NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm asking because on a page on their website, the guidelines for sexual harassment state that the complainant should not tell anyone outside the church of the sexual harassment, and it seems that the worst punishment that the church will impose upon the offender is dismisal - no notifying the police, despite the list of actions they consider to be sexual assault including unnecessary touching of an individual (e.g., patting, pinching, hugging, repeated brushing against another person's body, etc.) and demand for sexual favors


5c: "The discussion shall be conducted in an objective and thorough manner, and the complainant should be advised not to discuss the matter elsewhere due to the sensitivity of the complaint. The person to whom the complaint is made shall keep any information received strictly confidential, except as necessary to investigate or rectify the matter."

8: Action. If sexual harassment is found to exist, appropriate officers shall take prompt corrective action. Depending on the severity of the act, the discipline may range from a written warning, a copy of which is placed in the offending person's personnel file, to immediate dismissal.

Some of them probably are. Same with every group of people, really.

I think most Churches are full of perverts waiting to touch you ;)

I dont know Multiland, I'm sure that the group are as much of a bunch of law-abiding citizens as you are; and I'm most certainly sure that any said problems would be reported to the police of any country.

Now its time for me to ask you something...

Are you a troll?

I dont know Multiland, I'm sure that the group are as much of a bunch of law-abiding citizens as you are; and I'm most certainly sure that any said problems would be reported to the police of any country.

Now its time for me to ask you something...

Are you a troll?

No, I'm a shocked person wanting an answer, due to above.

The church says NOT to discuss the matter elsewhere, which presumably means ELSEwhere (as it says) and thus includes the police

I think it's them trying to protect themselves, they're just being really blazé about it.

If something bad happens, and that person is in some sort of group, there will be some stereotyping going on. Admittedly, I think there should be greater punishment, but to someone who's in that church, that punishment is freakin bad.

Nevermind.

Thought it was the C of Latter Day Saints.

No, I'm a shocked person wanting an answer, due to above.

Well as to the question, "Is the [omg entire] Seveth Day Adventist 'Church' a group of PERVERTS?", Im sure the answer would be a resounding no. But of course as is in any large organization, there are sure to be the odd and occasional incident by some individual - you have simply proven that they have a policy on investigating the matter.

To further elaborate on why they might not discuss the matter with a member outside of the church organization, I can only offer the following.

a) protection of the individual being investigated (innocent until proven guilty)

b) protection of the victim of any crimes being investigated...

c) and to protect the integrity of the church itself; releasing information before a case is finished being investigated could lead to false claims or misleading information... in the wrong hands, someone might go run claiming that indeed the entire Seveth Day Adventist Church is a group of perverts. ;)

If you really want to look and go *shock horror* at any group, perhaps have a look at a Political Movement in The Netherlands; seeking to lower the age of legal sex to something around the age of 13, with a view to abolishing it all together.

I forget what it's called exactly, and I also forget all the details. So forgive me if theyre actually trying to lower it to the age of 7, or something.

EDIT: On the matter of the church's policy on sexual harrassment in the meantime, you could always give your closest church a ring and enquire. They might be able to provide you with some definitive information, since my knowledge on them is limited.

why were you reading the sexual harrassment guidelines for this chirch to begin with? :confused:

Well as to the question, "Is the [omg entire] Seveth Day Adventist 'Church' a group of PERVERTS?", Im sure the answer would be a resounding no. But of course as is in any large organization, there are sure to be the odd and occasional incident by some individual - you have simply proven that they have a policy on investigating the matter.

To further elaborate on why they might not discuss the matter with a member outside of the church organization, I can only offer the following.

a) protection of the individual being investigated (innocent until proven guilty)

b) protection of the victim of any crimes being investigated...

c) and to protect the integrity of the church itself; releasing information before a case is finished being investigated could lead to false claims or misleading information... in the wrong hands, someone might go run claiming that indeed the entire Seveth Day Adventist Church is a group of perverts. ;)

If you really want to look and go *shock horror* at any group, perhaps have a look at a Political Movement in The Netherlands; seeking to lower the age of legal sex to something around the age of 13, with a view to abolishing it all together.

