colac
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by colac on Aug 1, 2014 3:15:43 GMT -5
Get away from the meeting danger for a minute. A paedophile is not conserned with a kids religion,ethnicity,or family.Why was I called Fiddler Jacks little boy at school. The local boys all knew and many were scared of him because he abused them.,or tried also. It 1s a 24/7 mental disorder. In our day we were branded dirty minded or trouble makers if we even said a little of what was happening--explain that to a 4 or 5 year old child. Paedophiles keep one step ahead of parents,it is their mental nature,and sneakiness. Anywhere their is children they see it as a smorgasbord. All your hypotheticals are so far behind the mental mind of a criminal abuser of little children. Barbeques,family picnics,group outings especially if the area has a little shelter from vision,now get out of the cage bring your little children away with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 5:21:51 GMT -5
I do see what you did! And it's an improvement over my suggestion. So here's my revised suggestion: 1) Confront the offender directly and explain why parents don't want their children around him. 2) Move him to a meeting with no children, and tell him why 3) Explain to the new meeting why he's being moved there, and that in the event that visitors with children move to that meeting, he will be moved to another meeting with no children 4) Ask them, in the event that families with children show up as visitors, to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. 5) Have all of these discussions with the offender present 6) Give the new meeting an "opt-out" option 7) If the offender is not willing for these conditions, bid him adieu I can see the logic in this but I still think the move is wrong. leave him where he is and ask the meeting members to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. You seem to be more for a group reaction that allowing the parents to take responsibility for the protection of their children. There is no education of the children. At least it is not avoiding direct confrontation. My mistake -- I failed to add that piece. Yes, educate the children, the parents, the community as well. But also keep him away from meetings with children as much as possible. Parents' request for the offender to be kept in a meeting without children, parents being vigilant, and parents educating their children are three (of many) ways that parents can take responsibility for the protection of their children. The last two are vital; the first one is optional, depending on the situation. In an IH situation, if I were a parent, I'd demand it. If it were not honored, I'd find a different meeting for my children. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 5:35:26 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
"Just move him on" is a misrepresentation, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. "Keep him away from children" is a more accurate representation of the rationale for keeping him out of meetings with children as regular attendees, and monitoring him closely in the event of children visitors to the meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 5:51:28 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
DM, it's already been established that 1) there is nothing reportable and 2) IH has a long-term past of repeated creepiness (back seat of car, at the dining room table.) By all means -- first, report him! If the authorities response is "our hands are tied; SOL is past on all reported offenses; no grounds for a restraining order to keep him away from kids" -- then what? If your answer is "ban him from meetings entirely," I'm fine with that. But I also respect ECs point of view -- if he has repented, no current offenses, etc., a middle ground might be to allow him to attend a Sun. AM meeting, but not one with children, and no conventions, and no special meetings. Or would you still insist on allowing him to remain in the company of children? Because the authorities can take no action to keep him away from children, the parents should educate their children, be vigilant, but take no action to keep him away from their children either? |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 1, 2014 6:42:50 GMT -5
Moving an known offender from a meeting with children, banning a known offender from the ministry, banning a known offender from conventions = banning a known offender from serving in children's ministries in other churches.
Moving an offender (worker) from one state to another while covering up his offenses = moving an offending priest from one parish to another while covering up his offenses.
It seems to me you are comparing apples and oranges. We have tried to but you have failed to acknowledge or understand. Perhaps talking in general terms doesn't help, but sometimes giving details that describe real-life examples to prove a point is not possible on a public board.
Or, the disagreement comes down to this: whether parents have the right and the church responsibility to act on suspicions that are not reportable? If this is the case, then I will say that yes, they do have the right and responsibility, and I don't think I should have to explain or defend that position. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 7:16:15 GMT -5
The offender is not "just moved on". He is simply assigned to a different meeting. How could that possibly affect children outside of the church? Is he being assigned to a different meeting location because it is suspected he will abuse the children in his current meeting? Or do people in the current meeting just want him out, and they think he is really harmless regarding abusing children in the meeting? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 7:20:39 GMT -5
Moving an known offender from a meeting with children, banning a known offender from the ministry, banning a known offender from conventions = banning a known offender from serving in children's ministries in other churches.
