would be to show that the rate of sexual crimes is higher for workers than it is for the population in general. Has there ever been any such crime by a worker? A crime of opportunity? One of the reason you gave for no overnights was to prevent workers from having the opportunity to groom their victims. Yes. Yes and you also learn about the penalties that will be imposed on you if you do not follow the rules. Through their threat of penalty they enforce these rules. You can complain, but unless you want to bare the burden of the penalty you will follow the rules. People are people. First, is there data to suggest this is the case? This again highlights the problem. You believe the workers are somehow special. Either that or you believe there is a higher percentage of workers who commit CSA. Looking for reasons and causes is great. There might be. Exactly. And herein lies the problem. I guess if you have an ax to grind with the workers selecting them out as the group to keep from children will prevent some of the cases. But why focus on them? Are they the most probable source for CSA? I know you don't like the shoe-off-at-the-airport example but if the focus is all about examining shoes it leaves room for other avenues of attack. It is odd that people slow down when they see police monitoring traffic. It is odd that the majority of drivers speed - just to the point where they will not get caught and punished. People who study criminology would disagree with you. nope, you don't. Reasonable is the key word. At the time it was deemed rational by the criminal. Perhaps?!? Is this just a guess? It is force if it is something that the person does not want to happen. That might be a fine or the loss of some privilege. All they have to do is report it. And your success rate is...? ?If it actually would protect children it would be reasonable. As I said - enforcement is forcing people to do as required. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 5:03:22 GMT -5
That is correct. I'm sorry if I didn't mention that people differ in the amount of self control or degree of weaknesses they have. The fact is, we are all weak in some form or another. We expect workers to be exemplary with regards to criminal conduct. This is the problem. This is where the education needs to start. Workers are people. Just people. That is a good foundation to "build" upon. However, they are people upon whom because of their office we should be looking upon them as examples and guides. As a result of their office and lifestyle they are given high levels of trust and expectations.Not quite. I presented data that is at least a starting point. You say it is not valid but you present nothing to support your statements. I did but because they are not actual data they are not good enough for you. As far as your very valid suspicions - They might be proved to be valid at some point but they still are, after all suspicions. suspicions - suspecting something with little or no evidence. But they are "valid" grounds for investigation and taking initial precautions. They are alarm bells. When you hear a fire alarm do you make for the fire exit or do you wait to see if there is an actual fire!They are opinions, if you will. Perhaps valid. Perhaps invalid. If there was proof to support them they would cease to be suspicions. Correct. That's where we're at in the meantime. In the absence of any proper research or data, what do we do meantime? Get the fiddles out?The search for truth often begins attempting to substantiate a theory. Your theory is that men who go into the work at some point become more apt to commit sexual crimes than they would have had they not gone into the work. One data point to support this would be to show that the rate of sexual crimes is higher for workers than it is for the population in general. Has there ever been any such crime by a worker? A crime of opportunity? One of the reason you gave for no overnights was to prevent workers from having the opportunity to groom their victims. Yes. Yes and you also learn about the penalties that will be imposed on you if you do not follow the rules. Through their threat of penalty they enforce these rules. You can complain, but unless you want to bare the burden of the penalty you will follow the rules. People are people. First, is there data to suggest this is the case? This again highlights the problem. You believe the workers are somehow special. Either that or you believe there is a higher percentage of workers who commit CSA. Looking for reasons and causes is great. There might be. This belief that workers are somehow special is far from confined to myself. Just look at the outrage my suggestion to limit their overnight stays produced! It is a common problem.
I think you are deliberately ignoring my points of view and just want to argue the same things over and over again?
I consider the work a vocation or profession and should be prescribed for like any other profession. You tell me why I should not think like that? That circumstance actually makes them how YOU suggest they should be, i.e. People, just people, subject to the same standards of control like anyone else.
I have suggested time and again that the lifestyle of the workers and the unique opportunities they enjoy may make the weaker ones most suceptible to committing a crime. I have given my reasons for arriving at these suspicions. Now how about YOU providing the all important data in respect of the work to allay my fears. Remember, I'm talking about the conditions of the work, not anyone or anything else. Exactly. And herein lies the problem. I guess if you have an ax to grind with the workers selecting them out as the group to keep from children will prevent some of the cases. But why focus on them? Are they the most probable source for CSA? I know you don't like the shoe-off-at-the-airport example but if the focus is all about examining shoes it leaves room for other avenues of attack. I have NO axe to grind. Don't you listen. Now YOU tell me what is unreasonable about, or what hardships are suffered, by workers not staying overnight in the homes of unrelated children. Remember also to cover the "unreasonable" lack of parity in families having the workers staying overnight.