I forget what it's called exactly, and I also forget all the details. So forgive me if theyre actually trying to lower it to the age of 7, or something.

EDIT: On the matter of the church's policy on sexual harrassment in the meantime, you could always give your closest church a ring and enquire. They might be able to provide you with some definitive information, since my knowledge on them is limited.

I understand the reasons why THE CHURCH may not want to discuss the matter with 'outsiders' but they tell the VICTIM not to - why should the victim not go to the police? Yes there's the who innocent until proven guilty thing, but that's what a jury is for (and it is the experienced police who decide whether to even arrest the person in the first place), and the victim knows whether the other person is guilty so why shouldn't they report it to the police if it's of a serious nature?

AND THE GUIDELINES ARE WRITTEN ON THE MAIN WEBSITE OF THE CHURCH

why were you reading the sexual harrassment guidelines for this chirch to begin with? :confused:

Because I was looking at the guidelines for different stuff (trying to find out if it's true that adventists are mostly veggies) and I came across that set of guidelines.

Because I was looking at the guidelines for different stuff (trying to find out if it's true that adventists are mostly veggies) and I came across that set of guidelines.You look for veggies? Go to a Rasta website.

Im not sure what makes you assume they mean the police also. Sure, the way those guidelines are written leads you to believe, but you're talking as if this is fact, when it is merely your assumption.

Like I said, give them a call and make some enquiries.

I tend to believe otherwise.

Im not sure what makes you assume they mean the police also. Sure, the way those guidelines are written leads you to believe, but you're talking as if this is fact, when it is merely your assumption.
Like I said, give them a call and make some inquiries.Indeed. But then again, "elsewhere" sounds pretty global, including institutions such as the police.

There is a Biblical foundation for settling disputes among believers without involving outside authorities (see1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206&version=31)). It's possible that the Seventh Day Adventists are basing their policy on this.

Also, assuming that the guidelines Multiland posted are to apply only to believers, dismissing the offender from the church would then allow the victom to officially press charges.

I'd be interested to know if Seventh Day Adventists ever actually go to their church leaders to settle legal disputes, or if the guidelines are mostly ignored.

It sounds to me that if you're telling people not to consult other (and quite possibly more effective) authorities in the event that you are bothered by a molester within the church, then you are, in fact, protecting the ability for someone to be a molester within the church, or worse, enabling molesters to operate within the church with less fear of actual punishment.

It sounds to me that if you're telling people not to consult other (and quite possibly more effective) authorities in the event that you are bothered by a molester within the church, then you are, in fact, protecting the ability for someone to be a molester within the church, or worse, enabling molesters to operate within the church with less fear of actual punishment.

Nah, It's nothing like that at all. They are simply trying to cut out any kind of false accusations and or misunderstanding from being turned into media circus fiascoes through gossip.

IF the accusations are presented quickly to the church leaders, they seem to be saying that immediate investigative actions will take place. AND, if gossip has not spread false accusations and misguided hypothesis from clouding the witnesses of those events, the truth should be more readily found.

IF the person is truly guilty and the act is criminal, then they will be dismissed and the authorities notified.

The exact opposite point of view of yours could also be held from what we know so far… The falsely accused person could be dismissed from their position by an anonymous accuser, and the accused might have a civil right claim against the church if they don't get to have charges brought before them but are dismissed without a trial to defend themselves, etc.,

But in both parties point of view, a public uproar, of speculation brought on by the mere suggestion of a sexual complaint, could wrongfully damage innocent people’s lives (both the victim and the accused) by bringing the complain to the publics attention before any investigation has taken place.

Pretty normal for a closed society really. If the leaders are bunch of perverts, then they pretty much get away with things.

Nah, It's nothing like that at all. They are simply trying to cut out any kind of false accusations and or misunderstanding from being turned into media circus fiascoes through gossip.

