To Cygnus:
:: Bill's analogy is valid because it parodies how the Society handles a murder case as opposed to a molestation case. It does this by showing the ridiculousness of handling a murder case by the same principles and rules as it does a molestation case.
: That was my point. Stealing, fraud and other crimes are also DFing offences, but every case is handled slightly different.
What does that have to do with your actual comments? Bill gave his analogy; I commented "perfect". You said:
::: I entirely disagree. The comparison is invalid for the reason that murder, for most murderers, is generally not a compelling addiction or a behavior that is acted upon often and repeatedly. Also, the testimony of a dead person is basically sound (the act was indeed committed as someone is dead). It is far more difficult to corroborate an alleged molestation.
You're not making sense.
: I understand where Bill is coming from but I think he was simply trying to sensationalize the issue.
He's certainly trying to sensationalize the issue, but that's because the media and the public only respond to sensationalism. If you have a better way to bring public attention to the way JWs mishandle -- just as the Catholic Church has done -- have grossly mishandled, child molestation cases in the past, then tell him how to do it. Do you think that the media's handling of the Church's sins has been less than sensational? I don't. Nevertheless, everyone with more than half a brain understands that a certain amount of hyperbole is needed to get the ball rolling when apathy reigns supreme. Most people are more interested in a hockey game than in the crimes committed against molestation victims, until a sensational bit of news intrudes on their consciousness via "Hey! This could have been my kid!" Finally, nothing that Bill has said is wrong; he has merely concentrated on the more sensational aspects of the Society's neglect.
:: The Society has two serious problems in its application of the two-witnesses rule: (1) the rule is ancient and outmoded;
: I don't disagree, however, the BIBLE has it as a rule, both in the Old and the New testaments. My question was, should the JWs divert from a clear biblical directive because Caesar says so?
Of course! They deviate from "clear biblical directive" constantly, whenever it suits their needs, so why would they slavishly adhere to an obviously outmoded rule? The answer is clear: the Society's leaders want to protect certain molesters in their ranks.
Not just "Caesar", but common sense should dictate when to deviate from a strict interpretation of a biblical rule. Suppose you see a child run out of an elder's house naked. You note that the child's genital area is bleeding. Should you now apply the "two-witnesses" rule and say, "Well, I'm the only one who saw this kid run out of the house, so there's nothing I can do", and then walk away? I think not. A little common sense should tell you that the kid is also a witness to the crime.
Next consider a more realistic situation. Suppose that same kid ends up at the police station and is checked by medical personnel for evidence of rape. Semen is found in the child's vagina and rectum, and her flesh is torn by the entry of a large object. The child accuses her father of raping her. Police take a DNA sample and it matches the DNA of the semen found in the child. The father is put in prison. Now the elders must decide whether to disfellowship the man. Should they do it? Why or why not? You tell me, using the Bible as a guide.
:: (2) it does not strictly follow the rule.
: You give the example of two elders spying on a brother who spends the night at a known homosexual's house.
That's right, but there are others. A common one, given by several elders I talked to about the "two-witnesses" rule, is smoking. A person can be DF'd if two people testify that each observed the person smoking, even though neither witness saw the same act of smoking.
: That is far different from the accusation of one child against someone who otherwise has a good reputation in the congregation.
No it isn't. It comes under the umbrella of strong circumstantial evidence. The Society certainly violates its "two-witnesses" policy by allowing for strong circumstantial evidence. Here is what the Flock book states, under the heading "What kind of evidence is acceptable?":
"There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons repeating what they have heard; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17)
Confession (admission of wrongdoing), either written or oral, may be accepted as conclusive proof without other corroborating evidence. (Josh. 7:19)
Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, is acceptable.
The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of truth.
The testimony of unbelievers may also be considered, but it must be carefully weighed.
If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered.
Such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing."
The above quotation contains three bolded statements where the Society allows that the "two-witnesses" rule is not applicable at all, or is not strictly applicable. How then, can you claim that they consistently apply this rule?
There are at least two situations where the "two-witnesses" rule is a poor means of establishing guilt. One is where a single victim makes an accusation; the other is where multiple victims make accusations of separate molestation events. In both cases elders are incompetent to establish guilt or innocence. That's why Bowen is saying that the elders should bow out and simply tell the victim or her guardians to contact police. The Society, in contrast, is telling elders that they must first establish guilt or innocence, and then if guilt is established, they might then suggest that the police contacted. Do you see why this whole policy is atrociously stupid?
Professionals have stated repeatedly that the probability of false accusations by a child in the above two situations is very low. Since elders are incompetent to evaluate such evidence, it follows that they must be required by the Society to advise that police or children's services authorities be contacted. The same goes for when multiple children accuse a man of molesting them.
