One thing about Agatha, she was never too big on Islamic militants, if memory serves!
comment
comment
JoinedPosts by comment
-
6
Do You Still Read Terrorist Thrillers?
by comment ini was sorting through my bookshelves today and noticed that i had quite a few terrorist thrillers.. that is, books like the day of the jackal by frederick forsyth, black sunday by thomas harris, the fifth horseman by larry collins and rainbow six by tom clancy.. i'm wondering how other people feel.
do you still read those books?
or do you feel uncomfortable with them in the wake of the september 11 terrorist attacks?.
-
-
-
6
Do You Still Read Terrorist Thrillers?
by comment ini was sorting through my bookshelves today and noticed that i had quite a few terrorist thrillers.. that is, books like the day of the jackal by frederick forsyth, black sunday by thomas harris, the fifth horseman by larry collins and rainbow six by tom clancy.. i'm wondering how other people feel.
do you still read those books?
or do you feel uncomfortable with them in the wake of the september 11 terrorist attacks?.
-
-
comment
Well, I must admit I read The Baal Intervention and Escape from Egypt a few too many times myself thanks to the good ol' Theocratic Ministry School.
comment
-
6
Do You Still Read Terrorist Thrillers?
by comment ini was sorting through my bookshelves today and noticed that i had quite a few terrorist thrillers.. that is, books like the day of the jackal by frederick forsyth, black sunday by thomas harris, the fifth horseman by larry collins and rainbow six by tom clancy.. i'm wondering how other people feel.
do you still read those books?
or do you feel uncomfortable with them in the wake of the september 11 terrorist attacks?.
-
-
comment
I was sorting through my bookshelves today and noticed that I had quite a few terrorist thrillers.
That is, books like The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth, Black Sunday by Thomas Harris, The Fifth Horseman by Larry Collins and Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy.
I'm wondering how other people feel. Do you still read those books? Or do you feel uncomfortable with them in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Personally, I'd still be open to reading them, because I recognize the disconnect between fiction and reality, and I've never felt that I take a gratuitous pleasure in destruction or death. I'm more into the adventure aspect of those books.
I would guess there'd be a range of responses. Some people might give up on the genre entirely; others might continue to read but feel guilty about enjoying it; still others might only read their old thrillers, not newly published ones.
How about you?
comment
-
14
Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?
by comment inrado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?
" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.
-
-
comment
Thanks for pointing that out, dmouse.
They really should be hammered for their deceptiveness.
comment
-
14
Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?
by comment inrado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?
" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.
-
-
comment
Then if the policy of shunning the disassociated does not change, I think this phrase should be given wide publicity to highlight the WTS's deceptiveness.
comment
-
14
Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?
by comment inrado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?
" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.
-
-
comment
Rado Vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "Do you shun former members?" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members. Once it said, "Disfellowshipping does not sever family ties." Now it cites the scripture in 1 Corinthians: "Quit mixing with them."
However, there's been another noteworthy change in wording in the response to this question. And this one, on the surface, seems to provide a loophole for those who DISASSOCIATE themselves rather than being DISFELLOWSHIPPED.
http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm
The previous response began: "Those who simply CEASE TO BE INVOLVED IN the faith are not shunned."
The current response begins: "Those who simply LEAVE the faith are not shunned."
Is there not a significant difference between ceasing to be involved and leaving?
"Ceasing to be involved" could describe an inactive Witness who no longer participates in the field ministry or goes to meetings, for instance.
That person, however, has not LEFT the faith from the standpoint of the congregation. After being inactive for several years, he could return to his former activities without having to go through the reinstatement process. (Obviously his "congregation privileges" and so forth would be affected, but the point is that he'd still be considered a Witness when he walked back into the Kingdom Hall.)
"Leaving," though, would seem to apply to one who VOLUNTARILY SEVERS TIES with the organization. You're not "leaving" if you're disfellowshipped; you're kicked out! And I've already touched on why being inactive does not equal leaving. So this sounds as if it applies to someone who disassociates himself.
So, then, are disassociated people not to be shunned, while disfellowshipped ones are?
It is, of course, possible that this is just an instance of sloppy phrasing by whoever wrote the answer to this question. But you would think that the Society would take great care to get the right phrasing on this particular point.
Thoughts?
comment
-
-
-
comment
bttt
-
3
Additional BBC Panaroma Recording
by silentlambs injehovah's witnesses and child abuse .
the jehovahs witnesses are the latest in a succession of religious groups to come under attack for the way they have responded to allegations of child sex abuse within their ranks.
a panorama investigation to be shown on bbc1 tonight (sunday) reveals that a number of legal actions against the organisation are underway in america, but the problem is not confined to that country.