IF the accusations are presented quickly to the church leaders, they seem to be saying that immediate investigative actions will take place. AND, if gossip has not spread false accusations and misguided hypothesis from clouding the witnesses of those events, the truth should be more readily found.

IF the person is truly guilty and the act is criminal, then they will be dismissed and the authorities notified.

The exact opposite point of view of yours could also be held from what we know so far… The falsely accused person could be dismissed from their position by an anonymous accuser, and the accused might have a civil right claim against the church if they don't get to have charges brought before them but are dismissed without a trial to defend themselves, etc.,

But in both parties point of view, a public uproar, of speculation brought on by the mere suggestion of a sexual complaint, could wrongfully damage innocent people’s lives (both the victim and the accused) by bringing the complain to the publics attention before any investigation has taken place.
And exactly what position is the CHURCH in to assess the guilt or innocence of the accused?

Speaking from a history of being abused by another church the LAST thing that you want your child to do is consult the church.

I already got one "Your going to hell if you even tell your therapist ... " speech from one priest and bishop ... that is enough for this lifetime.

The church is NOT the governing body and has NO official capacity to judge the guilt or innocence of ANYONE within societal guidelines period.

Well as to the question, "Is the [omg entire] Seveth Day Adventist 'Church' a group of PERVERTS?", Im sure the answer would be a resounding no. But of course as is in any large organization, there are sure to be the odd and occasional incident by some individual - you have simply proven that they have a policy on investigating the matter.

To further elaborate on why they might not discuss the matter with a member outside of the church organization, I can only offer the following.

a) protection of the individual being investigated (innocent until proven guilty)

b) protection of the victim of any crimes being investigated...

c) and to protect the integrity of the church itself; releasing information before a case is finished being investigated could lead to false claims or misleading information... in the wrong hands, someone might go run claiming that indeed the entire Seveth Day Adventist Church is a group of perverts. ;)

If you really want to look and go *shock horror* at any group, perhaps have a look at a Political Movement in The Netherlands; seeking to lower the age of legal sex to something around the age of 13, with a view to abolishing it all together.

I forget what it's called exactly, and I also forget all the details. So forgive me if theyre actually trying to lower it to the age of 7, or something.

EDIT: On the matter of the church's policy on sexual harrassment in the meantime, you could always give your closest church a ring and enquire. They might be able to provide you with some definitive information, since my knowledge on them is limited.

On what basis are they qualified to lead a criminal investigation? They are not law enforcement

While I think this is probably badly worded advice it does not stop the fact that it IS bad advice... The church is in no way qualified to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused and should not. The only part they should play in the role is in helping official investigators if their help is requested

Pretty normal for a closed society really. If the leaders are bunch of perverts, then they pretty much get away with things.

Like in many organizations they like being in charge ...

But in criminal cases or where harm occurs they have no right to police them selfs (in criminal matters)... thats not their job

They may not think they are answerable to another earthly power ... they would be wrong

It sounds to me that if you're telling people not to consult other (and quite possibly more effective) authorities in the event that you are bothered by a molester within the church, then you are, in fact, protecting the ability for someone to be a molester within the church, or worse, enabling molesters to operate within the church with less fear of actual punishment.

Hey the guy that got me got a get out of jail free card provided by the church, when reported to them his acts in the 1970's they played shuffle the priest till the late 80's they put him in charge of a large parish ... and in charge of an elementary school ...

Of course they "Spiritually advised and healed him" :rolleyes:

"It's not just a sin, it's a felony! So we have to keep track!" -Robin Williams.

:D

On what basis are they qualified to lead a criminal investigation? They are not law enforcement

While I think this is probably badly worded advice it does not stop the fact that it IS bad advice... The church is in no way qualified to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused and should not. The only part they should play in the role is in helping official investigators if their help is requested

right.

they are not perverts in any bigger proportion than any other large group of people. they are just WRONG.

its is wrong to use the power of the church to protect those who prey on others. its wrong to have the reputation of the church be more important than its members. its wrong to think that all they are dealing with is a sin.

crime is not an internal church matter.

