col
New Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by col on Aug 5, 2014 0:56:53 GMT -5
OK, so if the workers want to hide their mates criminal acts from the congregation, who is responsible for making sure they comply with their bail conditions ? If they turn up at a meeting or convention where their are children, who takes action ??
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 5, 2014 1:56:36 GMT -5
It will have to come to that Rat or there will be more then 60,000 people leaving out of the 200,000 citizenship within the 2x2 religion! Although as it was mentioned IF the convicted CSA perp has parole guidelines that he is NOT to be within so many feet, yards, blocks of where children are expected to be and the workers allow the perp to go to the mtgs. where even a visiting child is known to happen...then the workers should be held in contempt of court! Right? Who is responsible to live by the terms of the court order? The workers? No. Who is responsible to enforce the terms of the court order? The workers? No. The workers are not part of this at all any more than it would be my fault if I told you to drive 90 MPH in a school zone where the posted speed limit is 20 MPH and you got stopped. It is you making the decision to drive 90 MPH. You, and you alone, have to shoulder responsibilitry for your actions. I know the workers make good scape goats but people have to start being responsible. The workers insist on controlling the church, so they either need to step up and be proactive with CSA or allow the laity to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 7:46:27 GMT -5
OK, so if the workers want to hide their mates criminal acts from the congregation, who is responsible for making sure they comply with their bail conditions ? If they turn up at a meeting or convention where their are children, who takes action ?? Anyone can call the authorities and report them. Perhaps your question is how do the members in general learn of the court's conditions. It would be nice if those who are aware would share the information. It is public record but this doesn't mean everyone knows. However, it is the same if a convicted offender goes into a recreation building where there are children and no one knows he is an offender. There are flaws in the system. Life is fraught with dangers. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 7:51:06 GMT -5
Who is responsible to live by the terms of the court order? The workers? No. Who is responsible to enforce the terms of the court order? The workers? No. The workers are not part of this at all any more than it would be my fault if I told you to drive 90 MPH in a school zone where the posted speed limit is 20 MPH and you got stopped. It is you making the decision to drive 90 MPH. You, and you alone, have to shoulder responsibilitry for your actions. I know the workers make good scape goats but people have to start being responsible. The workers insist on controlling the church, so they either need to step up and be proactive with CSA or allow the laity to do it. Controlling the church and being responsible for the enforcement of the court orders of an individual are two different things. One is a spiritual issue and the other a legal issue. Lumping them together benefits no one. For the individual, failure to comply with the terms and conditions or their parole can have serious consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 7:56:22 GMT -5
I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? You could ask the same questions of the authorities who stipulate that child sex offenders are to remain a distance away from children. You could and their decisions are generally based on evidence, professional guidance, legal rulings, not driven by their emotions (one would hope), speculation and rumors, so they could provide facts to back up their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 5, 2014 13:49:38 GMT -5
The workers insist on controlling the church, so they either need to step up and be proactive with CSA or allow the laity to do it. Controlling the church and being responsible for the enforcement of the court orders of an individual are two different things. One is a spiritual issue and the other a legal issue. Lumping them together benefits no one. For the individual, failure to comply with the terms and conditions or their parole can have serious consequences. Was there a court order involved in the case being discussed? |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 5, 2014 14:00:41 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? 1. To compare a black person with a convicted child abuser is racist and offensive. 2. In the case being discussed, I don't recall any suggestion that meeting arrangements were changed "without saying why". |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 17:11:37 GMT -5
Controlling the church and being responsible for the enforcement of the court orders of an individual are two different things. One is a spiritual issue and the other a legal issue. Lumping them together benefits no one. For the individual, failure to comply with the terms and conditions or their parole can have serious consequences. Was there a court order involved in the case being discussed? I don't know. I only have information that has been made publicly available. This is where problems arise. I respond to sharingtheriches about her post and then you take that response and take a different tack. The workers, of almost anyone else, are not responsible for making sure an individual is following the court's orders. My response was to sharingtheriches and her wondering is the workers would get into trouble if there were a court order and they assigned the person to a meeting with children. And then you asked if there was a court order. I could be wrong but I can sense the changing wind and feel a change in tack! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 17:14:39 GMT -5
