two witness ruling ?

by KAYTEE 154 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Big Tex

  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.

  What I've always wondered why this two witness rule doesn't apply to things like murder? Why only sexual abuse and rape?

  I mean, if Joe Witness sees another JW shoot and kill someone, why don't the elders demand Joe present 2 eyewitnesses to "prove" his allegation? Think that would go over well with the police? "Gee officer I couldn't report the murder because I could not present 2 eyewitnesses."

  Are accused or people on "trial" able to request a public trial with their accusers present?

  Not at all. It is absolutely kept secret. No one, especially the victim, is allowed to take notes or make any recordings. The elders can ask any question no matter how humiliating, such as "Did you have an orgasm?" "Were you wearing underwear?" "Did you enjoy it?" and so on.
• 

  mrsjones5

  I hate disappearing posts
• 

  Big Tex

  Mrs. Jones, like any and all Jehovah's Witnesses, or wannabe Jehovah's Witnesses, they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I've challenged renai (sp?) before and naturally she showed a jellyfish spine by not responding.

  However if he surprises me, I will be delighted.

  The 2 witness rule IS EVIL. Nothing else describes a rule that allows a child to be brutally assaulted whilst standing by and doing nothing. Jesus spoke about folks like that when he said "it would be better if such one had a millstone tied around his neck and were tossed into the sea."

  I have very mixed feelings about god, but ain't no way the being described in the Bible would have any connection to such an evil rule.

  Jehovah's Witnesses are not interested in people. They are interested in selling their idiotic magazines, attending boring meetings and killing time by slowly walking door to door. In other words, they believe statistics and numbers earn god's favour; or at the very least, that's all that little sect is interested in. Numbers. Not people.

  Chris
• 

  palmtree67

  This didn't involve a sexual crime, but when I was being stalked and harrassed by a JW family, my "worldly" neighbor correctly identified to the police the make of car and physical description of the "sister" who was stalking me.

  Her testimony (I had the police report) was NOT accepted by the elders, because they felt a "worldly" person would just lie about what she saw.
• 

  Big Tex

  Her testimony (I had the police report) was NOT accepted by the elders, because they felt a "worldly" person would just lie about what she saw.

  This is in line with the instructions in the "Flock" book, given to the elders by the Society. I used to have a print out of it, but I think I've lost it now.

  At any rate, the elders are instructed that (1) they may accept the testimony of a minor; or they may not. The decision is left up to them. This includes testimony of a chid who has been raped, or a child who saw the rape occur. (2) they may accept the testimony of a worldy person; or they may not. The decison is left up to them.

  Once again, it's about keeping things in the congregation quiet, so everyone can focus on selling and attending meetings. Nothing more.

  Chris
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Big Tex says "selling". That's now "giving free". Times have changed.
• 

  isaacaustin

  spike, it is all busy work to make the captive slave for the org...that is all it is...nothing of saving lives with that false gospel
• 

  sir82

  No reply, Spike Tassel?

  1) What if Brother Lecher does not confess - will he be disfellowshipped?

  2) Your earlier reply implied that a 12 year old rape victim might be disfellowshipped - true?
• 

  Big Tex

  Big Tex says "selling". That's now "giving free". Times have changed

  Snotty non-sequitors all you've got? That's it?

  You made the accusation, well back it up bucko.

  Show me:

  • One, just one scripture in the Bible wherein Jehovah God demands that a child must present 2 eyewitnesses to prove they were sexually assaulted;
  • One scripture wherein Jehovah God allows the priests to ignore testimony of a minor child, including the victim, simply because the testimony is not coming from an adult;
  • One scripture wherein Jehovah God allows the priests to ignore testimony of a non-Israelite simply because the testimony is not coming from an Israelite;
  • One scripture wherein Jehovah God put to death any Isrealite who, after the sexual offender denied the rape, continued to complain for justice;

  Further:

  • Provide a Biblical reconiciliation of Jesus' statement and attitude toward one who harms a child versus the demand a child present 2 eyewitnesses, i.e., how could Jesus be so angry, so contemptuous toward anyone who hurt a child while on the other hand turning a blind eye toward a child pleading for help;
  • Why did Jehovah God provide a legal way out for a woman who had been raped in a field, i.e., she could say she was raped without having to scream (or provide two eyewitnesses for that matter). Why would Jehovah God go to the trouble of providing for an adult woman and yet not make some provision for an innocent, defenseless child?
  • Why did Jehovah God allow an Israelite to attempt to kill someone who had accidently killed a loved one (no mention of two eyewitnesses by the way), thereby forcing the accidental murderer to flee to a city of refuge, and yet not make a similar provision for the family of a child who had been raped? If a man were angry that a loved one had been accidently killed, how would that same man feel if his son or daughter were brutally raped?

  You make quite a show spouting circular nonsense about Biblical translations and what not, I don't really read that foolishness so god only knows what, but I am asking legitmate, realistic questions.

  Put up or shut up. You think having 2 eyewitnesses a good thing, so back it up. Show me answers from the Bible to my questions. Show me your astounding Biblical prowess.

  Surprise me.

  Chris
• 

  VoidEater

  There were no witnesses to my rape. Therefore, nothing could be done against the rapist. These fine spiritual laws protected an elder, giving him access to children, even though "everyone knew he was a molester" (according to a family member).

  This is more than just a "theoretical discussion". I was raped for the first 12 years of my life by this man. I had been so thoroughly brainwashed by the religion that I didn't dare make an accusation without having a witness. I think a useful legal phrase here is CHILLING EFFECT.

  Part of my situation certainly was that it had gone on for so long it seemed normal to me; the rest was that I was a "mentally gifted" child and fully understood The Law as it was told to me.

  The fact is that this "2 witness rule" protects perpetrators and maintains the APPEARANCE of a good environment. Another is that this rule (and the other instructions to elders to, when they feel they have to, only notify authorities anonymously) INTERFERES with justice.

  Any way you slice it, the result is more harm to more children.