"It's not just a sin, it's a felony! So we have to keep track!" -Robin Williams.

:D

I knew I loved you for a reason ... His live on broadway was awsome

I knew I loved you for a reason ... His live on broadway was awsome

Half of my brain wants him to do more stand-up, but the other half thinks it wouldn't be as special if he did. *nod*

I'm asking because on a page on their website, the guidelines for sexual harassment state that the complainant should not tell anyone outside the church of the sexual harassment, and it seems that the worst punishment that the church will impose upon the offender is dismisal - no notifying the police, despite the list of actions they consider to be sexual assault including unnecessary touching of an individual (e.g., patting, pinching, hugging, repeated brushing against another person's body, etc.) and demand for sexual favors


5c: "The discussion shall be conducted in an objective and thorough manner, and the complainant should be advised not to discuss the matter elsewhere due to the sensitivity of the complaint. The person to whom the complaint is made shall keep any information received strictly confidential, except as necessary to investigate or rectify the matter."

8: Action. If sexual harassment is found to exist, appropriate officers shall take prompt corrective action. Depending on the severity of the act, the discipline may range from a written warning, a copy of which is placed in the offending person's personnel file, to immediate dismissal.

Interesting, but...

Who gives a shit?

On what basis are they qualified to lead a criminal investigation? They are not law enforcement

While I think this is probably badly worded advice it does not stop the fact that it IS bad advice... The church is in no way qualified to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused and should not. The only part they should play in the role is in helping official investigators if their help is requested

I dont believe I have ever said that it was the church themselves doing the investigating, even if this is/isn't the case, so dont jump your guns... ;)

In the meantime, on what basis do you think that the church isn't qualified to investigate such cases? On what grounds do you make this claim? Of course, if you're simply stating that you believe they should leave things to the official law enforcement, then you're entitled to those beliefs. Perhaps then, you need to learn how to write your posts properly, since if youre going make claims, you might as well justify them. (And unjustified claims could lead to misunderstanding, as I may have, that you simply have an anti-church attitude as some people seem to have).

I dont believe I have ever said that it was the church themselves doing the investigating, even if this is/isn't the case, so dont jump your guns... ;)



You were reasoning why the topic should not be discussed outside the church ... if no one but the church knows how can anyone else do investigating


In the meantime, on what basis do you think that the church isn't qualified to investigate such cases? On what grounds do you make this claim? Of course, if you're simply stating that you believe they should leave things to the official law enforcement, then you're entitled to those beliefs. Perhaps then, you need to learn how to write your posts properly, since if youre going make claims, you might as well justify them. (And unjustified claims could lead to misunderstanding, as I may have, that you simply have an anti-church attitude as some people seem to have).
They are not law enforcement. They do not have the qualifications simple as that.

Only an organization empowered by the government can enforce governmental rules.

Seems fairly simple to me, don't see where you could be getting confused

In the meantime, on what basis do you think that the church isn't qualified to investigate such cases? On what grounds do you make this claim?

They are not the police. That alone is sufficient.

However if you want further grounds, three words: "conflict of interest". Nobody is ever called to investigate acts that they have a vested interest in. A police officer never investigates the robbery of his own home. A judge does not preside over the case involving the accused rapist of his daughter. The juror does not sentence her own brother. A doctor does not sleep with a patient.

Why the HELL would an organization be allowed or encouraged to be the sole evaluator of a potentical crime commited by its own employee, when the guilt of that employee could create legal problems for the organization?

To do this would make the sole investigator of abuse a party that has a vested interest in no investigation taking place. It is a MASSIVE conflict of interest

I think most Churches are full of perverts waiting to touch you ;)

Just the ones that say "Sex is Unclean" and won't let their hierarchy sow their wild oats ;)

Just the ones that say "Sex is Unclean" and won't let their hierarchy sow their wild oats ;)

seriously...how many rabbis have you heard of being abusive? Not too many, most just go home and fuck their wives.