The Two Witness Rule is NOT THE ISSUE

by jst2laws 51 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

Pathofthorns

J2L...
Just wondering what your thoughts are with regard to the fundamentals of Christianity and the forgiveness of all sins on the basis of faith in Christ's sacrifice? Exactly what is the congregation supposed to do with molesters who have served their sentences? Is not Christianity itself and the concept of "forgiveness" and the supposed ability to "change" people's personalities at the root of much of this problem in Christian religions?
Is there any place for them realistically in a Christian congregation where there are children present? How should they handle "repentent" molesters in harmony with Christian teachings?
I personally see no real difficulties with the 2 witness rule as you expressed and that allegations of minors being abused should be reported to the authorities. I also think convicted molesters (and alleged molesters until proven innocent) should not be allowed to go door to door. If the Society does implement these policy changes how much can we trust their elders to follow through?
We also cannot skirt around the possibly of false accusations and the seriousness of making such. I consider false accusations of this sort to be a wrong of the highest degree.
To be honest, I would like to see case by case examinations of where the Society or their representatives failed these people and the degree to which they were responsible for what happened to them. I think the Society's stance on discouraging certain therapies is significant in the harm they caused as well. I just think there is certain dangers in presenting blanket arguments that would lead people to believe that the Society is the root cause of all of these instances of molestation.
Exactly what is the absolute goal of Silentlambs? If changes are made but not trusted to be implemented then will this ever end until the WT is out of business? What is the real goal here? How exactly do we fight over the policies on molestation where the WT is most often indirectly or partially responsible and at the same time ignore the children that die solely due to their policy on blood?
Many know that I have been bothered by this subject for quite some time now and I still fail to grasp these things. I have been patient and will continue to be but I cannot fully support something I don't understand well enough. I feel I have made progress but if I don't understand the goal how well can I support the changes that get us there?
My personal hope honestly is the end of the WT or if that is not reasonable then for it to be a religion without teeth. I see little benefits to children - even with whatever "policy changes" - as long as this religion continues on it's present path. Are we interested in protecting children in every sense of the word or are we hoping this issue is an effective means to collapse the house of cards?
Path
eisenstein

Great Post Jst2laws and Great replies everyone!
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe that is what they are going by these days, needs to take responsibility for their actions or should I say their failure to act. They have to realize we aren't living in a perfect world yet and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't infallable. Many of them have and continue to break the law, man and God's. What I don't understand is the punishment (disfellowshipping) of the abused victims who try to take legal actions against their perpetrators.
Lady Lee, I agree that wife abuse is next. My mother was disfellowshipped 27 years ago because she made it public knowledge that my stepfather had taken an overdose. All she did was call an ambulence, he had taken an overdose of her sedatives and she didn't know how many, she just found him unconscious. What was she supposed to do, call Elder So-and-So and say, "My husband just took an overdose can you come and pump his stomach?" Anyway, my mother to this day hasn't ever really recovered from that decision made in that dark committee room that night. She has almost killed her ownself to death with guilt and sadness, not to mention smoking a pack of Marlboros or two a day. By the way, my mother saved his life by calling the ambulence, he is still living and has since remarried.
"I have more to say but wish to see YOU face to face"...that scripture just came to mind.
eisenstein
chester

In the sense that the R&F will not report until they are authorized to do so you are right. Good point. The average witnesses will go first to the elders to be told what to do
excellent point
larc

Even if the parents and the abused child eventually go to the authorities, they are pretty damaged by the time they get there. First, they go to the elders and discuss it with them. As I understand it, the child is often questioned in great detail in front of the abuser. Then, under the best of circumstances, the elders do not discourage the parents from going to the authorities. Of course, they do not encourage such an action. By the time the child does see the authorities, I would imagine that the child is pretty much of a basket case. This makes it very difficult for the authorities to sort out the truth.
jst2laws

