For shadow

by Big Tex 52 Replies latest members private

amac

Tashawaa -
As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
This is what the Society bases its "two witness" rule on...
You quoted this out of context as the following line says:
However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.
So their two witness rule is NOT limited to witnesses to the same event. All they need is two accusations to act against someone denying charges. Do you think it should be otherwise? Do you really think that a single accusation against a person should mean they are guilty? I'm glad our court systems don't work that way...
amac

Cassiline -
I agree with your post except for this:
Now this means that the victim must coexist in the same congregation with her/his abuser. We both know the laws within the JW community of slander. If this child repeats such or her parents repeat such to anyone in the congregation then they are guilty of slander which carries several penalties.
So the victim or their family may be Disfellowshipped or Reproved, marked because they dared to speak out about what the abuser did to him or her. No one can be warned under this policy which gives the abuser access to more targets.
If the victim is in a situation where they have to coexist with the accused, then in most cases it is going to be because the accused was not found guilty in a court of law and sent to jail. I AGREE they should not be talking to others about it and to warn people against him/her. If he was not found guilty in a court of law than it IS SLANDER to continue to make accusations about the person. I'm sorry for the victim, but there has to be some balance to justice. This very well could be considered legal slander and defamation as well as congregational.
Now in the odd case that the person was found guilty, did his/her time and returned to the congregation, then I would see no problem in warning others.
Big Tex

I would want the elders to absolutely and totally separate the accused from the victim and any other child until such time as his guilt or innocence is established.
I don't see the elders as having the power to do this.

Sorry shadow, I wasn't clear (that's what I get for thinking faster than I can type!). I meant within the confines of the Kingdom Hall and congregational activities.
Police make mistakes too and it may drag on for months or years. Should JW's wait for the wheels of justice to turn? How many guilty people get off in the legal system? How many innocent are convicted?

We've already agreed that elders are not trained and not qualified to handle child abuse cases. Should JWs wait? Of course. Just like anyone else ('render unto Caesar ...'). The legal system is very flawed and has made rendered many wrong verdicts. However the probability of it coming to the correct decision is far higher than 3 elders sitting on a judicial committee using the 2 eyewitness rule as their standard. If I were an elder, I would not want the responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence. I would inifintely prefer it to be handled by the courts. That is what the courts are there for, unlike a body of elders.
amac
If the victim is in a situation where they have to coexist with the accused, then in most cases it is going to be because the accused was not found guilty in a court of law and sent to jail. I AGREE they should not be talking to others about it and to warn people against him/her. If he was not found guilty in a court of law than it IS SLANDER to continue to make accusations about the person. I'm sorry for the victim, but there has to be some balance to justice. This very well could be considered legal slander and defamation as well as congregational.
That's assuming of course that the victim was not intimidated or threatened into silence by the elders. It has happened thousands of times, hence one large reason for Silent Lambs. I know of a situation here in Dallas (and I referenced it to shadow on the other thread) whereby the elders did threaten and intimidate the families of the victims into silence. All but one, who reported it the offender was convicted and went to jail.
However when he was released after a year, he came right back to the same KH. The elders approached every victim and told them to 'deal with it', they even went so far as to forbid anyone in the congregation to talk about it on pain of being DF'd for slander. They then gave a special needs talk about the need for forgiveness. (As an aside, it is interesting the elders consistently show more interest in the needs and wants of the offenders rather than the victim. Forgiveness is part of Christianity but it must be done when the victim is ready as part of their healing and when the offender has asked for it. But Jesus himself said it would be better for a man to have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than hurt a little one. To me, this meant a lot as it shows where his sympathies lie).
At any rate, they even put the offender in the same book study as the victim who reported him to the police. Naturally the family had to leave as it was too stressful for the child.
I guess my point is that most of the cases have not involved the law and the courts. Most of the time there has been no verdict. Many, if not most of the cases get squashed at the congregation level.
shadow

I think your response here may have been more general than specifically to what you quote from Big Tex. But YES, the congregation should allow the legal system to determine guilt or innocense. Not sure what you mean by wait? Do you mean that fellow JW's should come to their own judgement about his guilt before the facts are revealed in court? I would disagree.
Some may be guilty without a reasonable doubt, but not convicted due to some technicality. Months or years may go by before a person is convicted. Should the congregation wait that long before taking action? Also just pointing out that the legal system will also err in both directions, just like the congregation.
The trick here is that EVERYONE is supposed to go door to door...at least that is what they told me on my elder's visit last week :) when I told them I witness in other ways. So if someone is a convicted child molester, they should not be told to go door to door without an elder and the elders should discuss alternative methods with them.
That seems reasonable.
outoftheorg