They are not criminals until they are charged and convicted. They moved people who they felt were a threat to children. They moved people who were accused of sexually abusing children, but they probably felt they were reformed and wouldn't reoffend. Alternatively, they blamed the abused children. I would rather not speculate on what they felt and focus on what they did - move people from one location to another to satisfy the demands of parents whose children were abused and/or parents who feared the individual was a possible threat to their children. |
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 5, 2014 17:41:37 GMT -5
Once a paedophile on an order,a history of child abuse,lets hope they are not a worker of sect and going into homes with kids also,check for the sake of children the conditions of the order,and leader ship is responsable to see it strictly kept to protect the juniors in any congregation. If allowed and the mental state of a paedophile starts over riding control. Kick em out. and elders are otherwise responsible
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2014 19:42:13 GMT -5
Once a paedophile on an order,a history of child abuse,lets hope they are not a worker of sect and going into homes with kids also,check for the sake of children the conditions of the order,and leader ship is responsable to see it strictly kept to protect the juniors in any congregation. If allowed and the mental state of a paedophile starts over riding control. Kick em out. and elders are otherwise responsible Has anyone been identified as a pedophile? The person on parole is responsible for adhering to the terms of the court order. The workers certainly could kick the person out for any reason they wish but a simple report to the parole officer is the best way to handle it. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 5, 2014 20:20:37 GMT -5
They moved people who were accused of sexually abusing children, but they probably felt they were reformed and wouldn't reoffend. Alternatively, they blamed the abused children. I would rather not speculate on what they felt and focus on what they did - move people from one location to another to satisfy the demands of parents whose children were abused and/or parents who feared the individual was a possible threat to their children. Do parents have a right to choose who they don't want to expose their children to? |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 6, 2014 9:58:45 GMT -5
Was there a court order involved in the case being discussed? I don't know. I only have information that has been made publicly available. This is where problems arise. I respond to sharingtheriches about her post and then you take that response and take a different tack. The workers, of almost anyone else, are not responsible for making sure an individual is following the court's orders. My response was to sharingtheriches and her wondering is the workers would get into trouble if there were a court order and they assigned the person to a meeting with children. And then you asked if there was a court order. I could be wrong but I can sense the changing wind and feel a change in tack! Why would the workers not be liable for the person's disobedience of his/her parole? It would seem to me that as the man's ministers that they would stand a great chance of being made responsible for encouraging the paroled person to abscond/disobey the parole! I mean after all, Rat, we're dealing with a religion that workers are in complete control of whoever puts themselves under their auspices! I know you don't believe that nor see that...but for a good number of the f&w's it is true...that whatever the workers so well choose to do or say, that is "law and gospel"....no one would dare buck up against that. That is the reason for some young couples with children for not staying in the fellowship and/or refusing to go to mtgs. and that is because they cannot feel it safe to abide the workers' edicts and they also know if the buck up against those edicts that they will pay for that! And the reason being there are no checks or balances as to what workers can or cannot do! |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 6, 2014 10:18:02 GMT -5
I don't know. I only have information that has been made publicly available. This is where problems arise. I respond to sharingtheriches about her post and then you take that response and take a different tack. The workers, of almost anyone else, are not responsible for making sure an individual is following the court's orders. My response was to sharingtheriches and her wondering is the workers would get into trouble if there were a court order and they assigned the person to a meeting with children. And then you asked if there was a court order. I could be wrong but I can sense the changing wind and feel a change in tack! Why would the workers not be liable for the person's disobedience of his/her parole? It would seem to me that as the man's ministers that they would stand a great chance of being made responsible for encouraging the paroled person to abscond/disobey the parole! I mean after all, Rat, we're dealing with a religion that workers are in complete control of whoever puts themselves under their auspices! I know you don't believe that nor see that...but for a good number of the f&w's it is true...that whatever the workers so well choose to do or say, that is "law and gospel"....no one would dare buck up against that. That is the reason for some young couples with children for not staying in the fellowship and/or refusing to go to mtgs. and that is because they cannot feel it safe to abide the workers' edicts and they also know if the buck up against those edicts that they will pay for that! And the reason being there are no checks or balances as to what workers can or cannot do! While they are likely morally and ethically responsible for what they do and say, bottom line they aren't legally responsible for what a convicted offender does in that sense. Now if they don't report CSA and attempt to hide it, that's somewhat different. But if it's just placing a person in a meeting with children when the offender has a condition to not be around minor children, that is the offenders responsibility to not break the conditions of parole etc. They have a choice of not doing what the workers say. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2014 10:20:12 GMT -5