Moving an offender (worker) from one state to another while covering up his offenses = moving an offending priest from one parish to another while covering up his offenses.
It seems to me you are comparing apples and oranges. I seems like you would like to make them look very different. So the parents do suspect that he is a threat to the safety of the children in the meeting? Of course the church has the right to do as they wish. They could make him an elder. Make him an overseer. Put him in charge of entertaining children at conventions. But that does not make any of those things the right thing to do. Can you justify them. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 1, 2014 8:59:07 GMT -5
I seems like you would like to make them look very different. So the parents do suspect that he is a threat to the safety of the children in the meeting? Of course the church has the right to do as they wish. They could make him an elder. Make him an overseer. Put him in charge of entertaining children at conventions. But that does not make any of those things the right thing to do. Can you justify them. Sure. This quote system is not working, it's chopping up the message. Anyway, I probably should not spend any more time on this conversation. I care about this issue and want to learn about it, but I am not even sure if you are being serious or just having fun. This suspicion is not new either... I've had it ever since I started participating on this board. I feel dumb now for not having followed my instincts! |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 1, 2014 13:42:36 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
DM, it's already been established that 1) there is nothing reportable and 2) IH has a long-term past of repeated creepiness (back seat of car, at the dining room table.) By all means -- first, report him! If the authorities response is "our hands are tied; SOL is past on all reported offenses; no grounds for a restraining order to keep him away from kids" -- then what? If your answer is "ban him from meetings entirely," I'm fine with that. But I also respect ECs point of view -- if he has repented, no current offenses, etc., a middle ground might be to allow him to attend a Sun. AM meeting, but not one with children, and no conventions, and no special meetings. Or would you still insist on allowing him to remain in the company of children? Because the authorities can take no action to keep him away from children, the parents should educate their children, be vigilant, but take no action to keep him away from their children either?
Had that actually been established that: 1) "there is nothing reportable"
Where did anyone actually say that he had been reported and the authorities response that: "our hands are tied; SOL is past on all reported offenses; no grounds for a restraining order to keep him away from kids.?"
I saw where the SOL had run out. Did those in the church know that for sure because they had reported him to the authorities and been told that?
Or were they taking the workers word that it was true that the SOL had run out?
Gene, of all people, I would not believe you would think that I would ever say, "ban him (or anyone) from meetings entirely."
Nor that you would think that I "would you still insist on allowing him to remain in the company of children?"
Or that they should "take no action to keep him away from their children either? "
My original concern was with all children, including the children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
I stopped commenting on this situation for quite awhile because of how CD had kept misrepresenting what I had said.
I think it shows precisely the results of how CD twisted my words to incriminate me (and others) and soon have everyone believing him.
et tu, Gene?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 1, 2014 14:02:07 GMT -5
So the parents do suspect that he is a threat to the safety of the children in the meeting? Of course the church has the right to do as they wish. They could make him an elder. Make him an overseer. Put him in charge of entertaining children at conventions. But that does not make any of those things the right thing to do. Can you justify them. Sure. This quote system is not working, it's chopping up the message. Anyway, I probably should not spend any more time on this conversation. I care about this issue and want to learn about it, but I am not even sure if you are being serious or just having fun. This suspicion is not new either... I've had it ever since I started participating on this board. I feel dumb now for not having followed my instincts!
No one is having "fun."
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 14:44:33 GMT -5
The offender is not "just moved on". He is simply assigned to a different meeting. How could that possibly affect children outside of the church? Is he being assigned to a different meeting location because it is suspected he will abuse the children in his current meeting? Or do people in the current meeting just want him out, and they think he is really harmless regarding abusing children in the meeting? Someone who has sexually abused children is not harmless. He was assigned to a different meeting because the folks thought it was the prudent thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 14:53:44 GMT -5
No one has come forward with a sound reason for moving the individual. As it has been stated - there is nothing to report. There was nothing to report, but the folks in the meeting were uncomfortable having their children meeting with a convicted sex offender. That was their prerogative - not yours. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 15:04:11 GMT -5
Anyway, I probably should not spend any more time on this conversation. I care about this issue and want to learn about it, but I am not even sure if you are being serious or just having fun. This suspicion is not new either... I've had it ever since I started participating on this board. I feel dumb now for not having followed my instincts! Having our posts pulled apart bit by bit can be OK up to a point to make us careful about how our words will be perceived, but taken to the extreme it will result in people not posting at all. It's looking like it will destroy this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 1, 2014 15:25:58 GMT -5
This quote system is not working, it's chopping up the message. Anyway, I probably should not spend any more time on this conversation. I care about this issue and want to learn about it, but I am not even sure if you are being serious or just having fun. This suspicion is not new either... I've had it ever since I started participating on this board. I feel dumb now for not having followed my instincts!
