I agree with you Apostate that the assessment here is patently objective and neutral.....the reaction of the JC's is of course due to the fact they are so neurotically obsessed with disguising the said "coercion" (..clearly lower heavenly rankings in the internal pecking order for those choose not to donate.....Cherry and Christine naturally excepted, due to their relationship by marriage or descent to the only living Apostle in the world, ....expectations of "sacrifice", no opportunity to express dissent without the threat of expulsion, etc, etc....), in order to better "sell" membership....and their behaviour itself confirms the fears raised in the letter....as you have already highlighted...

The more complex discussion is around both coercion and clinical ethics. The coercion discussion centres on the difficulties in free choice belonging to a group in which donation is considered to be an important role. Whilst there was no overt evidence to suggest that he is being coerced, pressures to do such things are not always direct and may be difficult to quantify.

(There is of course more than enough "overt evidence" for the finding among those who have had the misfortune to have spent time under David McKays' thumb.....)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2008 12:49PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

As has been said all along. There is enough covert coercion within the group to warrant discussion on these issues. And while "system" wheels may turn slowly and take time recognising such things, eventually the hospital ethics boards recognise the facts.

Quoting Cherry
[welikejesus.com]
Roland, I think the point that Casey was trying to make was that Craig hid XXX identity because Craig knew that XXX would have been ashamed of what he said. And I see no reason why we should expect an "admission" from XXX, since the letter itself is all the evidence that is needed. I had, however, hoped that he would apologise.

Doing a bit of mind reading there Cherry. Care to make any more guesses?

Misquoting Cherry
[[color=#FF0000]welikedavid.com[/color]]
Roland, I think the point that Casey was trying not to make was that Craig hid XXX identity because Craig knew that XXX would have been shamefully defamed for what he said. And I see no reason why we should expect an "admission" from XXX since the letter lacks any of the evidence that we need. I have however harped that he should apologise.

If you only had a mind worth reading, Cherry... who cares what you might guess?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2008 09:06PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

How come I can view this site, and any other site I choose, without my firewall blocking an intrusion attempt carrying a "malicious toolkit", like I see when I visit the JC site? Strange coincidence, if that is what it is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2008 02:27AM by apostate.

Dey ave becum de paranoid. Kan wi call dem De 'Malicious Christians'' or the 'David Christians'.

Altruistic organ donation raises a number of complex issues, both legal and ethical.

The psychologist who interviewed Roland in the UK is currently being criticized on the JC's website and suggestions have been made that he should apologize for his behavior. What was his 'crime'? He was simply saying that he wanted to be sure that Roland wasn't being coerced and that his donation was genuinely altruistic and not part of some cultic publicity-generating scheme.

What would a genuine Christian say in response to this? Something along the lines of "I disagree with your approach but I'm grateful for your concern". Or maybe, "I was offended by what you said, but I see why you said it and I forgive you". Once again, however, the sneering, point-scoring hatred directed at this psychologist says far more about the JCs than it does about someone who seems to me to be a good man who was simply trying to do his job.

I found this article on Google News:

[www.eastandard.net]

The journalist states that Roland was jailed for 6 months for kidnapping a 7-year old boy in Kenya. It also mentions the connection between the JCs, the Children of God and The Family. Is all of this true? And does Roland currently have unsupervised access to children?

Dear Talamasca,

Thank-you very much for bringing that article to everyones' attention....typically (if also rather tragically!)....the JesusChristians, and certainly I imagine Roland, simply contemptuously sneer among themselves at any suggestions that they threaten the rights of others...Roland being little more than an "unsupervised child" himself!!

....Amongst themselves, the JesusChristians snidely assure each other that they are simply "saving" those that they lead away from their family and friends (by deliberately poisoning those relationships, inculcating the belief that love of ones' ("worthless systemite") family is just so much "dead" love that merely serves to betray your obligations to "God".....(and"God" of course being none other than the beliefs and practices of one David McKay)....)....hence they are "blameless"...in doing what they "must" do in order to be able to "spread the word" and "save" souls.....

Roland would have told himself that the childs' true parent is "God" and the paramount importance of that childs' "faith"(...ultimately defined as the financial and physical servitude one is prepared to enter into on behalf of the JesusChistians...) far, far outweighs any "superficial" legal obligations that he might "owe" to this world of Satans (naturally being cautious enough not to say as much openly.....after all, deceiving others about one's true intentions, in order to better lure them to "faith", is just being "Honest" to "God", isn't it??)....

....I still think that that charges might ALSO have possibly been laid in Australia, against Roland, who as an Australian citizen, should be held liable, just as Australian sex offenders may be prosecuted by Australian authorities for crimes committed OUTSIDE the natural geographical boundaries of the Commonwealth....!


CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 87

Child abduction

87 Child abduction

(1) A person who takes or detains a child with the intention of removing or keeping the child from the lawful control of any person having parental responsibility for the child, without the consent of that person, is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) A person who takes or detains a child with the intention of stealing from the child is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
(3) In this section:
"child" means a child under the age of 12 years.
"detaining a child" includes causing the child to remain where he or she is.
"taking a child" includes causing the child to accompany a person and causing the child to be taken.
(4) In this section, a reference to a person who has parental responsibility for a child is a reference to:
(a) a person who has, in relation to a child, all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that, by law, parents have in relation to their children, or
(b) a person authorised to be the carer of the child under an Act relating to the care and protection of children.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2008 12:41AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

According to section 3, of this section of the crimes act, Roland is not guilty of "child abduction" as all the "children" in question were teenagers. I just thought I would give that feedback so that misrepresentation does not occur, and that if it does, it is understood that I am not party to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2008 05:23AM by apostate.