Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack (page 4)

expatbrit

Larc:

I agree. Hopefully the air is clearing about this whole episode and everyone can move on. Besides, I have unresolved Plato issues with Prof. Penton that need to be addressed.

Expatbrit

PopeOfEruke

Expatbrit said:

....no-one should be above questioning and honest criticism. Not the Pope, ....

Please leave me out of this!!! Personally I am above criticism!!!

The Pope

dedaisy, Jim Penton is a historian. He was pointing out the historical origins of the two witness concept, through more recent common law, to today's contemporary laws. He did, in fact, mention the importance of forensic evidence in modern criminal investigations. Sorry you missed that point.

deddaisy

He was pointing out the historical origins of the two witness concept, through more recent common law, to today's contemporary laws. He did, in fact, mention the importance of forensic evidence in modern criminal investigations. Sorry you missed that point

Larc, I readily agree that I "missed the point." So I'll ask once again, what is the "point" of discussing the historical origins of the two witness concept in regards to the judicial system if that is not what is practiced in present day procedure? I'm sorry that you missed my point.

also, edited to add:

According to Common Law, a person is generally held innocent until proven guilty. But recently, as a result of pressure from radical feminists that tradition has been somewhat eroded in rape cases in certain jurisdictions in both Canada and the United States. Now too, following September 11, 2001, there have been further attacks on traditional civil libertarian principles as is well noted by the ACLU. Both biblically and in accord with Common Law tradition, the idea of having at least two witnesses to a crime has also been recognized as absolutely necessary in most cases. Of course there are biblical examples and Common Law examples where this has not been held to be necessary.

I would like to know in which jurisdiction of the U.S. a person is now NOT innocent until proven guilty, in a rape case, as a result of pressure from radical feminists. Also, wording in the last sentence, though most likely unintentional, "has not been held," make it appear that this two witnesses to a crime scenario is present case law. My point is larc, that somewhere in Mr. Penton's post, I missed the point of what traditional common law, radical feminists,the ACLU, persons being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and past fears of JW child molestation causes going crazy, has to do with Bill Bowen's "crude" words to Mr. Franz . I think we are all aware of the judicial system, so what is the point of relaying this information?

Maybe I could've omitted the "are you the same Penton that testifies in trials?," but why should I assume anything? Stranger things have certainly happened

Edited by - deddaisy on 29 October 2002 0:53:26

Edited by - deddaisy on 29 October 2002 1:6:8

larc

deddaisy, why did Jim go into the historical orgins of modern law? Because he is an historian. That is his acedemic training, with a PhD in religious history. That is how he thinks, and that is what he writes about. His first book about the Witnesses was an historical treatise. He is writing a second book about the Witnesses, another historical treatise. If you know a man's mind and his background, you know pretty much know what he will say and do, much like our friends Bill and Ray.

deddaisy

If you know a man's mind and his background, you know pretty much know what he will say and do.-----larc

larc, I claim to know neither Mr. Penton's mind nor his background. And I don't assume to know what any man will say or do. And I'm not so easily impressed by a PhD. And Mr. Penton's words regarding Mr. Bowen mean less to me than the words of regular posters. The fact that he has a "PhD in Religious Studies" is supposed to mean what to me? That he knows what a molestation victim feels like when they're told " sorry kid, if only you would've had two witnesses to your molestation." I'm supposed to be impressed that he knows the "history" of common law and has written books? What, because he "honors" us with his presence" on a forum that he never posts on, I should hang on to each and every word that he utters? I'm sorry larc, but it takes a bit more than an education and being published to gain my respect. I know tons of educated persons that couldn't muster up a bit of compassion for anyone unless money was involved. Perhaps Mr. Penton is truly a decent person, I'm not saying he isn't, but PhDs don't necessarily mean wonderful people. It means educated people. There is a difference.

Edited by - deddaisy on 29 October 2002 3:28:55

teejay

Damn fine comments, Jim.

Jim Penton

Thank you for your comments. I do think, however, that you have been most unfair when you compare me to a Witness elder, even though I certainly was one for years. My point was not that Ray Franz is some special individual with special God-given authority; it simply is that through his efforts, many have been freed from the Watchtower. And I happen to think that that is particularly admirable. I have sometimes disagreed with Ray and he with me. Years ago I know he felt that I was too liberal in my attitude toward the Bible. I also know that he felt I was going down for a small mouse rather than a fat rat when I began to research the question of the JWs and Nazi Germany. You will see too in my latest edition of Apocalypse Delayed that he and I disagree somewhat on what may happen to the Witnesses in future. However, this does not mean that I do not love the man and respect him greatly. I do. Therefore, I feel free to come to his defense.

As for Bill, I think he is a man filled with courage, has done much, much good, and God bless him for that. I do agree that he has been under terrible strain and should not be condemned for that reason. I know well what it is like to break with the Watchtower and have suffered terrible health problems because of the meanness of people whom I loved and whom I though loved me. So peace to Bill.

I do disagree with you completely in saying we should not look to heaven. Not only do I remain a committed Christian - something I take pride in - but I find some sort of religion, or perhaps I should say metaphysic, necessary to make any judgments whatsoever. If there is no ultimate good by which we can judge actions as right or wrong, then all we have are gut feelings. And that is not enough. Like Friedrich von Nietzsche we reach a point of being beyond good and evil.

Jim Penton

chasson

However, the anti-cult movement is going full tilt in Europe today with France having declared some 173 different religions cults (sectes) and having passed draconian legislation against them.

Hi Jim,

Explain me the link you have made with french's anticultist movement and "brainwashing" ? I am french and i don't find any link. The scholarship like Singer who has made the brainwashing's theory are not a part of the anticultist's movement in french.

Second could you explain me the "french's draconian legislation" ? This is a typical argument made by some scientologist's apologist with no argument and unfortunatelly the US's comission has believed it !! The french's JW has made a tract on this subject, it was a deliberate misinformation from Watchtower. For a comment on this tract, which is the same as the scientology's argumentation, see in french:

http://www.chez.com/tjrecherches/MILStract.html

I hope that your comment are only a comment from someone who is more concerned in chronology, historic or bible's studies and who don't know exactly what it is happened in france and that you will be more prudent in the future.

Bye

Charles

larc

deddaisy, I don't judge a man by his degrees either. Ray had no degrees but was a fine researcher, and his two books had great impact. Eric Hoffer wrote, a classic sociological work with his book The True Believer. He had no degrees. He was a long shoreman. No, I judge by the quality of a person's work both intellectual and interpersonal. If you have read Jim's book, you will find that it is a fine piece of work. His next book will be of the same quality. If you read Jim's comment after you posted you will see the interpersonal side of Jim. Deddaisy, I do know him, and I respect him both as a scholar and as a human being. Chasson, Jim is by no means an apologist for cults. I thought he made that clear. Both he and I both believe that the terms, cult, mind control, and brain washing, are over used, rarely apply, especially the terms mind control and brain washing. There are other points of view than Singer's regarding brain washing. In fact, there is no empirical evidence that brain washing works, with perhaps a few rare exeptions.

Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

Share this