|
Post by no name on Mar 27, 2008 9:09:17 GMT -5
From what you have posted, your 'solutions' are all focused on eliminating the 2x2s. This is true - the child molestation issue is a thin veil for his real platform, which something else entirely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2008 9:40:46 GMT -5
I agree that educating children and parents about child abuse is a very important 'layer of protection' --- This includes a radical deprogramming of the 2x2 'unquestioning trust for workers' in their doctrinal role as the highest, exclusive and unquestionable 'servants of God'. This is not just a 2x2 issue. The same happens in many religions and the education needs to be broader than just a single sect. It is true that this is the focus of this group but until you can see that the problem is catholic and needs to be treated as such the sooner change can be implemented. Because sexual abuse exists in other organization is no justification for the enormous accommodation 2x2 doctrine provides for sexual abuse however little or much these weaknesses may be utilized. -- There are some unique aspects of 2x2 doctrine that make this possible -- and they obviously have had horrible consequences for a large number of victims. This list bears witness of this.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 27, 2008 10:51:18 GMT -5
What I was saying is that the same-sex-couples configuration that is one of the peculiarities of the 2x2 doctrinal construction would imply that they would know what each other is doing. Even within the group itself it is well understood wisdom that if you want to know what a certain worker is really like, ask the folks that have been his/her companions. I can guarantee that the first person to suspect sexual deviation in a worker would likely be their companion. Of course, suspecting is not the same as having forensic evidence. Unfortunately this suspicion most often motivates solid 2x2 workers to make sure they keep clear of ever being left with 'forensic evidence', as this would only create problems for them amongst leadership. And it would place the responsibility on them to report to authorities. Better and easier to just 'look the other way' so you don't get left holding the bag with something concrete to report!!! Edgar, We all know how powerful carnal imagination is and how far imaginations/suspicions can be removed from reality. This should make all of us be very careful when dealing with suspicion and imagination. I'm curious how this kind of thing went for you personally when you were a worker. You have direct personal experience with what you are saying - did you know your fellow workers this well when you were a worker? Did you have suspicions about others, did others have them about you? If so were the suspicions ever proven to be true or false? In your direct personal experience were you or others generally careless or careful with suspicions like these? Did being careful with suspicions like these ever have a negative outcome? thanks, Jesse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2008 12:43:24 GMT -5
Fair questions --- A worker can know his companion as well as he chooses to. There is a fairly major difference in being the 'less responsible' worker in a pair configuration, being with another with 'equal group status', and being the 'responsible' worker.
As the younger worker sometimes could understand that the older worker wanted to be alone -- this of course didn't neccesarily mean anything unsuitable was in the doing, and mostly wasn't -- but most of us are a bit sensitive to this attitude and kept track of patterns. Mostly a person was glad enough to get away and do ones own thing -- and of course avoiding any situation to critisize the 'wiser man' is a fairly important to survive with nerves intact. My naive begining in the work made for a lot of questions now that I look back on those years.
Equal status probably the easiest to detect any problems .. because it was harder to shut each other out of unexplainable situations. -- But of course the competition aspect of 2 equals together, probably reduces the risks as well.
Being the responsible worker in the field made it fairly easy to keep track of what was going on -- but even there the motivation wasn't very high to dig into what may turn out to be garbage. It would reflect on me as well --
I don't recall being aware of child molesting at the time -- but I was as good at looking the other way as anyone else - with my perspective of today many memories raise questions. -- Hanky panky otherwise isn't that uncommon and is usually well understood by companions. Fortunately most folks involved in such turn up missing on the workers list a few years down the road. -- Typically a year or two on the resting section then all of sudden they are gone. 3 out of 4 starting workers last less than a life time -- most of them vanish with bad nerves of some description. A significant number leave the fellowship after a few years.