Now suppose the police gather enough evidence to convict the accused person. Should elders then second-guess the police and determine whether the person is really guilty of molestation? In the Fitzwater case, which was mentioned on Dateline and about which Laurie Fitzwater has posted on this board, the Society was aware of 17 counts of molestation, and yet they refused to disfellowship the molester because of the two-witnesses rule. Isn't that an example of gross, self-serving hypocrisy, given what the Flock book says? You better believe it! It also proves that the Society's claims that witnesses to two or more separate events of molestation are sufficient to establish guilt are false. Now why do you think the Society is lying to the public about this?
: I haven't much to comment on regarding your speculation that high-level JWs are molesters themselves.
It's not speculation. Several Watchtower officials have told me in no uncertain terms that Greenlees raped a little boy and that's why he was forced to resign from the GB.
:: I'm beginning to wonder, Cygnus, if you're not longing for that warm old fuzzy nothingness that comprises the JW world, a world where real thinking is not desired or welcomed.
: On the contrary, Alan. On this board I see a gang mentality and a lot of people who will jump on the bandwagon as long as it is anti-Watchtower. I have no love for the Watchtower at all,
Ah, I see. But how does that relate to the fact that you're not exactly presenting logical, well-thought-out rejoinders to various posters, but are writing nearly incoherent things that don't reflect reality? You sound exactly like the JWs who are using illogical, emotional arguments to defend their organization on other online forums. Do you think that illogical, emotional arguments that ignore facts will somehow turn that perceived "gang mentality" around and convince people that Watchtower has magically become full of good motives?
You may wonder at the highly emotional responses of some to the molestation issue. But you don't have kids, and you've not had the parental hormones kick in that drive parents even to sacrifice their lives for their kids. This is exactly the problem with the Society's policies: they're not formulated by people with an emotional investment in children, but by old, childless men whose investment (they think) is in heaven. They simply don't care, and don't care to understand, the importance of this issue.
: but it seems like nobody wants to ask Bill Bowen or anyone else any tough questions.
Nonsense. You go right ahead and formulate some logical, unemotional, fact-filled questions and see what happens. If you're sincere, you'll start by dealing with the facts I've presented above.
In a later post you said:
: I think some accusations against JWs are rather absurd ("a child molestor is knocking at your door!").
This is not absurd at all. Most people assume that an organization that deliberately sends representatives to peoples' doors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that the representatives are not criminals, and are otherwise "safe". Whether most organizations that send representatives to doors do this or not is irrelevant; the issue with respect to JWs has now reached the public eye and as a result, the Society will be forced to clean up its act or face the collapse of its touted preaching work. Thus, even though a bit of hyperbole is involved, it has served its purpose of alerting the public to a serious problem among the JWs.
: And I think that the Society's current position is reasonable.
It's more reasonable than it was five years ago, but it still has a ways to go. In fact, the Society needs to go the extra mile to clean up decades of neglect and of its creating the bad attitudes that are still popping up in how elders handle molestation cases. And of course, we know very well that the Society's published statements do not necessarily accurately reflect what they privately instruct elders to do. In fact, some of the recently published statements are outright lies.
: The faults and errors and misapplications of local congregations appointing men to positions of responsibility or allowing them to go door to door alone is not the Society's fault.
When you put it that way, you're right. But you're ignoring the reality that published policy statements are sometimes not what the Society itself tells elders to follow. For example, J. R. Brown recently told the media that a known molester is not allowed to go door to door alone. No one I know had ever heard of that policy, so I contacted a number of practicing elders. They never heard of it either. Then I contacted the Society's Department of Public Disinformation. Brown happened to be away, but the guy I talked to never heard of the rule either, and said he'd get back to me in a few days after Brown got back. Then I contacted someone in the Service Department. It was one of the state Service Desk people, and he never heard of this policy either. Then I contacted a top Service Department official, who refused to tell me if he knew of such a policy or not. Obviously he didn't, but suspected that if he confirmed it, he'd be putting his neck on the line. A few days later I contacted DPI again and talked to the same guy I talked to before. By this time he had gotten to Brown and gotten a sort of answer: what Brown really meant when he told the media that molesters can't go door to door alone was that elders should have enough common sense not to allow them to do so. I said, "So Brown was wrong in claiming that this is an actual policy." He confirmed this. So it's pretty obvious that Brown deliberately misled several reporters, and the Society is continuing to do so.
So, Cygnus, given demonstrated lying like this by Watchtower spokesmen, why would you believe anything they say at all? Isn't it painfully clear that these men are lying, self-serving hypocrites?
Hillary, I appreciate your comments. Nevertheless, see above. Playing devil's advocate is great, but must be done logically, unemotionally and with solid facts -- especially in a volatile forum and especially when a sensitive issue is the focus. The act of posing logical, objective arguments acts greatly to defuse the emotionalism of "the gang", but using bad arguments merely inflames it.
AlanF