First and foremost we are looking art reducing risks to children and other vulnerable persons. If that is your real, FIRST concern, you will conside reasonable measure to restrict opportunities for potential perpetrators. The work I consider as a professional vocation. I consider my suggestions reasonable. That is the point of debate, "are my suggestions reasonable in the circumstances." I consider your education only through repetitive instruction not only unreasonable, but downright dangerous. It is odd that people slow down when they see police monitoring traffic. It is odd that the majority of drivers speed - just to the point where they will not get caught and punished. Of course we are talking about a generally minor traffic offence which all of us commit at one time or another. You see, in traffic monitoring you can see the offence about to take place and the likely culprits can see the police. However, the police can only be at certain locations for a short period of time. The problems continue largely unabated where they or speed cameras are not located. Does this not show our propensity to err in the absence of proper controls. The road safety education and training is there for everyone. We have to attain strict standards in that education and training process before we are given a full licence to drive a car, but without the controls and measures of the law our theory and training (only) education teaches us very little. It needs to be rigidly controlled.
That's right, and that's just ordinary, normally law abiding people. We weigh up the risks with minor offences. People who study criminology would disagree with you. nope, you don't. Reasonable is the key word. Our interpretation of "reasonable" is clearly a stumbling block in our debate. In the face of the serious abuses we are hearing about please tell me what is "unreasonable" about workers not staying in the homes of unrelated children. Tell me what hardships they would suffer. What about the benefits to at least some of the workers?At the time it was deemed rational by the criminal. Perhaps?!? Is this just a guess? Which shows just how irrational the criminal mind can be!It is force if it is something that the person does not want to happen. That might be a fine or the loss of some privilege. All they have to do is report it. And your success rate is...? ?If it actually would protect children it would be reasonable. As I said - enforcement is forcing people to do as required.[/quote] And one of the biggest tools in enforcement is ....you've guessed it..."Education." There are three key elements involved in law enforcement, 1) The law, which is the enforcement tool, 2) Education and 3) Reporting for prosecution when the law is breached. For most people an awareness of the law educates them about the law and they keep within the law. Basically they comly. They do not have an option. Education enforces the law through stimulating compliance. Prosecution deals with those who do not comply. They experience the full force of the law. A few short years ago in the UK smoking was banned from pubs and clubs amidst much controversy. Bar owners were told well in advance of the law coming into effect where people could and could not smoke. Most people had to go outside. There was much controversy about the new laws but a sound education programme along with the strict controls made the ban effective overnight.
This was achieved with very few fines or prosecutions. It is an example of the law being enforced through education backed up by strict controls. People were forced to comply. Some agreed with the ban others didn't.
Opportunity to smoke inside the bars was severely diminished resulting in a virtual complete observance of the laws.
Perhaps our different cultures or backgrounds leads us to view the term "enforcement" differently. After all, Winston Churchhill said of the USA and Great Britain, "we are separated by a common language!" |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 2, 2010 11:34:06 GMT -5
That is a good foundation to "build" upon. However, they are people upon whom because of their office we should be looking upon them as examples and guides. As a result of their office and lifestyle they are given high levels of trust and expectations. For spiritual things - look at them as an example. But to say they should be given higher levels of trust - that is where the educational process has failed and what has caused the current problems. Their office does not change their sexual orientation. It does not change the probability that they will sexually abuse people. If it is determined that it is a fire bell. In this situation you are requesting people to react to something that has not been established. It would be like expecting people to run from the building every time a bell rang. Incoming phone calls would cause havoc. Educate. And many believe that Napoleon was short, that the light bulb was invented by Thomas Edison, and that lemmings throw themselves over cliffs. Because a lot of people believe these things does not make them true and does not mean that an effort should be taken to teach people the truth. You have stated this more than once but it is your opinion. I looked at the records I could find and arrived at a number that showed your belief to be incorrect. Now, if you have data to show that the number I arrived at is incorrect - present it. The hardship is that you want to change the way the workers and families interact to prevent a danger you perceive but cannot support. As far as who stays with whom more or less -it is not part of the issue. I think this is where your reasoning falls down. You are not suggesting restricting potential perpetrators but only workers. And only if they are unrelated to the children. Do you have data to support your contention? Although geared to younger children than those who have been the victims, Consider the following: Most CSA prevention programs are school-based and implemented by teachers who have had little preparation for intervention. The school setting is inappropriate as a sole means of CSA prevention because discussion of sexual issues in school is severely limited. Vague prevention programs are potentially harmful to children. Concepts such as "good touch, bad touch," "private zones" and "bathing suit area" are used instead of specific descriptive terms. They are confusing and lack applicability to all abuse situations.Another concept frequently used in such programs is "stranger danger." Although this is an important concept for children to learn, it is not very effective in child abuse prevention because in the majority of cases, children are victimized by someone they know and trust.Vague methods of instruction may indirectly cause parents and others to withhold needed affection from children, fearing that their actions may be misinterpreted. CSA prevention programs often leave children confused and fearful. For example, 20% of preschoolers said they were fearful of parent-child behavior such as tickling, bathing and being tucked in at night after they were exposed to a CSA prevention program.Although we live in an extremely sexualized society, many parents are unable to address the subject with their children except in vague, cryptic terms that are designed less for the protection of children than for the comfort of parents and other adults.A child is more likely to resist CSA if he has an understanding of what needs to be resisted, has an ability to use descriptive language in a report of abuse, and feels comfortable reporting to parents or other adults. In addition, a child must have the self-confidence and self-esteem to resist the perpetrator.The above from www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_prevent_abuse.asp