I have been surprized at several of my peers 60+ now have opted out the last few years. We were 13 that started out within a few years in the mid-60s .. only 5 are still in the work .. and two of them have been on and off the resting list.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 27, 2008 14:48:00 GMT -5
Because sexual abuse exists in other organization is no justification for the enormous accommodation 2x2 doctrine provides for sexual abuse however little or much these weaknesses may be utilized. -- You can continue to claim this but you offer little proof. There is abuse within the F&W organization. Enormous accommodation implies that it is more so than in other places. After asking you for something to back up this claim and receiving nothing from you other that a simple reiteration of the unfounded claim I have reached the conclusion that this is nothing more than an accusation you have developed from whole cloth. There are unique aspects of the F&W group and there are unique aspects of many groups. Schools, retreats, camping outings, etc. Even the Boy Scouts have had their problems as well as gymnastic coaches and police who had the job of working with troubled youth. This list shows nothing other than here people who want to discuss he events, those who want to use it as a way to point out that because of the structure of the F&W sexual child abuse is rampant, and those who would like to have the former claims backed up with a little more than gossip and hearsay. As to the number of hits on this thread - say the word and I will add 1000. It shows nothing.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 27, 2008 15:42:24 GMT -5
Schools, retreats, camping outings, etc. Even the Boy Scouts have had their problems as well as gymnastic coaches and police who had the job of working with troubled youth. How many of these groups you cited stay in the home like workers do? Really, what is it with you and your rationalization of child abuse?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 27, 2008 16:03:52 GMT -5
Schools, retreats, camping outings, etc. Even the Boy Scouts have had their problems as well as gymnastic coaches and police who had the job of working with troubled youth. How many of these groups you cited stay in the home like workers do? Really, what is it with you and your rationalization of child abuse? I am not rationalizing child abuse. I am offering a workable suggestion. I have had a lot of people stay in my home and I have not provided them with the opportunity to spend time alone with my children. Your solution is to somehow magically remove all child abusers from ever having the possibility of coming in contact with children so there is no need for the parents to take any responsibility at all. People will abuse children. It is wrong. There is nothing about it that I would ever rationalize as being good. But your suggestions are not possible to put in place. IH is not a convicted criminal and he has the same rights as you or I do. If parents allow him to stay in their house and do not take the responsibility to protect their children there is little than can be done. If you have a suggestion about legally removing IH or any unconvicted child abuser from the presence of children why don't you outline your plan here so people can put it into action. Child abuse is wrong. But just because I can face up to the reality that there is little that can be done in this case to remove IH from the presence of children in no way means that I am rationalizing the behavior.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 27, 2008 16:09:04 GMT -5
You've defended IH rather well so far. Why is that? What is it about IH that has you so dazzled?
Sure you can remove his access to children. For starters, Ira Hobbs should no longer be a worker.
|
|
|
Post by snooty on Mar 27, 2008 16:12:56 GMT -5
maybe reality its your avatar that is making others "dazzled"
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 27, 2008 16:14:33 GMT -5
Rational, you need to look at what the rest of society has in place for these additional layers. They are plainly defined. Look at any school, youth group, nursery, proper church group, etc and you will soon see that there is a rather large building built upon the "foundation" of educating parents and children. This building involves the rest of society in many shapes and forms. I'm not going to argue with you over the obvious. If you wish to remain blinkered so be it. I have every confidence that virtually ever other poster accepts there is much more to this than just educating parents and children. I think it is you who is wearing the blinders. All the rules in the world will do no good unless the people to whom they apply are educated regarding their implementation. And there are laws and rules that have been imposed on day care centers and all places where children are cared for. And one of the thing these rules call for is the education of the people who will be working with and protecting these children according to the rules. The rules that are in place are what the care givers learn to prevent abuse. No adult can be alone with a child for more than 5 minutes. No adult can be in a place where they cannot be observed with a child. These are the layers that society have put in place but they are useless unless the people involved are educated in regards to these rules. Find the rules for your state, read them, and learn them. You have educated yourself. Follow them and there is little chance that your child will be molested. Or course it does not excuse them. And if they molest a child they are guilty. But the parents can prevent most abuse by protecting their children. They need to learn what they should do. Trusting a worker alone with your child for an extended period of time? Nope. In a closed room? Nope? But remember, this is a criminal and not spiritual thing.
|
|
|
Post by helloww on Mar 27, 2008 19:46:27 GMT -5
You've defended IH rather well so far. Why is that? What is it about IH that has you so dazzled? Sure you can remove his access to children. For starters, Ira Hobbs should no longer be a worker. And how are YOU going to see that he is no longer a worker? How are YOU going to remove his access to childern? As much as he/she is rambling on, neither rational nor I have the power to remove IH from the work. We do not have the power to stop him from being in peoples homes. We do not have the power to stop him from being around childern. How about answering rationals statement As in outline with a plan of HOW or
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Mar 27, 2008 19:50:09 GMT -5
Ira Hobbs will never see the light again!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 27, 2008 22:44:51 GMT -5
You've defended IH rather well so far. Why is that? What is it about IH that has you so dazzled? Please point out a single post where I have defended IH and his sexual child abuse. I had never heard of IH before Jean posted. Never met him. Would be hard to be dazzled by someone I know nothing about except he has been accused of child abuse. Well, I am sure your vote will be noted.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 28, 2008 9:45:15 GMT -5
Well, I am sure your vote will be noted. I see I'm not the only one not offering substantive replies. I'll take it by this comment that you believe Ira Hobbs should remain a worker and have continued access to children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2008 10:09:14 GMT -5
Well, I am sure your vote will be noted. I see I'm not the only one not offering substantive replies. I'll take it by this comment that you believe Ira Hobbs should remain a worker and have continued access to children. I really don't care if IH is a doctor, a lawyer, or a candle stick maker. His profession is not the issue. The issue is whether there is enough acceptable evidence to take action. I am guessing the courts will say there isn't. As I stated elsewhere, being a worker does not provide access to children unless this is allowed by the parents. I have no opinion as to whether IH should remain a worker. It is not part of his criminal behavior. The accusation is that he molested a child. If that is true he should be tried and incarcerated. I will let people who actually believe there is a god judge him regarding the spiritual argument you raise.
|
|
|
Post by friend1 on Mar 28, 2008 11:14:24 GMT -5
In our area, I'm sure everyone of the age that have children in the home of the F&W are aware of this forum and are careful in this regard.
This kind of info wasn't available when I was in my younger years. However there were quite a number of kids in the fellowship, both boys and girls, and we seemed to have an innate feeling about certain persons. We were also not shy about discussing it among each other.
And you know what? We were right on the money, as it all turned out.
Our parents never mentioned any of this. But we seemed to know how a man should act and how a woman should act. Any deviation was instantly noticed and reported.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 28, 2008 11:17:12 GMT -5
being a worker does not provide access to children I'll let the victims answer that one. I have no opinion as to whether IH should remain a worker. If you say so. The accusation is that he molested a child. One that we know of.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2008 14:13:07 GMT -5
being a worker does not provide access to children I'll let the victims answer that one. If you want to make a point by using something I had posted please quote the entire phrase. The entire thought was: As I stated elsewhere, being a worker does not provide access to children unless this is allowed by the parents.
The accusation is that he molested a child. One that we know of.[/quote]There are several accusations that have been made.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 28, 2008 14:54:56 GMT -5
I quoted that which I was responding to.
I will not respond to your excuse that child molestation is the fault of the parents.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2008 15:06:03 GMT -5
I quoted that which I was responding to. I will not respond to your excuse that child molestation is the fault of the parents. No one said it was the fault of the parents. You are spinning again. The parents can prevent their children from being molested in their house. Just like they can prevent their children from drinking the lye solution or other cleaning agents. Can you support your assertion that I said the parents were at fault? We do have one case where the father is claimed to have been an enabler but that does not remove the guilt from the person who did the molesting. You seem to have trouble making the parents responsible for the welfare of their children.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 28, 2008 15:48:55 GMT -5
You know, maybe to take some of the worker-language out of this we could call workers "employees" and the overseers and leaders the "employers" and the parents of potential victims the "clients."
So with that in mind, the employee who abuses the child of the client is of course most at fault.
The parent who does not keep track of the child or who foolishly believes the employee is perfect thus above suspicion and without need for supervision is also at fault, but not to the same degree as the abuser.
The employer, if he/she hears of abuse cases, is responsible to report the allegation and to separate the employee from his job pending investigation. IMO, if a statute of limitations issue prevents the law from taking action, the employer is still responsible to do its own investigation to the best of its ability and take appropriate action. If the allegations are credible, it would be a really good idea to put the employee on paid leave until the internal investigation is completed.