Hello again Salud,
You asked:
The problem is also that these elders have been 'trained' to believe that this two-witness policy applies in cases of child abuse, and most elders totally believe it. The elders, are not concerned first with legal issue as they are with the scriptural procedure that has been handed down to them. So who is responsible for this training?
Good question, who is "responsible". Above I commented:
That is why the WT is reprehensible in teaching or implying that they can handle this problem theocratically.
Who is responsible for this confusion as to who to go to with this crime? The WT society. Again the issue is not "two witnesses" but who to report to. The WT has created this problem and is therefore responsible for the consequences. And the consequences are enormous.
Yes the WT, as you say, has "trained" the R&F as well as the elders to ignore the law of the land and go with the 'theocratic arrangement'. You have now focussed on the heart of the problem. This "training" in the name of Jehovah God. As you say:
"The elders, are not concerned first with legal issue".
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. They should be concerned with the legal issue but they have been trained to disregard it in favor of internal religious policies.
Should the horse pull the cart or should the cart push the horse? I maintain that they can do what they want with internal congregation procedures but they cannot override criminal law with their congregation procedure. Reporting crime comes first, then they play any game they want with the scriptures.
Jst2laws
cellomould

This post and all the comments have been an enjoyable read...
...my addition to the topic is regarding the 'justice' involved in using two witnesses to make an accusation. Every day we read comments clamoring for 'justice' within the JW organization, i.e. disfellowshipping the accused.
This is neither justice nor much of a real protection for the children. From whence come all the comments about taking the matter to the proper authorities. On the money, folks.
Of course, the elders would like to believe that the channel through which they receive their chain-of-command is somehow tuned in to a higher authority. Well, that reminds me of a commercial I've seen a few times:
Who says, by the way, that the Jewish religious leaders aren't the ones still in cahoots with God?

Let's look at Matthew chapter 28, where, in one fell swoop, Jesus appropriated the authority of the Jewish religious leaders:
17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28:17-19 :: New International Version (NIV)
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+28:17-19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
Disregarding the fact that fully 1/3 of the world's population were already adherents of a Christian faith, the group that became known as Jehovah's Witnesses took up the cause of world evangelism yet again, thus appropriating the authority of Jesus. (which we are not so sure existed in the first place, considering what the folks at Hebrew National, makers of fine hot dogs, have told us):
*** Watchtower 1933 November 1 p.296 ***
[Not available on 1993/1995/1999 CD-ROM]
As surely as Jehovah has an organization on the earth, just so surely he is feeding the members of that organization by the hand of Christ Jesus. The facts prove that he uses the Watchtower publications to bring these truth to attention of his remnant ...
http://quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/channel.htm It will take quite a while yet before it sets it with the religious leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses that they might not be communing with any higher power whatsoever. Who knows...they may in the future invest in bloodless meat products rather than magazine sales. cellmould
Lady Lee
Let's say for the sake of argument they got rid of the 2-witness rule.
Would that enable R&F to go directly to the police?
I doubt it. Even if they had 20 eye witnesses to the abuse they would still run to the elders first as primary authority.
I think they go for comfort when they are shocked as any parent would.should be when faced with the fact that their child has been abused. But they also go because they know
They are not to take their brother to court
They are not to bring reproach on ~~Jehovah's~~ WTS's name.
They go hoping for justice
They go so that the child will not have to testify in court (they don't realize the world is a lot gentler and kinder to child victims than inept elders)
They go because they think that if the child has to talk to someone they know about what happened it is easier than talking to a stranger.
They go because they are out-right told there is no justice/wisdom in the world (who else would we go to comes to mind here)
Note too that when Dateline asked for a list of how many cases were taken to court the WTS came up with a total of 2 cases - both where the abuser was a non-JW. This implies that when the abuser IS a JW the above would be in full force.
The WTS is fully invested in protecting its image. They can't back down. For them to come out and acknowledge that they made a mistake either using the policy for this situation or for maintaining the policy or for not changing it earlier tarnishes their image as God's servant. What we have here is a group of people who have the power over 6,000,000 people worldwide and all their money and all the money they bring in as well as all the money left to them when the member dies. They maintain that power by telling people they are God's only agents on earth. And as such they are to be obeyed as if God Himself was talking. With the weight of God behind them they bully people into submission to any rule that preserves the power this group has over the R&F. Admitting they are wrong is the equivalent of admitting they don't have God's backing
sorry if I am repeating myself - got sidetracked with a couple of phone calls
UnDisfellowshipped

