The 'Two Witness Rule'

[Crovax]

I suppose this was an oversight on your part...

Not an oversight, anyone who reported sexual abuse to the authorities was disfellowshiped and that was the offical policy until 2002 and it happens even after the policy was changed.

 

[Daisy]

Not an oversight, anyone who reported sexual abuse to the authorities was disfellowshiped and that was the offical policy until 2002 and it happens even after the policy was changed.

By who's authority do you know this?

 

[Captain America]

I was recently having a discussion with a Jehovah Witness friend who informed me about the Jehovah Witness practicing of the 'Two Witness Rule.' This Youtube video was provided by the JW member to help me better understand what the 'Two Witness Rule' is. He explained the 'Two Witness Rule' is based on an Old Testament Bible verse. ( Deuteronomy 17:6 ) Here is the video. ------- ------ My questions are: 1) Are their any other Christian denominations, or non-denominal Christians who also practice this 'Two Witness Rule' - and 2) Why would any Christian(s) embrace, or practice, a rule from the Old Testament that is/was directed at OT Israelites?

It has been my observation that religious sects, across the spectrum, are selective when comes to which scripture they choose to embrace. The same old testament that might have mandated a "two witness rule" is the same old testament that tells you to stone your sassy teen age kid to death. So........

 

[The Mark]

Yet, it's good enough for the Constitution...Article III, Section 3, Clause 1...it serves as a protection against hearsay...

Some crimes cause enough harm that requiring two witness to prove them is too stringent.

This is why we have other types of evidence.
Specifically in the case of sexual crimes, there are rape kits, which so far as I know are about collecting potential samples of the attackers DNA and such.
However, for this to work, it must be done a short while after the attack.

 

[Daisy]

Some crimes cause enough harm that requiring two witness to prove them is too stringent.

This is why we have other types of evidence.
Specifically in the case of sexual crimes, there are rape kits, which so far as I know are about collecting potential samples of the attackers DNA and such.
However, for this to work, it must be done a short while after the attack.

That is true for secular orgs...Christians have the laws of the Bible to direct them, though...we are not a secular org but a spiritual one...

“We must obey God as ruler rather than men." Acts 5:29

 

[The Mark]

That is true for secular orgs...Christians have the laws of the Bible to direct them, though...we are not a secular org but a spiritual one...

“We must obey God as ruler rather than men." Acts 5:29

Not if the secular laws disagree with those rules.

Then you must follow the secular laws or face consequences.

 

[Daisy]

It has been my observation that religious sects, across the spectrum, are selective when comes to which scripture they choose to embrace. The same old testament that might have mandated a "two witness rule" is the same old testament that tells you to stone your sassy teen age kid to death. So........

What the OP failed to add is Jesus words in Matthew 18:15,16...

“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established."

And Paul's words in 1 Timothy 5:19...

"Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."

 

[Daisy]

Not if the secular laws disagree with those rules.

Then you must follow the secular laws or face consequences.

Then it is up to the secular law to take action...

 

[Logician Man]

That is true for secular orgs...Christians have the laws of the Bible to direct them, though...we are not a secular org but a spiritual one...

“We must obey God as ruler rather than men." Acts 5:29

Romans 13:1-7 ESV​

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

 

[Captain America]

What the OP failed to add is Jesus words in Matthew 18:15,16...

“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established."

And Paul's words in 1 Timothy 5:19...

"Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."

Sounds good to me....

 

[Mithrae]

wait, so everywhere else if there aren't two witnesses it's DROPPED????

that's the default rule EVERYWHERE ELSE?

That's not a 'default rule' anywhere, including within the JW organization: As clearly shown in post #16 the current JW policy is to report the criminal allegations to secular authorities
a) whenever required by law,
b) whenever a child remains in danger (or "some other valid reason") or
c) whenever the victim or their parents exercise their right to do so.

