by KAYTEE 154 Replies latest jw friends
The two witness rule is archaic - which explains its presence in the Hebrew Scriptures - along with dozens of other laws that reflect the formalized brutality and absence of "human rights" of earlier societies.
It is interesting that the Watchtower selectively cites the old law code to justify a contentious legal position. But, to be fair, the watchtower is unfortunately not alone. The habit of selectively quoting pieces of an ancient law code is endemic in many fundamentalist groups.
Any allegation of child abuse should be reported to the authorities. That is WTBS policy.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Clearly you have never been an elder.
The WTS's policy on child abuse is this (for US only, don't know the policy in other countries):
1) Upon hearing of a child abuse accusation, IMMEDIATELY call the Watchtower Legal department. DO NOT verify that the victim is now safe, DO NOT call the police, DO NOT talk to the accused, DO NOT talk to the victim, DO NOT talk to anyone, CALL THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW.
2) You will asked what state you live in. IF IF IF and ONLY IF you happen to live in one of the states where "clergy" are required to report child abuse, you are instructed to report it police *
3) If you live in a state where "clergy" are NOT required to report child abuse, you are told there is "no need" to report it.
* This is the method they will recommend to you for informing the authorities:
A) Go to a public phone booth
B) Call the police and anonymously provide them with as much information as you know. DO NOT give them your name.
C) Henceforth forget all about any further legal obligations - you have completed your minimum requirements.
sir82, if both Brother Lecher and Molly admit to details of what happened, then we have the 2 needed witnesses. Whether one/both do so in front of the secular courts, and one/both do so in front of a congregation member, there is clearly enough evidence to proceed with the JC and disfellowship Brother Lecher, and possibly even Molly, depending on the exact circumstances and whether both are baptised.
Sexual offenders rarely, if ever, admit to their offenses. I've seen cases where the offender still denied even after being convicted in a court of law. Naturally, of course, the elders chose to believe him over the court since, as we all know, the judicial system is being controlled by Satan.
I've also seen cases where the elders conspired to keep the victim from reporting the matter to the police. I've seen cases where the elders knew the offender was guilty irregardless of a confession and still did nothing.
The two witness rule was put in place as a means to silence any victim from reporting. Jehovah's Witnesses are not interested in justice, they just want things to run quietly so they can sell their inane magazines. It's about stats, not people.
The two witness rule is evil. Evil cannot exist where a god of love is, therefore the god of the Bible does not exist amongst Jehovah's Witnesses.
Chris
I consider Big Tex's comments here as slanderous.
prove it Spike
I really don't think you know what the word slander means
Josie
sir82, if both Brother Lecher and Molly admit to details of what happened, then we have the 2 needed witnesses.
I can't decide if you are stupid, naive, or just chain-yanking.
The whole point is, what if (as in 99.9% of sex abuse cases) the perpetrator never confesses to anyone?
The point is, what if Molly accuses Brother Lecher, he denies it, but there is incontrovertible proof of his guilt (DNA evidence)? Will he be disfellowshipped or not?
possibly even Molly, depending on the exact circumstances and whether both are baptised.
I quite clearly stated in my post it was "rape". Would a JW committee disfellowship a 12 year old baptized rape victim?
Unfortunately, I think I already know the answer to that one.
While I think that the "rule" of multiple witnesses is a good one, it should not keep from the investigation into allegations of ANY Crime being commited.
Also, there is the fact that hearing were public when that rule was created, is that the case also in the WT ?
Are accused or people on "trial" able to request a public trial with their accusers present?
I know that is not desriabel in all cisrcumstances, but I think in terms of disfellowhip issues, it shoudl be policy.
I don't think itneeds to be applied to crimes or allegations of crimes, that is the police and courts Job.
I consider Big Tex's comments here as slanderous
Put up or shut up.
Chris
