The Two Witness Rule is NOT THE ISSUE

by jst2laws 51 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    The problem. Many here are supporters of the movement to expose the WT Society's harmful policies that seem to shelter molesters and punish victims. A common scenario is there are not two witnesses or a confession to the sin and the "loyal" elders have told the victim and their parents that 'there is nothing more we can do'. Then if the victim, or those who have knowledge of the alleged molestation, tries to warn others in the congregation to protect their children they are threatened with judicial action for slandering the good name of the accused. There are cases where the threats became realities with the disfellowshipping of the victim of molestation or others who had knowledge of the charges. The two witness rule. This WT teaching has been singled out as the main cause of harm to 1000's of molestation victims. There has even been a witch hunt to identify the one responsible for this doctrine so as to demand accountability. BUT IS THE TWO WITNESS RULE THE REAL ISSUE? NO ! THE REAL PROBLEM WITH WT POLICY Any religion, in a society that guarantees freedom of religion, can make their own rules to apply within their limited community. It should not matter to us if the WT requires two witness to take congregation action. What is wrong with the WT policy is that they do not treat this criminal act as a crime. They do not send the alleged victim directly to the authorities. They may claim they are not required to do so in many states. But in most, if not all, states everyone who does not have Clerical Immunity is required to report knowledge or suspicion of a serious criminal act to the authorities. If they do not they may be charged with complicity to the very crime. About five years ago I was warned by one of the WT's consulting attorneys (local brother) that if a witness friend wants to inform me of a case of molestation, I needed to ask them first if they were informing me of this as a friend or as and elder? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? As a friend I would be obligated to report the incident to authorities for investigation. Only as a elder would I be exempt of reporting. WT policy toward complying with the law. As stated above it is my understanding that in most if not all states anyone who has substantial evidence of a crime, including child molestation, that individual is required by law to report it. The WT society puts much emphasis on complying to local and national laws. We were made to feel guilty about exceeding the speed limit. Counsel was given to not steal from the government by avoiding taxes. It has been brought out here often that if the issue at hand would have been murder or rape of an adult nearly any elder or body of elders would encourage the victim or those with knowledge of the crime to go immediately to the police. Why do they comply in these crimes but not child molestation?

    1 They do not consider it a crime of equal nature. This type of crime has only in the last few decades come to the surface of societal awareness as more than a family problem. Authorities now intervene when parents use violence in disciplining. You can no longer beat your child, whip your child or even spank your child without possibly facing legal consequences. I have no problem with this. But others still view this as an intrusion into family privacy. Child molestation too has become an issue of elevated consciousness of society . It was once a private family problem. Now it is clearly a criminal act. Some families, especially illiterate low lifes, have not kept up with the modern social awareness and legal involvement. The WT has truly fallen behind on this matter as well. They have gone to such measures to keep molestation a private mater, in the family and within the congregation, that many rightly question the motive for such antiquated and harmful backwardness. 2 They feel they are above the law, God's servant in a satanic world, able to handle internal problems without the help of the flawed worldly court system. "We will judge angels" results in dangerous arrogance that justifies defying and resisting the intrusion of authorities. Only recently is there evidence that they have begun to privately ENCOURAGE family members to report to authorities. If this is so, it is no doubt the result of presure in the last two years from the likes of peope on this board.

    Bottom Line The two witness rule is an internal congregation law. Its relevance to the WT molestation problem is the confusion that congregation rules should be applied before and instead of turning over criminal acts to crime investigators. In my opinion they can KEEP their two witness rule and apply it in the CONGREGATION any way they want to. That is their right as much as the Catholic Church has the right to demand celebacy of it's priests. Both bad ideas but within their realm. The real problem is they should FIRST refer alleged crime to the authorities. FAILURE TO REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CRIME TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS is the major issue. The 'two witness rule' and how they apply it is a side issue that has caused much harm only because they do not consistently refer criminal acts to government agencies in place to handle them. Just thought I would challenge our focus. Jst2laws

  • LyinEyes
    LyinEyes

    Good points .

    I , as a mother , don't care if there are any witnesses at all. If there is any allegation of child abuse going on, why can't they just warn the congregation in some way . They sure as heck do it if someone goes out and does something to get reproved. They don't say the name but they throw a special needs talk with it and you know someone got in trouble .

    I think the congregation is too worried about keeping this dirty little secret , than protecting the children.

    Many times as a mother , I had others in the congregations , especailly the elders warn us about so and so in the congregation, they were bad associations as kids, our kids should stay away. But I can assure you they wouldnt warn you of a child molestor,,,,,,,not unless they were going against the book the JW confidentiality rules.

  • Matty
    Matty

    Absolutely spot on. Thank you J2L.

  • Brummie
    Brummie

    Jst2 this post is really appreciated and contains a lot of good info, just a thought though, isnt the 2 witness rule the springboard they use to cover a multitude of thier sins? If they didn't use that law so carelessly what else would they use to justify their actions? Without that law all JWs would have no excuse not to "FIRST refer alleged crime to the authorities". Without that law , hopefully, all JWs would go to the law and where would that leave the GB!