You and @Logician Man may choose to deny that fact until you're blue in your faces, but posting lies and misinformation about this subject is only likely to do more harm than good, regardless what personal emotional needs may be served by doing so.

"have never been shared with law enforcement"

Which obviously doesn't justify the lies and misinformation which other posters are choosing to spread on the subject. Official JW policies and procedures in this area likely aren't perfect even now; actual practice probably falls short even of that; and the situation historically has been much worse. I don't think there's any dispute about those facts. But those facts are also true across the board:
> For various reasons over 80% of sexual assaults are never reported to police to begin with
> Some two thousand formally reported sexual assaults went completely uninvestigated by police in Philadelphia from 1995-97 alone
> Only 30% of formally reported sexual assaults even led to an arrest, summons, formal caution or other legal action in Australia in the ten years to 2017
> Over ten percent of formally reported sexual assaults in Britain from 2016-2019 are not even recorded accurately

That's just a few of the results from Googling 'police ignore rape reports,' and that's before even getting to the difficulties of actual prosecution. Chauvinism, victim-blaming, flippancy, ignorance, image-consciousness and misinformation (such as being spread by some folk in this thread) have historically been far too commonplace, all across the board. An analysis by researchers in Germany suggested that abuse had been about as common in secular institutions (516 victims out of 1050) as in religious ones. Everyone still has a long way to go before we could really say that we've done the best we can in balancing 'presumption of innocence' against proactive protection (which the JW org seems to have progressively encouraged at least from the early 1990s), educating and encouraging victims to report, and processing/sharing/investigating/prosecuting those reports.

The approach used by some folk in this thread of singling out one particular fringe societal group for a campaign of demonization and slander is quite simply disgusting.

 

[CaughtInThe]

That's not a 'default rule' anywhere, including within the JW organization: As clearly shown in post #16 the current JW policy is to report the criminal allegations to secular authorities
a) whenever required by law,
b) whenever a child remains in danger (or "some other valid reason") or
c) whenever the victim or their parents exercise their right to do so.

You and @Logician Man may choose to deny that fact until you're blue in your faces, but posting lies and misinformation about this subject is only likely to do more harm than good, regardless what personal emotional needs may be served by doing so.




Which obviously doesn't justify the lies and misinformation which other posters are choosing to spread on the subject. Official JW policies and procedures in this area likely aren't perfect even now; actual practice probably falls short even of that; and the situation historically has been much worse. I don't think there's any dispute about those facts. But those facts are also true across the board:
> For various reasons over 80% of sexual assaults are never reported to police to begin with
> Some two thousand formally reported sexual assaults went completely uninvestigated by police in Philadelphia from 1995-97 alone
> Only 30% of formally reported sexual assaults even led to an arrest, summons, formal caution or other legal action in Australia in the ten years to 2017
> Over ten percent of formally reported sexual assaults in Britain from 2016-2019 are not even recorded accurately

That's just a few of the results from Googling 'police ignore rape reports,' and that's before even getting to the difficulties of actual prosecution. Chauvinism, victim-blaming, flippancy, ignorance, image-consciousness and misinformation (such as being spread by some folk in this thread) have historically been far too commonplace, all across the board. An analysis by researchers in Germany suggested that abuse had been about as common in secular institutions (516 victims out of 1050) as in religious ones. Everyone still has a long way to go before we could really say that we've done the best we can in balancing 'presumption of innocence' against proactive protection (which the JW org seems to have progressively encouraged at least from the early 1990s), educating and encouraging victims to report, and processing/sharing/investigating/prosecuting those reports.

The approach used by some folk in this thread of singling out one particular fringe societal group for a campaign of demonization and slander is quite simply disgusting.

Are you a JW?

 

[Loulit01]

Exactly how does an orphanage separate children from their parents?

 

[Logician Man]

Thankyou. Do any of those links change or excuse "Logician Man"s decision to read two referenced posts in which current JW policy for elders to inform secular authorities whenever required by law and whenever a child is endangered even if not required by law, and then wilfully ignore that information in order to spew his slander about elders allowing an abuser to "sit in the very same room with the child he/she abused, rather than reporting the 'guilty child abuser' to the police"?



Is this some kind of whataboutism? Slandering anyone is not okay, let alone fringe societal groups such as the JWs, and especially when using misinformation about child sex abuse in order to do so! Many incidents of abuse such as you gratuitously describe have certainly been dropped and swept under the rug by the JWs, as with other religious and secular institutions including police forces themselves. An analysis by researchers in Germany suggested that abuse had been about as common in secular institutions (516 victims out of 1050) as in religious ones; it's not as if chauvinism, dismissal of victims' testimony, presumption of innocence for perpetrators and desire to protect 'image' are characteristics unique to religions! But regardless, do you think those historical facts somehow excuse current efforts in this thread to spread misinformation and demonization against the steps toward progress which have been and are being made?

From 'your' post# 38 upthread @Mithrae ---> "slander about elders allowing an abuser to "sit in the very same room with the child he/she abused"

From the Jw.org that @Elora, herself, provided:

11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. will remain in the congregation

Where is the "slander" @Mithrae? Read the above from the JW.org website. Are you able to connect the dots as to the 'fact' that the JW elders do indeed allow the "guilty" child sex abuser to "remain in the congregation" to sit/reside in the very same room with the JW child who was sexually abused at the JW Kingdom Hall during JW services being attended by 'all' JW members within the 'congregation'?

 

[Mithrae]

slander about elders allowing an abuser to "sit in the very same room with the child he/she abused

From the Jw.org that @Elora, herself, provided:

Where is the "slander" @Mithrae? Read the above from the JW.org website. Are you able to connect the dots as to the 'fact' that the JW elders do indeed allow the child sex abuser to sit/reside in the very same room with the JW child who was sexually abused? --->" will remain in the congregation"

As I already answered in post #21:

The abuse having been reported to law enforcement agencies - per #3, #4 and #5 above - it seems that your problem here would be with their failure to imprison the abuser long enough or rehabilitate them well enough to satisfy your suspicions. If secular justice and release conditions are satisfied, along with the additional scrutiny of local elders, having a temper tantrum only about the supposed inadequacy of the latter seems a little misguided.​

You seem to believe that criminals should be permanently branded, ostracized and shunned for their entire lives, or something to that effect? Other people disagree; they believe that once someone has 'paid their debt to society,' been rehabilitated and pose no appreciable risk to others, they should be integrated back into society (possibly with some conditions reducing risk of reoffending). In fact some would argue that perpetual isolation and alienation increase risks of reoffending in some form or other; that if ex-cons are still going to be metaphorically/socially 'doing the time' anyway, they're that much more likely to do the crime again. The right-wing tendency towards using punitive punishment and stigma of ex-cons, particularly imprisonment for nonviolent/drug offenses, has helped make America "the land of the free" the most heavily-incarcerated population on the planet.

So on the one hand we've got the problem (and it is a real problem) of inadequacy in the justice system's response to reported sexual assault.
On the other hand we've got the question of whether those who are proven sexual offenders should be socially punished above and beyond the justice system.

To the latter, the JW organization's response is to a) make their own additional determination as well as possible whether or not the individual is repentant/low risk of reoffending and, if so, b) mitigate temptation/risks even further by restricting authority and access to children from the individual. Redemption is literally the central concept of Christianity, not that you'd know it from some of the churches out there. Following the requirements of secular justice - and with additional scrutiny and caution of their own - if there's anywhere that reformed criminals of any kind might be able to start afresh and find acceptance from law-abiding citizens, Christian churches should be at the top of the list.

But you apparently want to deny that sliver of hope, condemn even repentant former offenders back to more depraved social circles, and thereby increase their risk of reoffending?

