Odrade
Oroborus was not bent on defending the witnesses. He was merely offering the reason accusations of child abuse need to be carefully deliberated on both in a Witness judicial committee and in the court of law. They need to establish if there is any validity to the claims.
In a judicial committee, I suppose if the elders did things correctly, they will not merely accept pleas from the accused as proof of innocence, but will investigate possible witnesses and other evidences for the crime. Let's not be quick to assume that ALL witnesses only care about their reputation and not the welfare of their children!
People must equally consider the possibility that the accused may be innocent (NOT referring to the case at the outset!). If he was, do you realize what a terrible terrible mistake it would be to bring such humiliation to him and his family?? That was what Oroborus meant by "our concern in protecting our young" may "(overthrow) the principles of justice and truth". I am NOT saying I agree with the manner the elders handle these cases. Frankly I am not familiar with their protocol. But I am trying to understand why they do the things they do.
I do not know if you have any personal interest in convicting the witnesses for the way they handle molestation cases, but to bare fang and claws at someone who's trying to consider both sides of the issue, is not fair.
That actually reeks of the same injustice that is practiced by elders who refuse to listen to cries of genuine victims! Those who choose not to hear both sides of a story!
Food for thought...
INQ