    Failure to report allegations of crime to criminal investigators is a product of the 2 witness law so maybe that law is the real issue. Challenge that law and you challenge thier very basis of hiding any criminal activity.

    Brummie

  • Mulan
    Mulan

    Dave said this is exactly what he has been telling me. Good post.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    I have to agree that the "2-witness rule" is not THE problem although I think it is part of the problem.

    I think the 2-witness rule is immoral and just plain stupid in the case os abuse of a child. No abuser has two witnesses to his act. - a point discussed ad nauseum on the net.

    You mention that JWs are encouraged to comply with the law - and they do when it suits them or when it doesn't interfere with God's WTS law. I think that the crime of sexual abuse of a child is different from the crime of murder for the WTS simply because it is easier to cover up - well easier than hiding dead bodies of murder victims.

    The taboo against speaking of sexual abuse has been in society for a very long time. The fact of its existence is not the taboo - just the talking about it and the WTS is just like the rest of the world that wishes this particular problem would go back into the closet it came out of. In fact it might be more akin to suicide in the ways that the org deals with it. "If we don't talk about it then no one will know that JWs suffer from these problems. And that is, I think, the crux of the problem.

    The WTS law of "not bringing shame on the congregation" is greater than the laws to report or protect children/victims. It is this "not bringing shame on the congregation" law that sends victims and their families to the elders in the first place to determine how to deal with the problem so that they won't "bring shame on the congregation". The cover-ups are for the same purpose - "not bringing shame on the congregation"

    The threats of being DFed for slander are also for this same purpose - "not bringing shame on the congregation"

    I think this is a law because if anyone dares "bring shame on the congregation" they are neutralized immediately. Those who sin are reproved or DFed. Those who commit suicide are labeled as "weak" or having already sinned and therefore are not true JWs or knew they would be DFed.

    The WTS still is undert the belief that a man's home is his castle. The man is the head of the house and as such deserves respect and obedience from all family members - whether he deserves it or not. Hence the counel for abused wives to stay with their abusive partners and be quiet. It is still very much a patriarchal society with all the trappings that entails including male privilege. (egads I sound like a women's libber)

    Reporting abuse would mean that the world would find out the org is not as perfect as it wants the world to believe. It means hanging out their dirty laundry and that is why anyone connected with the disclosing of the sexual abuse porblem has been hung out to dry. They don't want the world to know that there IS "shame in the congregation". And they don't want their members to know ther IS "shame in the congregation".

    But hopefully there is just too much "shame in the congregation" for them to keep hiding it.

    Next stop - abused wives - I hope

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    yes, next stop abused wifes. Over my 47 yrs with JW, i have seen some awful situations made worse by"loving" elders telling the wife she should not depart , (1)how will she care for herself and children,(2)what about her sexual needs-no outlet now, also, now if her husand goes and comits adultry, she is somewaht responsible for not giving him his "due", (3)she is not waiting of Jehovah to reslove the problem, esp if he is nonbeliever-why he mjght become a JW some day-you could be preventing that!(4)we all have problems, running away is not the way to solve them.(5)if u remarry u will be d/f and your new marriage is condemed form the beginning with that kind of start.

    Also, I hope rape will be dealt with. There are cases of rape, where the woman is accused of asking for it, wearing seductive clothiing,etc. Rape is a Crime and it is time the jw elders figured that out.

  • bigboi
    bigboi
    In my opinion they can KEEP their two witness rule and apply it in the CONGREGATION any way they want to. That is their right as much as the Catholic Church has the right to demand celebacy of it's priests. Both bad ideas but within their realm. The real problem is they should FIRST refer alleged crime to the authorities. FAILURE TO REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CRIME TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS is the major issue. The 'two witness rule' and how they apply it is a side issue that has caused much harm only because they do not consistently refer criminal acts to government agencies in place to handle them.

    I agree with this JST2laws. Why should the congregation have to get involved in this matter? If such a charge is reported to the elders they should let the victim's family file charges with the authorities while not taking any action against anyone judicially until it has become clear that some type of abuse has taken place. This way it allows the secular authoritis to get involved and inventually some type of justice for the victim and thier families. If the evidence is there the abuser will eventually be sent to jail, making it evident that he or she definitely was guilty of wrongdoing.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Good topic.

    I think the most damning thing IMO is not that they do not report the abuse but that they actively dissuade people (including the family) from going to the authorities. This is what prevents the guilty being charged.

    It would not matter so much if they reported it or not as long as someone reported it. You'd expect that the family would do this but instead they get pressured from the elders not to because it will 'make the congregation look bad'. This is where the guilt lies (beyond the guilt of the abuser).

    Edited by - Simon on 3 November 2002 17:32:4

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    Simon - even if they didn't actively dissuade people from going to the authorities (which they of course do) I think the "not bringing shame on the congregation" rule over-rides most people's sense of what is right in this situation. As long as the elders do not actively tell people to go to the police they won't go for fear of breaking the "not bringing shame on the congregation" rule

    That one rule is so powerful that most JWs would stop dead in their tracks to make sure they won't get into trouble.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit