|
Post by openingact34 on Nov 10, 2023 13:20:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 10, 2023 14:58:43 GMT -5
Yep. They really said that. It might be somewhat careless wordsmithing, but it is quite revelatory. The arrogance is quite amazing. From the letter: "We have sought professional and responsible council all along..." "We are embracing the idea of a support/witness plan for those that need help and restoration for positive recovery in the fellowship, taking into consideration the needs of victims."No they didn't. (And it should be 'counsel' not 'council'.) I know they are being deliberately mealy-mouthed here. No responsible professional would advocate the emphasis on help and restoration for perps, while only taking "into consideration" the needs of victims. From the letter: "This fellowship and ministry doesn’t need big changes, but it does require each of us to be honest and accountable."Requiring real honesty and accountability, particularly from the ministry, looks like a HUGE change to me. Obviously, they don't really mean it. It's their version of Daniel 5:27. They've weighed themselves in the balances, and, yep, they are just fine.
|
|
help
Senior Member
Life Member "Australian Order of Old Bastards" AOOB.
Posts: 841
|
Post by help on Nov 10, 2023 16:18:03 GMT -5
Very hard to correct distorted thinking in a cult environment. It is obvious that William Irvine who founded the 2x2 Church had mental issues.Cults are started by charismatic individuals who are skilled at getting people to listen to them. They may have unusual ideas about reality, or they may even invent an ideology to promote.
In cult settings, critical thinking is often frowned upon, while absolute faith is rewarded. Guilt, shame and fear are also constantly wielded to slowly strip away an individual's identity. Free thinking, free will and free speech are limited in an environment where full obedience to leaders is required. Very hard for common sense to prevail and scary to think that the distorted thinking of one person can spread to others.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 10, 2023 17:23:25 GMT -5
It's beyond arrogant and very much in line with an earlier letter by the Alberta workers/staff when they said that all was well. Nothing to see here, keep moving!
They are making it impossible for the friends to know of allegations so that they can make informed decisions if they won't even hear about those who have come forward years later and that worker is still a worker or an elder. Yes, go to the police, but also inform the workers so they can inform the friends. The irony of them saying being honest and accountable when they don't even want to know is nuts. And, they also are known to have protected known abusers in the past. It isn't much wonder they don't want to take complaints from the friends regarding their past behavior. There really needs to be consequences for these guys!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 10, 2023 18:26:50 GMT -5
It is abundantly clear that this system has evolved into an almost perfect system for perps, both at giving them access to victims, and covering for them when they are done, so that there is little-to-no accountability. And, historically, there has been a pretty constant supply of new territory, new victims.
My question for a long time has been "Is this by accident or by design?"
Every time communications like the above come to light, I have to acknowledge that the answer is definitely tilting towards "By Design".
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Nov 10, 2023 23:45:50 GMT -5
"From today, we will not accept any complaints about the past. If there is anything illegal or criminal in any way, we are asking you to take it to the police. We will only deal with the present and the future."
The above excerpt from the letter may seem cold hearted, but its probably a policy they should have adopted from the onset. They really can't do much about complaints going back years or even decades, neither can the police. So the decision to only deal with current and future wrong doing is probably a logical decision. It might also encourage future victims to report a crime immediately instead of just complaining years after-the-fact.
I'm not suggesting that people (Overseers) who ignored or facilitated past abuse shouldn't be accountable, but that the current leadership can only deal with present problems.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 11, 2023 1:37:56 GMT -5
I suspect the people that wrote that arrogant piece of hubris live in an alternate reality. The police in many countries but possibly not the USA due to its arachaic laws, can do plenty to put the perpertrators through the justice system. This silly letter from the overseers will mean nothing in a court. Why does anyone take these clowns seriously anymore?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 11, 2023 14:22:55 GMT -5
"From today, we will not accept any complaints about the past. If there is anything illegal or criminal in any way, we are asking you to take it to the police. We will only deal with the present and the future." The above excerpt from the letter may seem cold hearted, but its probably a policy they should have adopted from the onset. They really can't do much about complaints going back years or even decades, neither can the police. So the decision to only deal with current and future wrong doing is probably a logical decision. It might also encourage future victims to report a crime immediately instead of just complaining years after-the-fact.
I'm not suggesting that people (Overseers) who ignored or facilitated past abuse shouldn't be accountable, but that the current leadership can only deal with present problems.
