Why the 2 witnesses rule is not worth attacking........barking up the wrong tree!

by krismalone 12 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • krismalone

    Some former JW protesters are wasting their time and energy "exposing" or criticizing the Watchtowers 2 witness rule here's why:

    Lets suppose the Governing Body changes this and expells anyone accused of child molestation even if accused by one person. Would that solve the problem? Would the community and congregation be safe?

    NOT AT ALL!!

    Why not?

    01.) The pedophile would just be reinstated within a year or so.

    02.) No one in the Congregation is ever warned or given the reason for the disfellowshipping

    03.) Victims are prohibited from warning others.

    04.) The police are not called even if required by law (Stephanie Fessler, Gonzalo Campos)

    05.) Victims and family are discouraged from calling police.

    06.) Elders are instructed NOT to cooperate with authorities to help encarcerate a pedophile even under court order or subpoena. They become complicit to pedophilia under the ecclesiastical privilege.

    So if we really think about it, what good is it if the WT expelled pedophiles with only 1 accuser when his depravity and crime is kept hidden from the law, congregation and community and within a year he is back in the congregation with unsupervised access to children?

    What needs to be exposed is how they refuse to turn in the database of pedophiles and how they're being fined $4,000.00. They need to be exposed how they refuse to call police. They need to be exposed how they ignore subpoenas to testify and cooperate with authorities to encarcerate pedophiles. They need to be exposed on how they disfellowship victims that warn others about the molester.

  • neverendingjourney

    The 2 witness rule is worth attacking. So are all the other factors you raise.

    The fact that pedophilia is a multi-faceted problem doesn't mean one of the factors is "not worth attacking."

  • Simon

    No, the two-witness rule is a free-pass for child abuse because how many people doing that seek an audience?

    And it's important to note that they use that rule when it suits - how many times do other much more trivial rule violations get let off because there aren't 2 witnesses? Not very often - just someone saying something is enough for an interrogation and a conviction and yet when it is an actual crime, then suddenly no amount of evidence is enough to get them to do anything at all. Even with their 2-witness rule, they go out of their way to come up with excuses (like 3 people making an accusation aren't the 2 witnesses necessary to any one of the crimes).

    It's a really easy to visualize abuse of power and failure to protect the vulnerable for outside onlookers who can instantly see how wrong and unfair it is so I think it is well worth pushing. Much better than issues like shunning IMO.

  • redvip2000
    Lets suppose the Governing Body changes this and expells anyone accused of child molestation even if accused by one person. Would that solve the problem? Would the community and congregation be safe?
    NOT AT ALL!!

    You are sort of missing the point. The angle of this issue is more about the pedestal that Jdrones put the organization in. In other words, even though you couldn't guarantee the safety of children 100% as you correctly stated, by pointing out this glaring flaw in the organization, a percentage of Jdrones will realize that having such a flawed policy is incompatible with the idea that a loving God is running this organization.

    Now, it's true that many Jdrones will engage in apologetics and resort to the old "well we are imperfect" argument, however, a percentage will be struck by the fact this organization claims to be directed by a loving God, while maintaining such a terrible policy.

  • Kevin McFree
    Kevin McFree

    directly tied to the 2 witness rule fight is the part where they dont report to authorities. where there is no 2nd witness or confession the matter is dropped.

    the 2 witness gig is purely for congregation action. who cares whether the pedo is allowed to use mics again, if authorities are aware the matter, it will be processed in a way that if guilty puts it all in public domain solving a number of problems raised in your post

  • krismalone

    What action do you think protects children?

    01.) Having a judicial committee expell a pedophile accused by one person (as many ex JW protested) and in a year he's back to prey in the congregation as no one is aware of his depraved crimes while never spending a second in jail or.........

    02.) Have a pedophile locked up in prison 20 yrs and registered as a sex offender.

    The WT judicial process is a joke. It has no bearing in protecting anyone. Everything is kept secret from the congregation and community. You have people protesting this 2 witness rule as if the WT judicial process actually protects people and is desperately needed for the benefit of the children. They're barking up the wrong tree. The authorities need to be called in All cases of child molestation allegations and made public when confirmed and attach to that prison time. That's what really protects children and not some cult that needs 2 witnesses to expell someone that committed something that no one will ever know about much less serve any prison time.

  • steve2

    Krismalone, who ever said that abolishing the two-witness rule would automatically lead to an alleged offender being expelled? You are overly simplifying the entire issue.

  • StarTrekAngel

    I think you are bringing up a social issue rather than a religious one. Many pedophiles walk free in the legal system and rape more than one kid before they actually get caught and sent to prison.

    Unfortunately, religious freedom involves a degree of impunity for certain actions within the religious realm. In this group, we discuss the latter. Because the WT insists that they do not shield pedophiles and in their minds they are absolutely correct because a pedophile is not a pedophile unless there is a second witness. If they were to get rid of that rule, then the authorities are likely to be involved more often. Provided that this is also not perfect, the moment a victim is able to report their abuser without fear of retaliation from the elders, then it is much more likely that they will come forward.

    Expecting the congregation to publicly announce pedophiles is far too unrealistic at this point. Both from the JW culture perspective as well as from a legal perspective.

    Much more damage is being done by holding back the victims and pressuring them into silence. This entire silencing process depends strictly in the two witness rule, simply because the two witness rule is the only way they can silence the victims using the bible. If the bible wasn't involved, they would hardly have any tools to control them.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    I would say the internal "2 witness rule" means absolutely nothing at all.

    All that matters is the lack of reporting to the proper authorities, and the basis for them deciding not to. Their internal rules can be whatever the hell they want really......as long as they do whats right in society first.

    They haven't.......which is why they are in this pickle.

  • Diogenesister

    It's all absurd. If a young persons parents go to the police because their child accuses a dub of molestation, it goes to court and the dub is prosecuted and sentenced will the dub be disfellowshipped?? Damn right he will. But there is only one witness! Stupid rule Soon bloody goes out the window when it suits them!!

Share this