Originally Posted By: a Good Friend Here...
neutral is NOT taking sides!

I see a disturbing irony in that sentiment. In fact, I would argue that neutral IS taking sides. Neutral? It is simply a decision not to decide. It is a decision not to act. It is a decision not to step in and help. In some cases, it is a decision not to think. Neutral is at best a hollow placation of both sides of an issue without investing in the passion of stronger conscience.

History is full of neutral people. They are called appeasers. From the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who appeased Hitler just to keep things peaceful ("Peace in our time") all the way down to those undeciders who allowed molestation to fester under their noses. In the Catholic Church. In the Boy Scouts. At Penn State. So many of us are here in this forum precisely because those who should have stepped in stayed neutral. I was molested under the eyes of those who simply would not see. Frankly, I don't see much difference here in this thread. And I find it hard to reconcile how some survivors here - many whose abuse smoldered and festered under the unwatchful gaze of those who should have taken a stand - can stomach for an instant the implications of what DH has said.

You want neutral? Two names. Tim Curley. Gary Schultz. Two men who decided to keep things neutral. If you don't know them, Google them.
_________________________
Eirik




Click my pic to see why I'm here