(Emphasis added)
Another source: For example, the most effective CSA prevention programs teach children a safety rule about identifying safe and unsafe touches. Parents can reinforce and help children better understand the touching-safety rule in a variety of ways.There are other parents who define child molesters as "social misfits", "dirty old men", or strangers. Parents who hold these beliefs may think CSA prevention education isn't necessary if their child never has contact with these types of people. But research tells us that children are most often victimized by family members, substitute caregivers, or trusted adults who function "normally" in society.www.cfchildren.org/programs/hot-topics/abuse/partnerparent/
(Emphasis added)
It does show that you need to have force ready to put into action if you expect to enforce a set of rules. It also shows that unless the enforcers are watching all of the time people will take the chance to do what they wish. This applies to behavior behind the wheel as well as CSA. The first would be that you are allowing related workers, the group with by far the highest probability of molesting a child, to stay but not unrelated workers, a group with a probability that is the same as a stranger. I do not know the hardship. I do know that it is a fundamental change in the way the F&W organization functions. I guess the benefits to workers who do not like children would not be staying in a house where there are children. While it was not quite as smooth as you expressed it is a good example. In this case the bars/pubs rely on the government to give them a license to operate. The loss of that license means they are out of business. If you have a big enough stick you can make anyone comply. Perhaps. Enforcement to means that you have the ability to force people to do as you wish. If you enforce a law you force people to comply. If you enforce a behavior you force people to behave as you wish. Some people will test the limits and some will not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 12:21:55 GMT -5
consider your education only through repetitive instruction not only unreasonable, but downright dangerous. Do you have data to support your contention? Although geared to younger children than those who have been the victims, Consider the following: Most CSA prevention programs are school-based and implemented by teachers who have had little preparation for intervention. The school setting is inappropriate as a sole means of CSA prevention because discussion of sexual issues in school is severely limited. Vague prevention programs are potentially harmful to children. Concepts such as "good touch, bad touch," "private zones" and "bathing suit area" are used instead of specific descriptive terms. They are confusing and lack applicability to all abuse situations. Another concept frequently used in such programs is "stranger danger." Although this is an important concept for children to learn, it is not very effective in child abuse prevention because in the majority of cases, children are victimized by someone they know and trust. Vague methods of instruction may indirectly cause parents and others to withhold needed affection from children, fearing that their actions may be misinterpreted. CSA prevention programs often leave children confused and fearful. For example, 20% of preschoolers said they were fearful of parent-child behavior such as tickling, bathing and being tucked in at night after they were exposed to a CSA prevention program. Although we live in an extremely sexualized society, many parents are unable to address the subject with their children except in vague, cryptic terms that are designed less for the protection of children than for the comfort of parents and other adults. A child is more likely to resist CSA if he has an understanding of what needs to be resisted, has an ability to use descriptive language in a report of abuse, and feels comfortable reporting to parents or other adults. In addition, a child must have the self-confidence and self-esteem to resist the perpetrator. The above from www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/articles_prevent_abuse.asp(Emphasis added) The above is from an articlewritten for nursre practitioners visiting homes and care centers. It quite clearly shows just how difficult (impossible in many circumstances) it is to educate children and their parents on CSA issues. It proves my point entirely that eductaion by instruction alone, has varying degrees of success. Proper measures and controls require to be in place to reduce opportunities for potential perpetrators. If such advice is necessary for professionals in day care centers, then how much moreso should they be required in the home for visiting clergymen?Another source: For example, the most effective CSA prevention programs teach children a safety rule about identifying safe and unsafe touches. Parents can reinforce and help children better understand the touching-safety rule in a variety of ways. There are other parents who define child molesters as "social misfits", "dirty old men", or strangers. Parents who hold these beliefs may think CSA prevention education isn't necessary if their child never has contact with these types of people. But research tells us that children are most often victimized by family members, substitute caregivers, or trusted adults who function "normally" in society. www.cfchildren.org/programs/hot-topics/abuse/partnerparent/(Emphasis added) From the same website. Remember these people are very likely totally unaware of the workers and their lifestyle. They are not writing from the standpoint of clergymen staying in the homes. Look at their emphasis on supervision. Present them with the reality of clergymen staying in the home and consider what their advice would be?