THE MAIN PROBLEM AS I SEE IT, IS THAT WE HAVE A RELIGION TRYING TO PASS ITSELF OFF AS A NATION WITH A GOVERNMENT AND LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT.
THEY DERIVED THEIR LAWS FROM THE BIBLE AND ITS MIXTURE OF ANCIENT TRIBAL LAWS.
THIS RELIGION EXISTS IN A TRUE NATION WITH A GOVERNMENT AND LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT.
THEY DERIVED THEIR LAWS BASED ON TODAYS SOCIETY AND REALITY.
THE RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO ARREST, IMPRISON, FINE, OR EXECUTE THE WRONG DOERS. IT DOES NOT HAVE A JUDICIAL SYSTEM WITH EDUCATED TRAINED JUDGES, ATTORNEYS, PROSECUTORS, OR POLICE.
THE RELIGION IS LEFT WITH A FEW UNEDUCATED, UNTRAINED, WANNA BE POLICE AND JUDGES. STUMBLEING AROUND, TRYING TO LOOK IMPORTANT AND USING OLD TRIBAL LAWS TO DELIVER ANCIENT TRIBAL JUSTICE TO THE MEMBERS.
THE PEDOPHILE ISSUE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, ALONG WITH ALL OTHER ILLEGALITIES, OUGHT TO BE DELIVERED TO THE AUTHORITIES IN THE REAL GOVERNMENT.
THE WBTS HAS TO RE ASSUME ITS PLACE AS A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AND ONLY THAT.
IT HAS TO ABANDON ITS OUTRAGEOUS SILLY ATTEMPT TO BE A GOVERNMENT . ANY ILLEGAL ACTS NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES AND LEFT THERE.
THEN THE RELIGION CAN TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWBREAKER BASED ON THE COURTS FINDINGS. THESE ACTS ALSO MUST BE LEGAL AND SUPPORTED WITH THE LEGITIMATE LAWS.
WE CAN ARGUE, DISCUSS, DEBATE THE HOWS AND WHYS OF THE ACTS OF THE WBTS ACTIONS AND BELIEFS AND WHERE THEY ORIGINATED, TILL HELL FREEZES OVER AND GET NOWHERE.
BECAUSE. THEY DON'T BELONG IN THIS POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE. CUREING THEM IS IMPOSSIBLE.
THEIR PUSHING THEMSELVES INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL ISSUES AND PLAYING AT BEING A GOVERNMENT, IS AN ARROGANT, DANGEROUS AND LUDICROUS ATTEMPT TO CONTROL PEOPLE.
Just my two cents
Outoftheorg
shadow

Big Tex:
We've already agreed that elders are not trained and not qualified to handle child abuse cases. Should JWs wait? Of course. Just like anyone else ('render unto Caesar ...'). The legal system is very flawed and has made rendered many wrong verdicts. However the probability of it coming to the correct decision is far higher than 3 elders sitting on a judicial committee using the 2 eyewitness rule as their standard. If I were an elder, I would not want the responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence. I would inifintely prefer it to be handled by the courts. That is what the courts are there for, unlike a body of elders.

If elders wait on court system, children may be endangered while waiting. If there is enough evidence to df I think that action should be taken without having to wait for the courts. I think that evidence presented in court should also stand as a 'second witness' so to speak.
Stipulating that what you said about the case in Dallas is true, the situation is outrageous. When did this occur?
Sunspot

WE CAN ARGUE, DISCUSS, DEBATE THE HOWS AND WHYS OF THE ACTS OF THE WBTS ACTIONS AND BELIEFS AND WHERE THEY ORIGINATED, TILL HELL FREEZES OVER AND GET NOWHERE.
BECAUSE. THEY DON'T BELONG IN THIS POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE. CUREING THEM IS IMPOSSIBLE.
THEIR PUSHING THEMSELVES INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDICIAL ISSUES AND PLAYING AT BEING A GOVERNMENT, IS AN ARROGANT, DANGEROUS AND LUDICROUS ATTEMPT TO CONTROL PEOPLE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOW! Talk about the "bottom line"!!!
Great post...
Tashawaa

So their two witness rule is NOT limited to witnesses to the same event. All they need is two accusations to act against someone denying charges. Do you think it should be otherwise? Do you really think that a single accusation against a person should mean they are guilty? I'm glad our court systems don't work that way...

Amac,
I quoted a scripture that Jehovah himself gave as law to the Isrealites. Jehovah himself felt that a single accusation against a person (in the case of rape) would mean they were guilty and the rapist would be put to death. It was only on the word of the victim that this justice was carried out. This scripture deals with sex crimes. Is the rape of a child less in Jehovah's eyes than that of a woman? Wouldn't the same principle apply?
Big Tex

If elders wait on court system, children may be endangered while waiting

How so? In this scenario, the accused has been charged and the case is working its way through the court system. Many of the larger police departments have resources available for the victim and their families. In situations where it is incest, Child Protective Services would get involved and remove the children (or the offender) from the house thereby protecting the children .
When did this occur?
About 4 (5?) years ago.
shadow

Big Tex:
Maybe we are having a communication gap. So the accused should be free to carry on normally until convicted? go out in service? comment? stay in whatever position?
Was this situation in Dallas handled locally? What response to protests? (I assume there were protests?)

For shadow

Share this