While I agree that they should take it to the police and that the overseers can't prosecute etc., I disagree with their decision to not listen to past allegations. There may be some that are just getting the courage to come forward, specifically because the person that raped them is still in the work and/or meetings with children. The overseers need to know this information so that they can make sure that 1. if they are still workers that they are removed from the work and 2. if they are elders or a friend that still attends meetings with children, that they be removed from meetings. I say that because even though parents may be more vigilant now, they would be better served to at least know of the ones that have allegations so they can make an informed decision based on knowledge. To treat all the workers like they are abusers because they don't know which ones to be concerned about, is not in the best interests of those workers that aren't abusers. While I do see that parents can't trust anyone, there would be different levels of vigilance if some are known to have allegations. Either the friends will need to get this information out to all the friends in their area, or the workers have to. It's easier for the workers to do this because they likely have all the email/phone information for all the friends in the area. The friends might not. But someone has to take responsibility for making important information like allegations known to everyone. Not just parents with children but also grandparents that might have care of their grandchildren. Scott is an overseer that has covered for abusers in the past so in his case there does need to be accountability and consequences for what he has done. This letter is him trying to not take any responsibility for what he did in the past. That's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by mrdobalina on Nov 11, 2023 14:42:07 GMT -5
I guess it's straight to the police then, without giving them a heads up first, which is probably for the best.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 11, 2023 15:52:12 GMT -5
I guess it's straight to the police then, without giving them a heads up first, which is probably for the best. It couldn't be better for perpetrators because the great majority of sexual abuse is never reported to police. As long as their grooming skills are fit for purpose they'll have a free ride and remain in good standing as "hearty" loyal members of the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 11, 2023 17:11:01 GMT -5
What an abrogation of responsibility.
We have seen, quite close to home, a case from over 30 years ago, bungled by the Police, but where the overseer has acted. There are also a number of other cases in the country, where the overseer has acted in preventing the perpetrator from attending meetings. The issue isn't about punishment, that is for the law. It is about protection of the victim(s), and also removing them from the temptation of being around other potential victims.
While I have mixed feelings about this, because it may seem like the workers are playing Sheriff, without the offender being found guilty in a court of law; in the case of CSA, other issues are at stake.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 11, 2023 20:12:27 GMT -5
What an abrogation of responsibility. We have seen, quite close to home, a case from over 30 years ago, bungled by the Police, but where the overseer has acted. There are also a number of other cases in the country, where the overseer has acted in preventing the perpetrator from attending meetings. The issue isn't about punishment, that is for the law. It is about protection of the victim(s), and also removing them from the temptation of being around other potential victims. While I have mixed feelings about this, because it may seem like the workers are playing Sheriff, without the offender being found guilty in a court of law; in the case of CSA, other issues are at stake. Yes, the law is responsible for punishment. The church is responsible for child protection. To keep children safe the church has got to stop holding sexual predators in high esteem.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 11, 2023 22:02:06 GMT -5
What an abrogation of responsibility. We have seen, quite close to home, a case from over 30 years ago, bungled by the Police, but where the overseer has acted. There are also a number of other cases in the country, where the overseer has acted in preventing the perpetrator from attending meetings. The issue isn't about punishment, that is for the law. It is about protection of the victim(s), and also removing them from the temptation of being around other potential victims. While I have mixed feelings about this, because it may seem like the workers are playing Sheriff, without the offender being found guilty in a court of law; in the case of CSA, other issues are at stake. Yes, the law is responsible for punishment. The church is responsible for child protection. To keep children safe the church has got to stop holding sexual predators in high esteem. I think too, the church responsible for avoiding the triggering of victims, by ensuring that they are not in proximity to their offender(s)
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 11, 2023 23:57:10 GMT -5
Yes, the law is responsible for punishment. The church is responsible for child protection. To keep children safe the church has got to stop holding sexual predators in high esteem. I think too, the church responsible for avoiding the triggering of victims, by ensuring that they are not in proximity to their offender(s) Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings?
|
|
jwatt
Junior Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by jwatt on Nov 12, 2023 0:38:20 GMT -5
I think too, the church responsible for avoiding the triggering of victims, by ensuring that they are not in proximity to their offender(s) Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings? Wouldn't have thought so!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 12, 2023 1:04:42 GMT -5
I think too, the church responsible for avoiding the triggering of victims, by ensuring that they are not in proximity to their offender(s) Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings? Did admin just remove the name of the upskirt cameraman from my post. Doug Martin was convicted in court and does not have name suppression. His name and his conviction are in the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 12, 2023 1:07:34 GMT -5
I think too, the church responsible for avoiding the triggering of victims, by ensuring that they are not in proximity to their offender(s) Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings? Yes, there have been a few who were asked to not attend meetings, conventions or social gatherings of the friends.
|
|
|
Post by dsmith on Nov 12, 2023 1:40:22 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings? Wouldn't have thought so! Nope they just continue to sweep it under the carpet!
|
|
jwatt
Junior Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by jwatt on Nov 12, 2023 1:45:45 GMT -5
Wouldn't have thought so! Nope they just continue to sweep it under the carpet! That's one thing they are good at!
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 12, 2023 14:12:58 GMT -5
Correct me if I am wrong but has the NZ church made some advances recently such as the upskirt cameraman, and the baby sitter rapist being told not to come to meetings? Did admin just remove the name of the upskirt cameraman from my post. Doug Martin was convicted in court and does not have name suppression. His name and his conviction are in the public domain. He, and some other well known names have been asked to not attend. The oversight in NZ certainly isn't mucking around now, and that is to be applauded. Credit where credit is due.