Reducing Risk Factors
Parents can reduce offenders' access to their children by increasing supervision—knowing where their children are, who they're with, and what they're doing. Given that the largest percentage of offenders are people in positions of authority (coaches, clergymen, and so on), parents should be wary of adults (and teenagers) who prefer the company of children and want to spend a lot of time alone with them.
Other ways to reduce a child's risk include rearranging sleeping conditions that might be conducive to inappropriate sexual behaviors between family members and checking daycare and babysitting arrangements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 12:41:09 GMT -5
Part of the Anglican church recomMedations for reducing child abuse. Of course their ministers do not stay in the homes of their sect members.
Recommended good practice to be followed by all those working with children and young people in order to decrease opportunities either for abuse, or for adults to put themselves in a position of vulnerability or temptation. This includes advice on providing a safe physical environment. [/color
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 2, 2010 13:02:37 GMT -5
The above is from an articlewritten for nursre practitioners visiting homes and care centers. It quite clearly shows just how difficult (impossible in many circumstances) it is to educate children and their parents on CSA issues. It proves my point entirely that eductaion by instruction alone, has varying degrees of success. Proper measures and controls require to be in place to reduce opportunities for potential perpetrators. If such advice is necessary for professionals in day care centers, then how much moreso should they be required in the home for visiting clergymen? No more difficult that eliminating all people who might present a danger. Exactly the same, as shown below. Exactly. Parents watching their children What a noel idea. It doesn't really matter whether they are spending the night or taking a day trip. The parents need to know what is going on. Workers spending the night in a family's home does not mean they prefer to spend time alone with children. Certainly the parents can control this in their own home. And it is good to remember that CSA by fanily members is way up on the list. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 13:33:39 GMT -5
I take it Rational that you are happy to see the workers put on a par with other clergy, such as Anglican priests and therefore subject to the same scrutiny, practices and procedures.? Whilst the C of E priests do not stay in the homes of their members, they certainly recognise that potential threats to children and other vulnerable persons can and do come from some priests and other workers in their organisation. They are conscious of increased threats from over-familiarity arising from the same workers working with the same children over protracted periods of time. This is not even within the home environment. Therefore would you agree that the Anglican Church model is a good one for the Workers to follow, albeit with appropriate measures specially designed to cater for the unique home environment? www.europe.anglican.org/admin/hbN_childprotection.htm |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 2, 2010 15:54:03 GMT -5
I take it Rational that you are happy to see the workers put on a par with other clergy, such as Anglican priests and therefore subject to the same scrutiny, practices and procedures.? In regards to potential abusers, I am happy to see the workers on par with humans. It is also the parents' job to be watching who their children hang out with. It doesn't matter if they are going to church or soccer practice. No. The workers are just humans. So are the Anglican priests. If you start to treat them any differently than other people you will put them in a special class and their is a very real chance people will be reluctant to hold them responsible. Why do you want to put people into special classes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 16:59:31 GMT -5
I take it Rational that you are happy to see the workers put on a par with other clergy, such as Anglican priests and therefore subject to the same scrutiny, practices and procedures.? In regards to potential abusers, I am happy to see the workers on par with humans. It is also the parents' job to be watching who their children hang out with. It doesn't matter if they are going to church or soccer practice. No. The workers are just humans. So are the Anglican priests. If you start to treat them any differently than other people you will put them in a special class and their is a very real chance people will be reluctant to hold them responsible. Why do you want to put people into special classes. There are good reasons for putting people in certain classes or categories, but I'm not concerned with that right now. I am really interested if you would agree that the Friends and Workers Church should adopt similar practices to other churches in their attempts to address CSA and other forms of abuse. You see, I am prepared to go down this road and also for them to adopt the measures other churches have instituted for their ministers in the home environment. The beauty in this is that they will have an established working, acceptable model to follow. Also, you can be satisfied that the workers are being treated the same as those from other churches and we can avoid perceptions of hysteria and draconianism. Furthermore, we can see how how other churches reduce opportunities and progress education. We can avoid deviations onto speeders, smokers, shoe bombers and other such subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 2, 2010 22:36:48 GMT -5
I am really interested if you would agree that the Friends and Workers Church should adopt similar practices to other churches in their attempts to address CSA and other forms of abuse. You see, I am prepared to go down this road and also for them to adopt the measures other churches have instituted for their ministers in the home environment. Ram, do you have anything concrete in mind? Like contacts with any like-minded workers? You can PM me if you like, others may be interested in joining forces with you on such a mission. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 3:52:21 GMT -5
Admin, I've PM'd you!