I would rather not speculate on what they felt and focus on what they did - move people from one location to another to satisfy the demands of parents whose children were abused and/or parents who feared the individual was a possible threat to their children. Do parents have a right to choose who they don't want to expose their children to? Of course they do. Some parents might want to keep their children at home and in the house all of the time. Some may want them to see only a select number of people. Of course, keeping them chained in the basement would probably raise concerns with CPS but then, how would they know?!? And the children would be safe from child abusers - well, abusers other than the parents. What parents don't have the right to do is to force someone that they think might be a threat to their children to move so they can be there. They cannot, for example, force someone to leave a public meeting place simply because they feel uncomfortable bringing their children to that location while that person is present. Should there be legal constraints regarding the individual this would be a different conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2014 10:32:07 GMT -5
I don't know. I only have information that has been made publicly available. This is where problems arise. I respond to sharingtheriches about her post and then you take that response and take a different tack. The workers, of almost anyone else, are not responsible for making sure an individual is following the court's orders. My response was to sharingtheriches and her wondering is the workers would get into trouble if there were a court order and they assigned the person to a meeting with children. And then you asked if there was a court order. I could be wrong but I can sense the changing wind and feel a change in tack! Why would the workers not be liable for the person's disobedience of his/her parole? For the same reason that I would not be responsible if I told you to drive 90 MPH through a school yard. You have to take responsibility for your actions.Sure - and the person could claim he "was just following orders".If someone puts themselves under someone's control they also have to take responsibility for doing that.It is not whether I believe it or not. If you come to me and say you need something to eat and I tell you to go into the store and just steal what you want, I might be accused of giving you bad advice but not for your theft of food. That is their choice, for whatever reason.The people are adults. They need to take responsibility for their actions and stop using others as scape goats for their poor decisions. You can't go through life claiming - "It is not my fault, the workers made me do it." Well, after reading these message boards for awhile I guess perhaps some people can... |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 6, 2014 17:30:56 GMT -5
Why would the workers not be liable for the person's disobedience of his/her parole? For the same reason that I would not be responsible if I told you to drive 90 MPH through a school yard. You have to take responsibility for your actions.Sure - and the person could claim he "was just following orders".If someone puts themselves under someone's control they also have to take responsibility for doing that.It is not whether I believe it or not. If you come to me and say you need something to eat and I tell you to go into the store and just steal what you want, I might be accused of giving you bad advice but not for your theft of food. That is their choice, for whatever reason.The people are adults. They need to take responsibility for their actions and stop using others as scape goats for their poor decisions. You can't go through life claiming - "It is not my fault, the workers made me do it." Well, after reading these message boards for awhile I guess perhaps some people can... Yes, there have been some mighty nice people who have been trained/told that what the workers have told/educated them to do or not to do is the same as hearing it from God...so most people in a spiritual pressure situation is going to obey those edicts even if it brings trouble on their own heads....then they will be told that yes, it is normal to suffer persecution when one is trying to do God's Will! And I'm not joking on this matter! So in light of what you've written above, in the case of IH and his new bride while still in the SE of the US.....friends in that area demanded that the workers send them to a meeting where there were no children routinely found...which the workers did. That caused IH and his new bride to have to drive 50 mi. one way to go to mtg. Then it wasn't long until they moved back toward the west...I have no idea who has demanded what in that scene! But the friends' demands in that case were not correct apparently since IH had NO legal parole guidelines to follow since his offences seemingly were all SOL! WOW! Just think, folks....all those young parents who demanded this action were actually working against IH's rights! Sheesh! |
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 6, 2014 18:21:24 GMT -5
Rational,please another Lietch,Jones,Frandle,Robinson way of thinking? Every mature citizen is responsible for others protection.Trying to hide from their biblical "PASTORAL" responsability to their "FLOCK,as well as hiding as with Barry the real dangerous amongst children." Would you take your kids to a workers picnic (convention)?