No one is having "fun."
I didn't mean to imply that I am leaving the board. Just giving up on this particular conversation and possibly on any with rational. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 1, 2014 16:54:11 GMT -5
Having our posts pulled apart bit by bit can be OK up to a point to make us careful about how our words will be perceived, but taken to the extreme it will result in people not posting at all. It's looking like it will destroy this forum. I see word games. I see mind games. I see a stunning lack of sense over what is appropriate. My reaction. My viewpoint. I own it. Totally. I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). But if someone needed to be voted off the island (definitely not my preference), it sure wouldn't have been Clearday. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 16:58:54 GMT -5
DM, it's already been established that 1) there is nothing reportable and 2) IH has a long-term past of repeated creepiness (back seat of car, at the dining room table.) By all means -- first, report him! If the authorities response is "our hands are tied; SOL is past on all reported offenses; no grounds for a restraining order to keep him away from kids" -- then what? If your answer is "ban him from meetings entirely," I'm fine with that. But I also respect ECs point of view -- if he has repented, no current offenses, etc., a middle ground might be to allow him to attend a Sun. AM meeting, but not one with children, and no conventions, and no special meetings. Or would you still insist on allowing him to remain in the company of children? Because the authorities can take no action to keep him away from children, the parents should educate their children, be vigilant, but take no action to keep him away from their children either?
Had that actually been established that: 1) "there is nothing reportable"
Where did anyone actually say that he had been reported and the authorities response that: "our hands are tied; SOL is past on all reported offenses; no grounds for a restraining order to keep him away from kids.?"
I saw where the SOL had run out. Did those in the church know that for sure because they had reported him to the authorities and been told that?
Or were they taking the workers word that it was true that the SOL had run out?
Gene, of all people, I would not believe you would think that I would ever say, "ban him (or anyone) from meetings entirely."
Nor that you would think that I "would you still insist on allowing him to remain in the company of children?"
Or that they should "take no action to keep him away from their children either? "
My original concern was with all children, including the children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
I stopped commenting on this situation for quite awhile because of how CD had kept misrepresenting what I had said.
I think it shows precisely the results of how CD twisted my words to incriminate me (and others) and soon have everyone believing him.
et tu, Gene?
You're right, DM -- I know that you would not insist on him remaining in the company of children, nor would you advocate parents taking no action to keep him away from their children. I apologize for writing that. Likewise, I think you know that neither I nor anyone else on this board is in favor of "just moving him on," as you wrote. Perhaps, in writing that, you did not intend that phrase to represent the position of anyone on this board. On the other point, though -- banning him from meetings entirely -- I was not sure where you stand. For myself, it would not take much convincing to make me an advocate for that action in the IH case! |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 1, 2014 17:18:13 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
DMG, I'm not certain how other churches deal with CSA convicts that are on parole, etc supposing that they are listed as sex offenders..I'd think they would not be allowed to go to any church gatherings anywhere due to their parole which states they must not be within so many feet, yards, blocks or miles of where children can routinely be expected to be. My concern is that the parents in the 2x2s should be brought up to snuff on what the ex con's parole guidelines are and IF they are the routine as I'v elisted above then the ex-con should not be welcomed in ANY 2x2 mtg. or conv.! But knowing the workers as I do, I doubt that anyone would be allowed to object if the worker that was in charge of said area made the judgment that the man had the right to be in the mtgs. sinced he'd paid his dues, and had repented etc. So it seems to me the whole thing rests on the back of the workers that allow or tell the ex CSA convicts that they are welcome in any mtg, etc! This is when the parents should keep their children from those mtgs and the parents themselves should not go to the mtgs. This is the only way they might have a chance to get the workers' attention that ex CSA convicts are NOT to be where children are routinely expected REGARDLESS of any other thing! That said, for those CSA perps that were never brought to their rightful legal ends should be held to the same ends...IMO |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 1, 2014 17:29:50 GMT -5
