MennoNet.com

So this post is in reference to Trudy Metzger's latest post regarding setting up an Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List.

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/17/h ... hhKQNvg7gM

Let me start by saying that I think that Trudy is doing a good and necessary work in exposing sexual abuse in Anabaptist circles. I support her in what she is doing, and for the most part, the way that she is doing it.

That said, I'm not a fan of this idea. I hated the idea a few years ago when another person on Facebook suggested it, and I hate it now.

A direct quote from Trudy: "Allegations are enough to get on the list." This seems so dangerous to me, and basically means you're guilty until proven innocent if even one person brings forward an allegation.

Allegations ruin people's lives, and the stigma of being on a subjective list compiled by some non-involved party would be extremely hard to overcome.

I'm all for finding and prosecuting abusers. This seems to me to be a very poor way of trying to make that happen.

blackfriar wrote:So this post is in reference to Trudy Metzger's latest post regarding setting up an Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List.

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/17/h ... hhKQNvg7gM

Let me start by saying that I think that Trudy is doing a good and necessary work in exposing sexual abuse in Anabaptist circles. I support her in what she is doing, and for the most part, the way that she is doing it.

That said, I'm not a fan of this idea. I hated the idea a few years ago when another person on Facebook suggested it, and I hate it now.

A direct quote from Trudy: "Allegations are enough to get on the list." This seems so dangerous to me, and basically means you're guilty until proven innocent if even one person brings forward an allegation.

Allegations ruin people's lives, and the stigma of being on a subjective list compiled by some non-involved party would be extremely hard to overcome.

I'm all for finding and prosecuting abusers. This seems to me to be a very poor way of trying to make that happen.

There is a series of events leading up to her going in this direction. If you'd like to understand why she felt this was necessary, feel free to contact me. In short, certain people are getting involved in the Haiti affair who have been extremely guilty of facilitating cover-ups with notorious abusers in the past.

I agree that a list with allegations on it will suffer from the problem of being abused by false accusations and will eventually need a mechanism of due process.

Josh wrote:

blackfriar wrote:So this post is in reference to Trudy Metzger's latest post regarding setting up an Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List.

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/17/h ... hhKQNvg7gM

Let me start by saying that I think that Trudy is doing a good and necessary work in exposing sexual abuse in Anabaptist circles. I support her in what she is doing, and for the most part, the way that she is doing it.

That said, I'm not a fan of this idea. I hated the idea a few years ago when another person on Facebook suggested it, and I hate it now.

A direct quote from Trudy: "Allegations are enough to get on the list." This seems so dangerous to me, and basically means you're guilty until proven innocent if even one person brings forward an allegation.

Allegations ruin people's lives, and the stigma of being on a subjective list compiled by some non-involved party would be extremely hard to overcome.

I'm all for finding and prosecuting abusers. This seems to me to be a very poor way of trying to make that happen.

There is a series of events leading up to her going in this direction. If you'd like to understand why she felt this was necessary, feel free to contact me. In short, certain people are getting involved in the Haiti affair who have been extremely guilty of facilitating cover-ups with notorious abusers in the past.

I agree that a list with allegations on it will suffer from the problem of being abused by false accusations and will eventually need a mechanism of due process.

Bad idea for a crusader to maintain such a list. An organization like GRACE would be far better positioned to assist the community in doing this. They have far more experience with this. If we have to pay them, it is cheaper than lawyers.

J.M.

Judas Maccabeus wrote:

Josh wrote:

blackfriar wrote:So this post is in reference to Trudy Metzger's latest post regarding setting up an Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List.

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/17/h ... hhKQNvg7gM

Let me start by saying that I think that Trudy is doing a good and necessary work in exposing sexual abuse in Anabaptist circles. I support her in what she is doing, and for the most part, the way that she is doing it.

That said, I'm not a fan of this idea. I hated the idea a few years ago when another person on Facebook suggested it, and I hate it now.

A direct quote from Trudy: "Allegations are enough to get on the list." This seems so dangerous to me, and basically means you're guilty until proven innocent if even one person brings forward an allegation.

Allegations ruin people's lives, and the stigma of being on a subjective list compiled by some non-involved party would be extremely hard to overcome.