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2014 18:33:03 GMT -5
Yes, there have been some mighty nice people who have been trained/told that what the workers have told/educated them to do or not to do is the same as hearing it from God...so most people in a spiritual pressure situation is going to obey those edicts even if it brings trouble on their own heads....then they will be told that yes, it is normal to suffer persecution when one is trying to do God's Will! And I'm not joking on this matter! You can write about the moral and ethical aspects of this but suggesting the workers will be charged does not have a lot of legal footing. OK. It is their meeting they can do as they wish even if it is not the best solution.In that case it is probably best not to speculate. The legal system is not without its flaws but it is what people live by. As far as the meetings go, IH doesn't have any rights. People can decide who can and cannot come into their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2014 18:42:54 GMT -5
Rational,please another Lietch,Jones,Frandle,Robinson way of thinking? Every mature citizen is responsible for others protection.Trying to hide from their biblical "PASTORAL" responsability to their "FLOCK,as well as hiding as with Barry the real dangerous amongst children." Would you take your kids to a workers picnic (convention)? I do attend functions where there are workers present. And at times I am accompanied by my grandchildren. Ultimately, when they are with me, I am responsible for their well being in every sense of the word. Surprisingly, as an adult, I can manage to keep track of multiple active children. Plus there is my long-suffering wife who can also manage children. But everyone makes mistakes. At one time we had our children watched for a short time every day as we worked multiple jobs. In hind sight, although nothing untoward happened it was not the wisest choice we have made. My solution is to move beyond the mistakes. Do you think every mature citizen is responsible for others protection in a legal sense or a moral sense?? |
|
col
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by col on Aug 6, 2014 20:49:19 GMT -5
I would have thought that the worker who is in charge of each convention ground is responsible for who is allowed on the grounds. He would be liable if Chris was caught on the grounds & the authorities found out. Chris can't be allowed to do whatever he feels like, or David Leitch really should be responsible as he runs the show in Vic. Ultimately the organisation is responsible, even if they don't think they are !
|
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 6, 2014 20:55:57 GMT -5
Sorry Rational,but,that time in my life we kids were sickened through the meetings knowing FIDDLER WAS WAITING TO POUNCE. During the cuppa time all in same area WHAM .a coin or trinket would drop into your and others pockets. Then you as a little scared kid what did you do or say? THEN every oppoutunity that arose a large hand into your pocket searching for much more than a coin.NOBODY EVER COMMENTED AT THOSE HORRID OCCASSIONS THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN THE LOCAL AND 2x2s GOSSIP TREE! This monster predater was one of the three workers (he had not long been made an ex),another much later retired still a 2x2,third sent off shore,and is a psuedo good boy elder in Uraquay.In the tragic death of Ian Parker. WE ARE ALL RESPONSABLE FOR OUR NEIGHBOURS WELFARE.I know there is no Social or Welfare Systems in the sect,that means Pastoral guidence and care is also lacking. Just read a couple of verses please and then expand from that,..Ephesians ch 4,v.11/12 (edification for a church) ,! Corinthains ch 9 ,v.5/6. Wholeness of a body of a fellowship,as 1 Timothy ch 3. If we are mature enough to understand such completing verses as to how a church body should funtion/ run,then we are mature enough to demand its activation and practice amongst ones own fellowship. Many intelligent theologians and schollars have done/written many articles on these subjects,try several in each area.Yes protection of fellow human beings should sit on the shoulders of an active committed to serving CHRIST christian person,even unto personal suffering and hurt. Be Rational but be a demander of Biblical "TRUTH".