 

[Logician Man]

As I already answered in post #21:

The abuse having been reported to law enforcement agencies - per #3, #4 and #5 above - it seems that your problem here would be with their failure to imprison the abuser long enough or rehabilitate them well enough to satisfy your suspicions. If secular justice and release conditions are satisfied, along with the additional scrutiny of local elders, having a temper tantrum only about the supposed inadequacy of the latter seems a little misguided.​

You seem to believe that criminals should be permanently branded, ostracized and shunned for their entire lives, or something to that effect? Other people disagree; they believe that once someone has 'paid their debt to society,' been rehabilitated and pose no appreciable risk to others, they should be integrated back into society (possibly with some conditions reducing risk of reoffending). In fact some would argue that perpetual isolation and alienation increase risks of reoffending in some form or other; that if ex-cons are still going to be metaphorically/socially 'doing the time' anyway, they're that much more likely to do the crime again. The right-wing tendency towards using punitive punishment and stigma of ex-cons, particularly imprisonment for nonviolent/drug offenses, has helped make America "the land of the free" the most heavily-incarcerated population on the planet.

So on the one hand we've got the problem (and it is a real problem) of inadequacy in the justice system's response to reported sexual assault.
On the other hand we've got the question of whether those who are proven sexual offenders should be socially punished above and beyond the justice system.

To the latter, the JW organization's response is to a) make their own additional determination as well as possible whether or not the individual is repentant/low risk of reoffending and, if so, b) mitigate temptation/risks even further by restricting authority and access to children from the individual. Redemption is literally the central concept of Christianity, not that you'd know it from some of the churches out there. Following the requirements of secular justice - and with additional scrutiny and caution of their own - if there's anywhere that reformed criminals of any kind might be able to start afresh and find acceptance from law-abiding citizens, Christian churches should be at the top of the list.

But you apparently want to deny that sliver of hope, condemn even repentant former offenders back to more depraved social circles, and thereby increase their risk of reoffending?

You're not addressing the fallacious allegation of "slander" you attributed to me in regards to me putting forth the 'truth' that JW elders do indeed allow a "guilty" child sex abuser "to remain in the congregation" and "sit in the very same room" with the child he/she abused @Mithrae. --- as demonstrated above in post# 64 using data from the JW.org website to demonstrate that 'truth.' Why don't you simply do the right thing, and admit what I posted was/is 'not' "slander". What I posted is a 'fact' derived from the data provided from the JW.org website. - Fact of the matter is, 'you' "slandered" me.

 

[Mithrae]

I would be extremely interested in other's thoughts who read the above as to why "one determined to be guilty of child sex abuse" by the Jehovah Witness hierarchy "will remain in the congregation", sitting in the very same room with the child he/she abused, rather than reporting the "guilty child abuser" to the police.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to be blatantly false. As clearly shown in post #16 and reiterated in post #21 the current JW policy is to report the criminal allegations to secular authorities a) whenever required by law, b) whenever a child remains in danger (or "some other valid reason") or c) whenever the victim or their parents exercise their right to do so. Nevertheless both you and @CaughtInThe have chosen to ignore and continue repeating your lies and demonization against a fringe societal group, for reasons best known to yourselves.

 

[Daisy]

 

[Logician Man]

This has been repeatedly pointed out to be blatantly false. As clearly shown in post #16 and reiterated in post #21 the current JW policy is to report the criminal allegations to secular authorities a) whenever required by law, b) whenever a child remains in danger (or "some other valid reason") or c) whenever the victim or their parents exercise their right to do so. Nevertheless both you and @CaughtInThe have chosen to ignore and continue repeating your lies and demonization against a fringe societal group, for reasons best known to yourselves.

Is it the "current JW policy" to allow a JW member "guilty of child sex abuse to remain in the congregation" and "sit in the very same room with the child" the guilty JW member sexually assaulted, during JW services at a Kingdom Hall per the JW.org website @Mithrae? ( which is what I posted ) -and what you have deemed to be "slander" Yes? Or No?