I'm all for finding and prosecuting abusers. This seems to me to be a very poor way of trying to make that happen.

There is a series of events leading up to her going in this direction. If you'd like to understand why she felt this was necessary, feel free to contact me. In short, certain people are getting involved in the Haiti affair who have been extremely guilty of facilitating cover-ups with notorious abusers in the past.

I agree that a list with allegations on it will suffer from the problem of being abused by false accusations and will eventually need a mechanism of due process.

Bad idea for a crusader to maintain such a list. An organization like GRACE would be far better positioned to assist the community in doing this. They have far more experience with this. If we have to pay them, it is cheaper than lawyers.

J.M.

I am not crazy about this idea either. It gets into witch hunt territory really quick. And old fashioned McCarthyism.

Yep.

So if we don't want this watch list, some current developments need to be addressed now. There is a concerted effort at forming a cover-up to intimidate those who are coming forward.

blackfriar wrote:So this post is in reference to Trudy Metzger's latest post regarding setting up an Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List.

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/17/h ... hhKQNvg7gM

Let me start by saying that I think that Trudy is doing a good and necessary work in exposing sexual abuse in Anabaptist circles. I support her in what she is doing, and for the most part, the way that she is doing it.

That said, I'm not a fan of this idea. I hated the idea a few years ago when another person on Facebook suggested it, and I hate it now.

A direct quote from Trudy: "Allegations are enough to get on the list." This seems so dangerous to me, and basically means you're guilty until proven innocent if even one person brings forward an allegation.

Allegations ruin people's lives, and the stigma of being on a subjective list compiled by some non-involved party would be extremely hard to overcome.

I'm all for finding and prosecuting abusers. This seems to me to be a very poor way of trying to make that happen.

I agree that those who commit abuse need to be revealed and outed, but this has such a potential to also destroy the lives of innocent people. An unbiased and unprejudiced organization needs to be set up or used, that has protections in place to prevent false accusations. Guards need to be put in place to prevent possible false accusers to band together with collaborating witness/witnesses in making false accusations. The stories submitted, the accusers and witnesses need to all be thoroughly vetted, as well as the accused. Each case will be different and who decides and judges which people will be put on the list? Will a person who did something minor in his young years, repented and never engaged in appropriate behavior for 20 years, be put on the list? So many questions.

From Trudy's site: "We will make it clear which cases have been proven guilty by law, which ones were handled by church, and which ones are allegations with neither law or church discipline.
If an innocent person makes the list and it is marked with neither discipline or law, it still can devastate the lives of the innocent. Even our government doesn't deem one guilty on mere accusations or allegations.

Josh wrote:Yep.

So if we don't want this watch list, some current developments need to be addressed now. There is a concerted effort at forming a cover-up to intimidate those who are coming forward.

Can you say more about this?

Choosing unethical and immoral means to accomplish a purpose is not acceptable. IMO this watch list crosses that line. Would a militia be a reasonable next step to stop the cover ups and protect the innocent? So what if we ruin a few good lives, just collateral damage to accomplish a just cause.

Grace wrote:Will a person who did something minor in his young years, repented and never engaged in appropriate behavior for 20 years, be put on the list? So many questions.

For the record, I do not agree with this watch list concept as it currently stands at all. I do feel certain recent events have made some people feel like it is necessary.

However, I don't see why someone who did something minor in his young years, repented, and never offended again should be ashamed for that fact to be public. Don't all of us have a Christian testimony?

My testimony is that I used to live a life of drunkenness and fornication when I was 32. Whilst those aren't crimes, they are grievous sins in the eyes of God. I was born again when I was 32. I fell back into sin a month later. I confessed it and was not private at all about my failings. Through God's grace and through the power of "confess your sins one to another that ye may be healed", I have not fallen into fornication since.

Instead of trying to cover up the past or pretend it never happened, we should claim 1 Corinthians 6 - "and such were some of you, but now ye are washed". And if we were open about our past "moral failings", then there wouldn't be a need for a watch list. I would not be offended at all if, for example, someone felt I wasn't a good fit for a missionary position because of my past. And I would not be secretive about someone considering me for a missionary position trying to find out about my past activities.

My apologies. Repeat post. I am having trouble navigating this site, at times.