|
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 6, 2014 20:57:58 GMT -5
THANKS COL.I FEEL BETTER NOW YOU HAVE SPOKEN.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Aug 6, 2014 21:30:24 GMT -5
WE put our governments in! We accept the legislated laws (if not we can object). So if our laws make an order or demand be carried out to protect us and our fellow citizens, that is all of usare responsable to see and be aware if we know it is being ignored ,including the evasive preachers and overseers,and the ones who one once explained "we pay taxes to look after these matters.ours is to spread the word" Well that is denying of the very purpose of a Living Gospels word.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2014 7:33:54 GMT -5
I would have thought that the worker who is in charge of each convention ground is responsible for who is allowed on the grounds. In most jurisdictions it is the owner of the property. Or, if the property has been leased/rented, it is the person who has leased/rented it. Depending on the event, guests are usually at the discretion of the owner/renter. Very doubtful. That would imply that the owner of every property would have knowledge of the parole/court orders of every person who was on the property. It would also turn property owners into policemen and parole officers, agents of the court.I am not sure you understand the function and purpose of the parole system. The state/court releases a prisoner who agrees to abide by certain conditions. In some cases this is before the completion of the complete sentence period. For CSA offenders, they are also releases on the condition that they abide by the restrictions imposed by the court. In some cases this even means they must go to the residents in the neighborhood they live and introduce themselves and state the conditions imposed by the court. They, and they alone, are responsible to follow these conditions. If they are found in a school with children in violation of the conditions of their release saying "Bob invited me." is not an excuse since it is possible Bob did not know anything regarding the courts conditions. No. Ultimately the individual is responsible for abiding by the conditions imposed by the court. The conditions were not imposed on the organization ("You must prevent person 'X' from entering your convention/meeting if there are young children present."). They are imposed on the individual ("You must remain 500 yards from areas where there are children or where children are expected to congregate unless you are accompanied by an court approved chaperone."). Of course, if the organization was aware of the conditions and knew the individual was in violation they could inform the authorities, as could any other person, and the authorities would act on the violations. You could be mixing legal and ethical considerations. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2014 7:47:32 GMT -5
Sorry Rational,but,that time in my life we kids were sickened through the meetings knowing FIDDLER WAS WAITING TO POUNCE. During the cuppa time all in same area WHAM .a coin or trinket would drop into your and others pockets. Then you as a little scared kid what did you do or say? THEN every oppoutunity that arose a large hand into your pocket searching for much more than a coin.NOBODY EVER COMMENTED AT THOSE HORRID OCCASSIONS THEY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN THE LOCAL AND 2x2s GOSSIP TREE! This monster predater was one of the three workers (he had not long been made an ex),another much later retired still a 2x2,third sent off shore,and is a psuedo good boy elder in Uraquay.In the tragic death of Ian Parker. WE ARE ALL RESPONSABLE FOR OUR NEIGHBOURS WELFARE.I know there is no Social or Welfare Systems in the sect,that means Pastoral guidence and care is also lacking. Just read a couple of verses please and then expand from that,..Ephesians ch 4,v.11/12 (edification for a church) ,! Corinthains ch 9 ,v.5/6. Wholeness of a body of a fellowship,as 1 Timothy ch 3. If we are mature enough to understand such completing verses as to how a church body should funtion/ run,then we are mature enough to demand its activation and practice amongst ones own fellowship. Many intelligent theologians and schollars have done/written many articles on these subjects,try several in each area.Yes protection of fellow human beings should sit on the shoulders of an active committed to serving CHRIST christian person,even unto personal suffering and hurt. Be Rational but be a demander of Biblical "TRUTH". It sounds like you are confusing the legal responsibilities and the ethical considerations. I try to be rational but when you start looking at 'biblical truth' there is difficulty. |
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 7, 2014 17:15:10 GMT -5
Biblical truths cannot be diveded from moral truths if it conflicts with the Christian responsabilities,EG, love your neighbour as YOURSELF,so protect and be responsable all around you,a BIBLICAL DEMAND.a Law by Jesus Christ?
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2014 22:47:28 GMT -5
Biblical truths cannot be diveded from moral truths if it conflicts with the Christian responsabilities,EG, love your neighbour as YOURSELF,so protect and be responsable all around you,a BIBLICAL DEMAND.a Law by Jesus Christ? I sense these are your beliefs and they do not need to be rational. |
|