Just for info, my position is to address ALL forms of abuse, not just CSA. Secondly if something could get off the ground, I would not like to miss the opportunity to improve conditions for workers.
It is our Christian duty to consider the health and wellbeing of ALL involved. This includes fallen workers who may feel that even God has deserted them. Well the RAM hasn't. They need our help too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 3, 2010 8:00:22 GMT -5
It is our Christian duty to consider the health and wellbeing of ALL involved. This includes fallen workers who may feel that even God has deserted them. Well the RAM hasn't. They need our help too. There are some people that think it is strange that an ex would want to be involved in helping improve conditions in a church that they are no longer a part of. Seems like I've heard that a time or two.....  Scott 
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 3, 2010 9:18:27 GMT -5
It is our Christian duty to consider the health and wellbeing of ALL involved. This includes fallen workers who may feel that even God has deserted them. Well the RAM hasn't. They need our help too. There are some people that think it is strange that an ex would want to be involved in helping improve conditions in a church that they are no longer a part of. Seems like I've heard that a time or two..... Scott That's so true, Scott...I get that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 3, 2010 9:57:19 GMT -5
Kinda like the Government Inspector who happens upon the poor guy who is in the process of fixing his ailing sewer system -- "Hi! I'm here to help you out!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 10:08:03 GMT -5
It is our Christian duty to consider the health and wellbeing of ALL involved. This includes fallen workers who may feel that even God has deserted them. Well the RAM hasn't. They need our help too. There are some people that think it is strange that an ex would want to be involved in helping improve conditions in a church that they are no longer a part of. Seems like I've heard that a time or two..... Scott The truth is often "stranger" than fiction. Remember the story of the Ram-aritan! For most of my working life I was the piggie in the middle and took the flak for everyone else. Heck, what's the difference. I'm for positive change, not destruction. They maybe consider me lost, but should I consider them likewise? Someone said, be the change you want to see. I'm not for "going back" but for going forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 10:12:18 GMT -5
Kinda like the Government Inspector who happens upon the poor guy who is in the process of fixing his ailing sewer system -- "Hi! I'm here to help you out!" Perhaps more like the engineer who sees a bridge needing built? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 3, 2010 11:22:32 GMT -5
There are good reasons for putting people in certain classes or categories, but I'm not concerned with that right now. The implementation of the document you are talking about requires that you do this. It is a concern. They should adopt a set of practices that do not involve the F&W or the workers. The guidelines should be directed at everyone and it should be clearly stated that the workers, in terms of abuse, hold no special office. This is not a complicated effort. 1) The parents/guardians are the caretakers of the children. It is their responsibility to be certain that they do not place their children in situations where they are in danger. 2) The parents need to be educated about where the danger can come from and what they need to tell their children to keep them safe. 3) The children need to be told specifically what is and what is not OK and be empowered to say "No" and report to their parents. This unfortunately is often a stumbling block because many parents do not want to empower their children. When you teach and allow a child to think and act on their own they will do that and many parents do not want to have to face the questions raised and decisions that the children will make. 4) Crimes and suspicion of crimes are brought first to the authorities. It is their job to sort them out, not the job of a leader with a vested interest in any of the actors. And this will lead us to where things are now. I could not support this model. The workers should be treated the same as all other men, not the same as people that have been raised up because of their office. And a quick search will reveal just how effective this has been. This is the only handbook I could locate. Notice how the reports are all contained within the church. From MANUAL OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (ECUSA): DIOCESAN POLICY FOR RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS OF LAITY SEXUAL MISCONDUCT A. PROCEDURES 1. If any person has a complaint against lay leaders of the Diocese of Newark, they are advised to contact their rector or Bishop.2. If lay leaders receive accusations of unethical conduct against them, they are advised to report them promptly to the rector. The rector will urge communication as well with the Bishop.
