by RubaDub 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
It is simple. You hold a Judicial Committee. If he has not/will not report to the police - he is not repentant. You disfellowship and never let him back until he has confessed.
The two witness rule is crazy. No pedophile (unless it is a ring) is going to have another witness. Almost as crazy as there must be 4 muslim males witness a rape of a girl. Not going to happen.
When did the elder arrangement come in . . . ?
~Binadub
1972
It is simple. You hold a Judicial Committee. If he has not/will not report to the police - he is not repentant. You disfellowship and never let him back until he has confessed.
It's not that simple. Will they hold a Judicial meeting on the accusation/ testimony of one lone child?
It's not that simple. Will they hold a Judicial meeting on the accusation/ testimony of one lone child?
The two witness rule is crazy. No pedophile (unless it is a ring) is going to have another witness. Almost as crazy as there must be 4 muslim males witness a rape of a girl. Not going to happen.
Wouldn't the posed question be more appropriate to ask if the WT organization should be guilty in any situational case of pedophilia,
if a event occurred and the elders of the congregation did not report it to the secular authorities ?
In these modern social times, pedophilia is a very serious crime, drawing severe penalties upon people who conduct
themselves in this kind of behavior. Being that the JWS try to emulate the social morals laws of the ancient Hebrews such as
implying that there must be two witnesses to a grievous crime, a person may very well exploit this arrangement to commit harmful things
upon people whom they associate with, even toward children.
There have been many child abuse situations within the JW organization where individuals never got legally charged or spent a day in jail,
that in itself should be seen as a crime that was never punished.
The other important reason why pedophilia behavior should be brought up to the proper authorities is that perpetrators are known to re-offend
putting the whole public in dangerous peril.
The fact that there has been an accusation should be enough to put a person on restriction until after the authorities have completed a proper investigation. After all, if a person is accused of such a thing, how can they be "free of reproach", at least temporarily. Even with no witnesses to the crime, the cloud of suspicion is still there simply because of the accusation. Not that the secular authorities always get things right, but it *is* their job to investigate. The elders are not law enforcement, and should never presume to preempt law enforcement.
Since I doubt they will give up the two witness rule.
All accusations should be treated as the awful crime that they are and reported to the authorities.
I would shout that loud and clear from the platform ASAP.
Watch the creeps scatter like roaches when the light gets turned on.
I attended in the 50s and 60s. My memories are vivid. They would say "so and so is disfellowsipped for adultery, seual conduct, etc. We had about ten teenagers found gulty of untoward sexual conduct. Our vice or asst. overseer was guilty of adultery. People would make an audible sound when it was announced. The conduct was unthinkable. I saw a pattern of the goody do shoes being the prime offenders.
If you say "there are allegations," you cannot be sued. Sandusky is not convicted now. Yet the press reports his trial. What is a limited ibel or slander suit compared to the welfare of children.
Sadly, the WT is not alone with this problem. I expect that victims' rights groups will force the religions to change their policy. My sister is a rah-rah Catholic yet they donate no money to the diocese. One of the problems is that traditionally people believed children came up with fantasies and lied. Research has found this is usually unwaranted.
Announcing allegations is not slander if there are true, good faith allegations. Convictions always start with allegations. He was convicted in this case.
The bottom line is that I was a member. Children need to be protected. I would be willing to pay for a liability fund from libelslander so that children and their parents have notice.
I can see where the two-witness rule (scriptural) could apply as to whether or not a member is disfellowshipped. But that should have nothing whatsoever with whether or not the crive, or even the accusation of a crime, is reported to civil law-enforcement authorities. Let the proper authorities investigate the accusations, not unqualified amateur congregation elders.
~Binadub
Understand your dilemma, the part you don't seem to be considering is that your comparing apples to orangutans.
The confidential counseling arrangement works well when someone is having a drinking problem or marital issues and the couple seeks out help from caring, well trained counselors.
The Two Witness Rule does not work well when there are Sexual Predators in a congregation that abuse children.
Personal issues and criminal behavior are NOT the same thing. On another thread an elder commented that his wife left their small children alone in a car with a pedophile while out in service because she didn't know he was a pedophile and she trusted him because he was a "brother." Her own husband couldn't warn her because if the WT's misguided "confidentiality" policy which clearly does NOT work in situations like this.
Finally, the key part is that congregation elders, though perhaps well-intentioned (and I know from personal experience that not all are) but they simply are not adequately trained or educated to handle the situations they have thrown at them.