This is a very good Thread going.
I read most of the Posts and I think this Thread is very informative.
I have a few comments:
JST2LAWS said:
BUT IS THE TWO WITNESS RULE THE REAL ISSUE? NO!
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH WT POLICY
Any religion, in a society that guarantees freedom of religion, can make their own rules to apply within their limited community. It should not matter to us if the WT requires two witness to take congregation action. What is wrong with the WT policy is that they do not treat this criminal act as a crime. They do not send the alleged victim directly to the authorities.
They may claim they are not required to do so in many states. But in most, if not all, states everyone who does not have Clerical Immunity is required to report knowledge or suspicion of a serious criminal act to the authorities. If they do not they may be charged with complicity to the very crime.
I agree. The MAIN NUMBER ONE PROBLEM is not going to the Police before the Elders.
However, the Elders use the 2-Witness Rule to Threaten, Shun, and Punish the VICTIM inside the Congregation.
First, they tell the VICTIMS that the 2-Witness Rule is GOD'S RULE, and that you must not go against GOD.
Then, if the Victim actually does tell someone else (including the Police), the Elders can claim that the Victim is SLANDERING AN INNOCENT PERSON because the Victim did not have a 2nd Witness.
So, then they can initiate a Judicial Hearing against the Victim, and they can then have everyone in the Congregation Shun the Victim, and basically tell everyone in the Congregation that the Victim is a liar.
This type of crime has only in the last few decades come to the surface of societal awareness as more than a family problem.
Well, maybe so, but several thousand years ago, God had a Law against it:
Leviticus 18:6: "'None of you shall approach anyone who are his close relatives, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh.
Bottom Line
The two witness rule is an internal congregation law. Its relevance to the WT molestation problem is the confusion that congregation rules should be applied before and instead of turning over criminal acts to crime investigators.
I agree, however, the 2-Witness Rule causes a lot of problems for the Victim, even if the Victim does go to the Police.
In my opinion they can KEEP their two witness rule and apply it in the CONGREGATION any way they want to.
Well, the 2-Witness Rule allows the Elders to Threaten, Shun, Condemn, and Punish the Victim within the Congregation, even if the Victim goes to the Police.
However, I agree with you, the MAIN PROBLEM is not going to the Police.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 3 November 2002 20:39:25
UnDisfellowshipped

Also, I wanted to add a few more things:
The Watchtower claims the 2-Witness Rule is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT LAW OF JEHOVAH.
Yet, if the Elders are in a Mandatory-Reporting State for Clergy, they go against "God's 2-Witness Rule" and report to the Authorities without having the 2nd Witness.
Also, I believe the Laws in all 50 States DO REQUIRE Clergy to report cases to the Authorities if they were reported BY THE VICTIM, but some States do allow Clergy to not report if it was a CONFESSION BY THE MOLESTER.
Lady Lee
Pathofthorns
Just wondering what your thoughts are with regard to the fundamentals of Christianity and the forgiveness of all sins on the basis of faith in Christ's sacrifice? Exactly what is the congregation supposed to do with molesters who have served their sentences? Is not Christianity itself and the concept of "forgiveness" and the supposed ability to "change" people's personalities at the root of much of this problem in Christian religions?
Is there any place for them realistically in a Christian congregation where there are children present? How should they handle "repentent" molesters in harmony with Christian teachings?
First they have to serve some kind of sentence which means going to the police. It is almost like putting the cart before the horse to talk about what to do with them when they get out.
Serving time, being repentant and getting treatment of pedophilia (a very difficult and rarely successful endeavor) are 3 totally different things.
Would I want a convicted pedophile sitting next to my child at the book study?
Would I want a convicted pedophile taking the lead at the service meeting or praying at my dinner table?
Would I want to be assigned to go door to door with him?
Would I trust him to not abuse another child?
Would I even be told?
Forgiving is one thing - trusting him again is another. Most released pedophiles have an order for them not to be near children. It is na honor system unless they are caught. But if the elders don't tell the cong who the pedos are how do the R&F make sure they are not making friends with one and inviting him into their home.
Personally I would never trust anyone that on theyr word they are sorry - not in this case - the stakes are too high

The Two Witness Rule is NOT THE ISSUE

Share this