The offender is not "just moved on". He is simply assigned to a different meeting. How could that possibly affect children outside of the church? Is he being assigned to a different meeting location because it is suspected he will abuse the children in his current meeting? Or do people in the current meeting just want him out, and they think he is really harmless regarding abusing children in the meeting? Rat, AGAIN and again, the parents do not want the man in their mtg. because they know that it doesn't take but one little slip up and the ever vigilent CSA perp for some indecent action to take place...whether it proceeds on into illegal or not, is another story! However, when asking a CSA convict be removed to another mtg. where there ARE NO children, it is with the understanding also that the elder and all the regular friends within that mtg. are OK with that transfer and that it is understood that when there are to be children guests at any of their mtgs. that the CSA convict will be notified that he can't come to mtg. that day due to the children expected as guests. Do I suppose that will happen? No, I don't....I know for certain that when IH was forced to drive 50 mi. with his new bride to the only mtg. that would welcome him.....that it was with the workers' blessing....but then IH and his bride got that undone by moving to another state and another overseer! Nice, eh? These things need to be set up as church guidelines and they MUST be always followed, so that in order there is NO chance for an unwary child or an unwary parent caught unawares with an always alert perp for opportunity! Rat, I think you'd do well to read a bit up on Reuben Mata and his technique of CSA abuse and all....how many unawares of children were caught out, etc......he isn't the only one....but he's paid his dues legally and I'm sure eternally or will on the Judgment Day! |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 1, 2014 17:39:34 GMT -5
Anyway, I probably should not spend any more time on this conversation. I care about this issue and want to learn about it, but I am not even sure if you are being serious or just having fun. This suspicion is not new either... I've had it ever since I started participating on this board. I feel dumb now for not having followed my instincts! Having our posts pulled apart bit by bit can be OK up to a point to make us careful about how our words will be perceived, but taken to the extreme it will result in people not posting at all. It's looking like it will destroy this forum. I am wondering if this is not the purpose...I don't think anyone's that dense that they cannot understand the mechanics of what is being said in regards to parents with children assigned to a mtg. where there is an ex CSA convict! Maja, Fixit, DMG and others who are feeling shakey due to this continued onslaught of some appearing to not understand what we've tried to explain, just assign it there and toughen up and understand that there is likely some outstanding reason that is being done that way...so workers and friends might have some more reasons to talk about bitterness and hatred and not willing to forgive and give the poor CSA convicts another chance. When people are convicted of CSA they become a person without a country, without a home, without a place to make their claim.......they are never welcome anywhere unless they consort with other CSA perps! And why is this? It is the worst and most awful scourge of mankind to so vilely use innocent, vulnerable children for their nefarious pleasures! I can kind of see why the ex-worker would turn himself in to serve his time...his life likely was taking on a very ugly hue....and yet, he likely doesn't understand that is just the beginning of it! |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 17:47:00 GMT -5
Having our posts pulled apart bit by bit can be OK up to a point to make us careful about how our words will be perceived, but taken to the extreme it will result in people not posting at all. It's looking like it will destroy this forum. I see word games. I see mind games. I see a stunning lack of sense over what is appropriate. My reaction. My viewpoint. I own it. Totally. I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). But if someone needed to be voted off the island (definitely not my preference), it sure wouldn't have been Clearday. I wouldn't have voted Edgar Massey off the Island either. We didn't always agree, but we were able to hold an intelligent conversation I think. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 19:47:51 GMT -5
Is he being assigned to a different meeting location because it is suspected he will abuse the children in his current meeting? Or do people in the current meeting just want him out, and they think he is really harmless regarding abusing children in the meeting? Someone who has sexually abused children is not harmless. You are making some assumptions that are not supported by what has been presented. What was the crime? There is a wide range of crimes that are all called CSA and the outcomes for the offenders are s varried as the incidents. You know, I understand this. And I can see how fear would lead people to make this decision. I can see how overseers were moved from field to field when allegations were raised. And, as I said, they have the right to run their meetings as they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 19:57:49 GMT -5