-
-
comment
I think the most telling moment in this report came when Paul Gillies of the British Bethel was asked something to the effect of "What kind of message does this two-witness policy send to molesters in the congregation"? Gillies was unable to provide a direct response to this question. (And after all, would you expect him to admit: "Yes, it pretty much leaves the door open for them to continue"?)
Instead, he fulminated for a minute about how the Society has a strong Bible-based policy to deal with such matters.
Which, of course, means that they use a star chamber of three volunteer men with a vested interest in keeping the organization's image clean and no police or psychiatrist training. In cases of one witness, they will choose that group's assessment over that of a court of law with checks and balances and a full, open review of the evidence.
More excellent exposure for this issue. Even Witnesses who don't own a TV or use the Internet usually listen to the radio.
comment
-
7
Major holes in J.R. Brown's Panorama response
by comment in1) brown states: "you have been told that here in the united states we have compiled a list of 23,720 names of child abusers.
that is false.
first of all, the total number of names in our records is considerably lower.
-
-
comment
Just to name a few:
1) Brown states: "You have been told that here in the United States we have compiled a list of 23,720 names of child abusers. That is false. First of all, the total number of names in our records is considerably lower."
What does "considerably lower" mean? That is a very vague phrase, wide open to interpretation.
For instance, perhaps the person who gave Bill Bowen that number made an error in calculation, and the actual number is 22,720.
Playing games with semantics, Brown would thus be able to state that the number was "considerably lower": "Well, it's a THOUSAND less than Bowen said! How dare he exaggerate in such a fashion!" But as we see, the Society doesn't want to give out a specific number: "In addition, it is not meaningful to focus on the number of names we have in our records." So in other words, *they* have decided for everyone else that it is not meaningful. Others will beg to differ.
2) Brown states: "This is because our figures include the names of many persons who have only been accused of child abuse whereas the charges have not been substantiated."
At least from this we get the interesting tidbit that the Society has "many" names on file. It's also interesting that Brown says these "many persons" have "only" been accused of child abuse. The "only" serves to minimize the significance of the accusations. Obviously innocent people are charged with abuse in some instances, but the point is that the accusations should be taken seriously, not played down.
3) Brown keeps on repeating that their policy is based on the Bible, as if this were obviously a good thing. To the contrary, I think this will put them in quite a pickle.
It's obvious that the "two witnesses" rule does not work for child molestation cases. Even if they expand the definition to permit two separate accusations to stand as valid, as they now have done, this still does nothing to stop the father who secretly abuses his child but only that child, which certainly is not unheard of. A criminal investigation with modern forensic or surveillance techniques might nail the offender, but the Society's method of asking "Did you do it?" will shed no light.
We also know that the Society heavily indoctrinates Witnesses against going to the police or court system, and that trend will certainly continue overall. They're not going to start actively recommending it just because of the bad publicity they are receiving over child molestation.
So if the authorities start to crack down, they will either have to:
A) Admit that the "two witnesses" rule was not Scriptural and be prepared to take action in cases where there are NOT two witnesses.
Or:
B) Keep insisting that the rule is Scriptural and suffer the consequences from the judicial system.
To me, this is one of the most graphic and powerful examples of why trying to rigidly follow a 3,000-year-old book written by men for men is foolish.
comment
-
17
Panorama: outstanding!
by comment ini didn't see all of panorama, but what i did see was outstanding.
in its depth and thoroughness, it surpassed what dateline had to offer.
it really highlighted some key points: .
-
-
comment
I didn't see all of Panorama, but what I did see was outstanding. In its depth and thoroughness, it surpassed what Dateline had to offer.
It really highlighted some key points:
1) The Society's failure to protect the children from molestation is based primarily on the organization-wide policy of "two witnesses" and its desire to keep the image of the congregation "clean," NOT the incompetence or willful corruption of a few local elders. Even if the Society is modifying its policies now, clearly they have years of coverups to answer for.
2) The brothers are unwilling to provide straightforward answers to questions about their policies. Were the questions posed by the BBC interviewer hard-hitting and even confrontational in a sense? Yes, but the fact is that nowadays the public expects accountability. To brush off a reporter, as Ted Jaracz did with his "we've got a written policy and we don't go beyond the things written," looks absolutely terrible on camera. And it speaks volumes about the Society's high-and-mighty attitude toward criticism of any sort.
I can only imagine that this program will prompt further investigation of the Society regarding its child abuse policy by the authorities in Britain and the United States, not to mention other countries where it is broadcasted.
comment
Edited by - comment on 14 July 2002 18:24:4