Some employers run enterprises that pose high-risk situations: schools, day-care centers, boy-scout troops, and churches that as a matter of DOCTRINE require the unmarried employees to live with the clients and their families. In such a high-risk business, the employer cannot take the risk of continuing to employee a person with multiple, credible allegations of abuse against them, regardless of whether the law has taken any action.
I understand that in the case of this particular business (the f&w church), the employer owns no property, thus it is assumed that they are not a good target (a 'deep pocket') of a lawsuit. But come on. I'm no attorney, but with all the evidence of trust funds, oil wells, convention properties in 100-year trusts -- all clearly for the benefit of the church -- surely an attorney and abused client could find a way to get the employer's attention through legal channels. In fact, if I were the owner of a convention place I would think carefully about liability insurance.
Not that I'm advocating civil action against the employer. I'm really pointing that out to the employers who may be reading this board -- you need to recognize that a civil case COULD be brought against you, and you need to be taking some preemptive actions to build a defense against that day.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 28, 2008 16:00:20 GMT -5
irrational,
It is apparent that you are okay with permitting a confessed child abuser continued access to children.
Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by Ned on Mar 28, 2008 18:15:41 GMT -5
I believe that there is substantive evidence that IH should step down from his "employment", until, at the very least, his peers examine the information that some, if not a large number, must have available to them.
While I do not believe that IH's letter is a "confession", I believe that the fact that he felt he "had" to write the letter, gives some degree of acceptance that someone had been harmed by his actions, even if those actions have been misinterpreted.
Putting all the bickering aside, NO ONE wants perverts and predators to remain in positions of trust.
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Mar 28, 2008 18:19:30 GMT -5
Reality, has the penny not dropped yet ? It is the parents' responsibility to stop child abusers from abusing their children. This is achieved solely through education !
Furthermore, in cases where child abuse occurs, it is the parents' responsibility to provide the police or other lawful authority with the necessary evidence to arrest and place a perpetrator before a court of law.
It is NOT the responsibility of the police to act upon suspicions of, or allegations of child abuse and investigate these matters in order to substantiate them or otherwise. Parents (and ONLY parents) MUST first gather up all necessary evidence and provide the police with what is required to convict a perpetrator in court.
Perpetrators of child abuse are innocent men and women until proved guilty in a court of law, which can only be achieved by responsible parents investigating these matters and handing the police the cases on a plate. Presumably this is to counter-balance their irresponsibility in allowing their children to be abused in the first place.
We must be RATIONAL here. There are NO child abusers, only irresponsible or uneducated parents, who just happen to be excellent detectives and forensic scientists, who make amends for their failings by becoming police officers themselves.
Makes absolute sense to me !
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2008 20:42:19 GMT -5
irrational, It is apparent that you are okay with permitting a confessed child abuser continued access to children. Yes or no? Have you stopped nailing kittens to the floor? Yes or no. How is this apparent? I once again ask you to point out a post I have made, in this thread or any other thread, where I have said or implied that a confessed child abuser should have continued access to children. You speak of a confessed abuser. I can only assume you mean IH. Let's look at the confession (if you have information about another confession, please share). I reread what IH wrote. Calling it a confession would be a very long stretch. There is nothing in it that would satisfy a court. In any case, No, I would not let a person who is suspected of being a child abuser be alone with my children. I would warn others of the situation as required.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Mar 28, 2008 20:58:14 GMT -5
No, I would not let a person who is suspected of being a child abuser be alone with my children. ...finito.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2008 21:02:56 GMT -5
Reality <snip> Makes absolute sense to me ! What is it that makes you feel the parents, or guardians, of a child have no responsibility in protecting their children from harm?
|
|
|
Post by glasses on Mar 28, 2008 21:09:08 GMT -5
irrational, It is apparent that you are okay with permitting a confessed child abuser continued access to children. Yes or no? It is not, and never has been, apparent to ME that 'rational' is okay with permitting a confessed child abuser continued access to children.So IMO, it is you 'the reality' that is confused. IMO, on this topic 'rational' is being the most realistic person posting. Most posts are somewhere between idealistic and just plain wishful thinking.
|
|