Someone who has sexually abused children is not harmless. You are making some assumptions that are not supported by what has been presented. What was the crime? There is a wide range of crimes that are all called CSA and the outcomes for the offenders are s varried as the incidents. You know, I understand this. And I can see how fear would lead people to make this decision. I can see how overseers were moved from field to field when allegations were raised. And, as I said, they have the right to run their meetings as they wish. My understanding is that he was convicted of child sexual abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 20:42:38 GMT -5
I see word games. I see mind games. I see a stunning lack of sense over what is appropriate. Me too. Imagine yourself in a meeting 40 years ago when a stranger moves into town and joins your meeting. Over time it becomes known that the man was charged, tried, and convicted of sodomy with another male. He has stated that he is a homosexual. A family in meeting asks that he be moved to another meeting because they have children. Wouldn't the questions be raised as to why the family wants him moved? Did they fear he would harm their children? Or was it that they simply didn't like him because of their preconceived notions about homosexuals? Personally, I don't think moving the man would be at all appropriate. Now there is a man convicted of some sort of child abuse (no one seems to know if it was showing a child pornography or frottage) but parents with children want him moved. Why aren't the same questions raised? Did they fear he would harm their children? Do they suspect he is a threat to children? And what I post are mine as well and I could be (and have) also been wrong. But when someone misquotes me and distorts what I have posted I will always ask them to show where I posted what they claimed. Clearday never replied. I agree. I was hoping he would show where I posted a number of thoughts and ideas that he mistakenly attributed to me. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 20:51:33 GMT -5
My understanding is that he was convicted of child sexual abuse. Yes but that does not make him a pedophile, a serial abuser, or someone who will even molest again. It makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 20:55:06 GMT -5
I see word games. I see mind games. I see a stunning lack of sense over what is appropriate. Me too. Imagine yourself in a meeting 40 years ago when a stranger moves into town and joins your meeting. Over time it becomes known that the man was charged, tried, and convicted of sodomy with another male. He has stated that he is a homosexual. A family in meeting asks that he be moved to another meeting because they have children. Wouldn't the questions be raised as to why the family wants him moved? Did they fear he would harm their children? Or was it that they simply didn't like him because of their preconceived notions about homosexuals? Personally, I don't think moving the man would be at all appropriate. Now there is a man convicted of some sort of child abuse (no one seems to know if it was showing a child pornography or frottage) but parents with children want him moved. Why aren't the same questions raised? Did they fear he would harm their children? Do they suspect he is a threat to children? And what I post are mine as well and I could be (and have) also been wrong. But when someone misquotes me and distorts what I have posted I will always ask them to show where I posted what they claimed. Clearday never replied. I agree. I was hoping he would show where I posted a number of thoughts and ideas that he mistakenly attributed to me. The context of my position and argument is the IH scenario -- not a hypothetical homosexual or the person who was convicted of CSA. I have demonstrated that in such a situation, given the conditions I have described, moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting without children, preceded by ineffectual reports to authorities, and accompanied by education of the parents, the children, and the community, as well as vigilant observation of the offender by all, can be one part of an appropriate response to the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 20:58:55 GMT -5
When people are convicted of CSA they become a person without a country, without a home, without a place to make their claim.......they are never welcome anywhere unless they consort with other CSA perps! And part of this is because conventional wisdom regarding this, as it is in many cases, is not support by the data at hand. An overview piece from the Wall Street Journal.More detailed review.Even if you do not believe the magnitude of the numbers there are convicted CSA offenders that will not abuse children. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 21:01:39 GMT -5
The context of my position and argument is the IH scenario -- not a hypothetical homosexual or the person who was convicted of CSA. But Gene, I was not posting this in response to you... If not on the same page we are (I believe) in the same book. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 1, 2014 21:05:03 GMT -5
The context of my position and argument is the IH scenario -- not a hypothetical homosexual or the person who was convicted of CSA. But Gene, I was not posting this in response to you... If not on the same page we are (I believe) in the same book. I knew you'd come around to my way of thinking eventually.  |
|