The dithering of the previous oversight seems to be in the past now.
Of course, where convictions haven't occurred for various reasons (eg; Police bungling in one case) they can't really make public statements without raising issues of privacy, so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unless an offender is proven guilty without name suppression, what can they do? I don't know the answer. But in the case of CSA and what is known about triggering, and the dififculties in rehabilitation, when someone is stood down, people will make their own judgements. And Fixit is right, the church's job isn't administering the law, but keeping children and victims safe.
The issues of sweeping under the carpet tends to be more the domain of the laity of the older generation who are just not comfortable acknowledging the issues of CSA. I think it's more of the Ostrich head in the sand syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 12, 2023 14:32:49 GMT -5
Did admin just remove the name of the upskirt cameraman from my post. Doug Martin was convicted in court and does not have name suppression. His name and his conviction are in the public domain. He, and some other well known names have been asked to not attend. The oversight in NZ certainly isn't mucking around now, and that is to be applauded. Credit where credit is due. The dithering of the previous oversight seems to be in the past now.
Of course, where convictions haven't occurred for various reasons (eg; Police bungling in one case) they can't really make public statements without raising issues of privacy, so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unless an offender is proven guilty without name suppression, what can they do? I don't know the answer. But in the case of CSA and what is known about triggering, and the dififculties in rehabilitation, when someone is stood down, people will make their own judgements. And Fixit is right, the church's job isn't administering the law, but keeping children and victims safe. The issues of sweeping under the carpet tends to be more the domain of the laity of the older generation who are just not comfortable acknowledging the issues of CSA. I think it's more of the Ostrich head in the sand syndrome.
It's because of pressure to attend to the issues rather than ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 12, 2023 14:41:20 GMT -5
He, and some other well known names have been asked to not attend. The oversight in NZ certainly isn't mucking around now, and that is to be applauded. Credit where credit is due. The dithering of the previous oversight seems to be in the past now.
Of course, where convictions haven't occurred for various reasons (eg; Police bungling in one case) they can't really make public statements without raising issues of privacy, so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unless an offender is proven guilty without name suppression, what can they do? I don't know the answer. But in the case of CSA and what is known about triggering, and the dififculties in rehabilitation, when someone is stood down, people will make their own judgements. And Fixit is right, the church's job isn't administering the law, but keeping children and victims safe. The issues of sweeping under the carpet tends to be more the domain of the laity of the older generation who are just not comfortable acknowledging the issues of CSA. I think it's more of the Ostrich head in the sand syndrome.
It's because of pressure to attend to the issues rather than ignore them. No doubt. But at least they made the right call, unlike the oversight in some US States that has chosen to ignore, and even push back against some of that pressure.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 12, 2023 15:44:40 GMT -5
The issues of sweeping under the carpet tends to be more the domain of the laity of the older generation who are just not comfortable acknowledging the issues of CSA. I think it's more of the Ostrich head in the sand syndrome. Hesitation to deal with CSA issues is largely due to fears of splitting the church and those fears are not unfounded.
|
|
jwatt
Junior Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by jwatt on Nov 12, 2023 19:18:40 GMT -5
The issues of sweeping under the carpet tends to be more the domain of the laity of the older generation who are just not comfortable acknowledging the issues of CSA. I think it's more of the Ostrich head in the sand syndrome. Hesitation to deal with CSA issues is largely due to fears of splitting the church and those fears are not unfounded. The church needs to split to get rid of all the perps and those responsible for all the coverups.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 12, 2023 19:39:20 GMT -5
Hesitation to deal with CSA issues is largely due to fears of splitting the church and those fears are not unfounded. The church needs to split to get rid of all the perps and those responsible for all the coverups.What would the split look like? Those who are AGAINST CSA vs Those who are FOR CSA? A few major denominations are now having a schism over the LGBTQ+ issue. Here I can see where reasonable well intentioned people, using the bible can disagree on this issue, but with CSA I can't see how there can be two sides to that question.
|
|
|
Post by dsmith on Nov 12, 2023 20:02:11 GMT -5
The church needs to split to get rid of all the perps and those responsible for all the coverups. What would the split look like? Those who are AGAINST CSA vs Those who are FOR CSA? A few major denominations are now having a schism over the LGBTQ+ issue. Here I can see where reasonable well intentioned people, using the bible can disagree on this issue, but with CSA I can't see how there can be two sides to that question. Not wanting the church to split is a very poor excuse for CSA not being dealt with properly.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 12, 2023 20:25:03 GMT -5
Hesitation to deal with CSA issues is largely due to fears of splitting the church and those fears are not unfounded. The church needs to split to get rid of all the perps and those responsible for all the coverups. You make an interesting point. Everyone in the church does need to make a stand for moral clarity as opposed to religious ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 12, 2023 21:00:14 GMT -5
I think it may somewhat more nuanced than for or against it! However, it may come down to some having to make a stand about not meeting with those who do not want to make a stand against offenders.
|
|