My question to you is, how do you tie those articles in with anything in the local congregation? They do not seem to have anything that would apply. Both appear to be dealing with the judicial system of man. Don't see any connection between the two.
Fats was making a very specific point with this thread. Please read the first paragraph of his post:
I wanted to see if there is any indication that the Society allows DNA evidence as one of the "two or three witnesses" requirements when it comes to testimony in child molestation or rape cases in the congregation.
I take it then that you are in agreement that the Society does not allow DNA evidence to support a child's claim of being raped? That this type of physical evidence is not allowed under the "two witness rule"?
I would be curious to hear, not only your rationale, but a Biblical basis as well. Please show me one scripture wherein Jehovah, Jesus, the apostles, or prophets, differentiated between physical evidence and eyewitnesses regarding the need for two witnesses.
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not accept a criminal conviction as a second witness to an act of child molestation? Why isn't "Ceasar" a good enough witness?
While I'm on the subject Beep Beep, I would be curious to hear your rationale why Jehovah provided for a woman, working in a field alone and away from others, so that her only requirement was to scream (or say she screamed). Why did Jehovah give this provision to an adult woman, and not apply the same standard to an innocent child? Surely Jehovah, one who sees all, and understands human emotions better than we do, would realize that the vast majority of child abuse does indeed take place away from others. Why would Jehovah give an adult woman, stronger, better able to defend herself, an avenue for justice under the Law and not do the same for a child? In fact, why did Jehovah place more of a burden on a child, since a woman didn't need two witnesses to prove she was raped?
The Society often uses "principles" from the Mosaic law to help Witnesses know the 'proper' code of conduct. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not apply "principle", i.e., a woman raped in a field did not have to provide 2 witnesses, when it comes to child abuse?
Unless, of course, this teaching is not Biblical. Unless, of course, it's merely there to keep embarassing, or otherwise messy situations quiet. Unless, of course, the organization cares less for the victim than they do selling their literature.