3. If members of the vestry, or executive committee of a parish or mission have become concerned that actions of their laity may have ethical implications that threaten the well- being of the parish or mission, they are encouraged to ask the assistance of the rector or Child Protection Advisor in investigating or offering judgment in the matter.
4. Charges of sexual misconduct from laity that come to the Bishop shall be referred by him to the rector for investigation or advice.
5. If an investigation of any complaint is indicated, the rector will consult with the Bishop to determine how to proceed.
6. The Rector shall take prompt steps to notify the accused of the complaint and to investigate the allegations. Investigations usually include separate personal interviews by the Rector with the person bringing the complaint, and with anyone else deemed necessary to obtain needed information.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And statements like: • If the child is not in immediate danger and/or you are not sure whether any abuse has occurred, discuss your concerns with you child protection advisor and Rector/Vicar. The Rector/Vicar may discuss your concerns with the Bishop who with the Diocesan Child Protection Advisor will decide with the Rector/Vicar what action to take, If you are not happy with their advice, you have a duty, by law, to take your concerns directly to the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).
• As soon as you suspect abuse or following preliminary discussions, report your concerns to DYFS.
• It may be agreed that the Rector/Vicar or Diocesan Child Protection Advisor will make the first approach to authorities. You will need, however, to speak to them about your concerns.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Even when the clergy is accused of sexual abuse reporting to the appropriate authorities is number 6 of 6. 6. All Charges of Sexual Abuse shall also be referred to appropriate law enforcement officials having jurisdiction and the Division of Youth and Family Services, 1-800-XXX-XXXX.
Why are the religious people involved in this at all? Is it a religious activity? Anyone other than the leaders of a group will say to go directly to the authorities. If a child has told an adult that they ate being abused in any sort of detail it needs to be reported. I am not really sure why the first item is there since the second item really presents a better course of action. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 12:19:45 GMT -5
Rational, I think I've wasted enough time with you on this subject. You are not just questioning me but it seems the whole world. Religious people are involved quite simply because they are involved. They have communities to govern. My energies would be best directed elsewhere. Thankfully I may have been provided with just such an......"opportunity!"
You regularly miss the point completely and I am sick and tired repeating myself six, seven or eight times and it just whistles over your head.
I am not interested in what "you" are prepared to accept, but what is best for the abused. There are many "naked truths" that you have failed to grasp.
A nice sidestep by the way when put on the spot about treating the F&W's church the same as any other church.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Oct 3, 2010 14:25:17 GMT -5
Frankly, ram there are 4 or 5 of you guys (likeable curmudgeons all, I suspect) who seem to take up most of the oxygen here and I don't have the energy to either sort through all of this, must less engage. I'm wondering since you all seem to engage endlessly with each other, if perhaps admin would set up a section just for you and your sparring partners. It'd be like taking away the scaffolding for the rest of us. (In the unlikely event I speak for anyone else.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 15:09:27 GMT -5
Stargazer, I've no energy left for this sort of thing either. I allow myself to get involved in stuff that really is going nowhere. I'm needing to reduce my involvement here. Thanks for the reminder (seriously!).
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 3, 2010 20:52:11 GMT -5
Rational, I think I've wasted enough time with you on this subject. You are not just questioning me but it seems the whole world. Of course I am questioning the whole world. Look at the way most are addressing something like CSA. Someone needs to ask the questions. Religious people are involved because they need to protect themselves. Odd that you support the idea of first reporting abuse to the members of the religion and only after doing that take it to the authorities. Does anyone who deals with this advise reporting abuse within the church first to the the clergy and then maybe to the authorities? Then redirect them. Oh I don't miss your points. You are upset because I do not accept them when you fail to provide any data to support them. Well, you do have your suspicions that I suspect may not be 100% accurate. You are not interested because I will not accept your premises without ay support. Like the work actually producing sexual criminals? You never mentioned treating the church as any other church. You wanted to treat sexual abuse in the F&W the same way as outlined in the CoE document and the mentioned guidebook. It was poor information and probably contributes to the problems the church is having. There was no sidestep. I said "No" and pointed out the flaws I found in their methods. |
|
