Quote
Josh
What I was basically trying to say is that when someone else is paying for the microphone it's not your right to speak into it. It wasn't important to the conversation. But it's kind of important to me for people to understand the differences between rights and privileges, when the line gets blurred people get upset about losing a privilege and don't think twice about giving up a right.

I agree Josh. I get a little annoyed when Dave keeps making the occasional comment that ex members are all too scared to post on his forum, after he has banned a few of us. And then watch his followers all seemingly agreeing with his recreation of history, or Dave not bothering to correct one of his followers that I chose the name of a thread after he changed it to speak derogatively of me. Just plain dishonest as far as I am concerned.

I appreciate your point about that Kenya questioning I do at times, but I feel I need to clarify that I am not raising the question because it is some secret I am exposing. It is obvious the JC's are not ashamed or in any way remorseful about their action in whipping that volunteer, as they have boldly written about it on a current article on their website for all to see. It is rather because I am choosing to keep it at the forefront. I think it needs to be kept current and relevant because I see it as abusive and disregarding of the rights of another. I could, for example, ask about the disabled child in the wheelchair that Dave disconnected the battery on, or the fact that Dave continues to forbid his wife to see her children and grandchildren.

You make the point that I should "move on". My question to you is to where and to what? Just about every point I raise is argued down, or I get banned for it. I was enjoying the remarriage discussion on their forum before Dave decided to shut it down.

Personally, I am not that concerned if I am forbidden by Dave to post on their forum. I do not live for it. It is his right to not listen to someone else

However while reminding us of the difference between rights and privileges don't forget the rights of those who were clearly abused by the JC's dispensation of justice. I am curious, if you are prepared to answer, whether you see the whipping of the Kenayn as an appropriate action or as an infringement of his rights as a human being?

I believe that most of the 20 or so members of the Jesus Christians are thoroughly decent people. It's their sad misfortune to have fallen under the influence of a bitter, twisted old man, obsessed with getting on TV and seeing his name in the newspapers.

David McKay sometimes pretends he's just as accountable as everyone else and suggests he can be asked to leave the Jesus Christians. What if that lie became a truth? What if they ejected him?

Imagine the Jesus Christians without McKay. No falling over themselves to get on TV. No sneering, point-scoring, un-Christian nastiness on their forum. Is there a possibility that members might end up doing genuinely Christian work? Helping the poor? Working with the sick?

What do you think?

Quote
Talamasca

Imagine the Jesus Christians without McKay. No falling over themselves to get on TV. No sneering, point-scoring, un-Christian nastiness on their forum. Is there a possibility that members might end up doing genuinely Christian work? Helping the poor? Working with the sick?

What do you think?

You could almost put a John Lennon tune to that statement. I actually don't think the group could continue to function as it is without his influence. I am sure that some in the JC's could do some genuine work out of compassion for others without seeing it as a platform for preaching. No more buying the poor for a pair of shoes. But for Dave that is just about impossible as it has to be connected to preaching in some form or other. It seems he cannot just do something just because it needs to be done. I do not think they could survive without their various money making schemes that they engage in while pretending that is not what they are doing.

Imagine if David McKay were to really join the Jesus Christians.

Imagine him giving up a cosy flat in Central Sydney to live in a leaky bus.

Imagine him living to the whim of another person about if he were right or wrong in what he did every day.

Imagine him out on the streets pan-handling tracts for doney money, meeting a target for someone.

I don't think so.

The life of living in a secure inner city Sydney flat, telling others what is right, is much too cosy to give up for what he believes in, I'm sure!

Hi all. I hope that all are well. Just a short note from me to let to let you all know that I am still out here and am doing well. I still read this board, have not forgotten about you all, and keep up here in general but am done with spending (notice I didn't say wasting, as I regret none of it) so much time and energy obsessing about DM and his group's activities. I have better, more satisfying, and more important things to do with my life. It's not that I have lost interest, it's only that I have been busy lately and really do not have that much to say. Also, my Internet connection has been down anyway...a blessing in disguise, as it's helped me wean off from my forum addiction. ;-)

David, I hope that you are reading this. I don't have to be so wound up worrying about you. It's only a matter of time. You'll get yours. I'll be watching and waiting.

More as time allows. Stay tuned. If/when I can get my scanner back (sometime soon I hope) I'll put more stuff up for the Visual Archive; I have wanted to scan this material for weeks now. It'll be fun. See y'all later,

Z



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2008 01:41PM by zeuszor.

David may be finally making the transition from simple, obnoxious "cult" to full fledged, fantical "hate group".....the deliberate attack (with the derogatory placement of sickening pornographic images...approx an our ago)on the new site [jcs.xjcs.org] that attempted to foment dialogue with the members of the JesusChristians, is utterly symptomatic of his "ethics" in his dealings with others......I don't agree with what you say, and I'll attack your right to say it

Too bad I missed it. I was busy working with my dad on his backyard. If Dave wants to get vindictive, I guess that is his perogative. Sadly, he may find himself driving people away from him. We can only watch and see.

Quote
apostate
I think it needs to be kept current and relevant because I see it as abusive and disregarding of the rights of another. I could, for example, ask about the disabled child in the wheelchair that Dave disconnected the battery on, or the fact that Dave continues to forbid his wife to see her children and grandchildren.

I think the thing that was frustrating me about the questions being asked about the whipping thing, not just by you but by alot of people, was that it was continually being raised as a question to Dave and then people acting surprized or newly disgusted when he didn't answer. Everyone knows he's not going to answer, so asking the questions over and over seems like beating your heads against a wall.

Quote
apostate
However while reminding us of the difference between rights and privileges don't forget the rights of those who were clearly abused by the JC's dispensation of justice. I am curious, if you are prepared to answer, whether you see the whipping of the Kenayn as an appropriate action or as an infringement of his rights as a human being?

This is an issue were all I know of the story is what I've heard. Here's the facts as I've heard them

Someone from Kenya stole from the JCs
The punishment for stealing in Kenya is somethink like 20 lashes
The JCs gave the guy a choice,
a. Get turned into the police for theft
b. Take 5 lashes from the JCs
c. Have a JC take them for him
The Kenyan chose option c

I am assuming all of these things are true. I have no other option since I wasn't there and have never heard anyone contradict the facts of this story.

I should also say that I don't see reasonable corporal punishment as being inherently immoral. So I don't have a problem with the government of Kenya giving 20 lashes for theft rather than a jail sentence as long as the accused has the option of a fair trial. Do you disagree at this point? Do you think the Kenyan government is out of line giving lashes for theft?

So then, since I think it's ok for the government to give lashes as a punishment for theft the question is Is it ok for someone within that country to issue a similar punishment for a similar crime?

Governments can have no legitimate power that the citizens of that country didn't already posses prior to the creation of that government. In the absense of a government people have the right to defend their property from theft. So any punishment that is legitimate for the government to take on and use against the citizenry MUST have been derived from the people it represents if the punishment is legitimate.

So then I believe the JCs would have the right to whip someone that stole from them in the absence of the government. So the next question is Does the fact that the government exists nullify the citizens right to redress wrongs outside of court? I think yes, sometimes, but not always.

This is where I think the JCs could have went over the line. Vigilate justice is not something that is accepted. The reason being is that it bypasses a fair trial. The accuser cannot accuse, convict, and punish the accused and call that justice. If the JCs had accused the man of theft, decided he was guilty and then whipped him, I would say that they had denied the man his rights and were in the wrong. What they did, however, was a little bit different.

The JCs accused the man of theft and feeling he was guilty offered the man a deal to avoid going to court. The man could be whipped himself or have someone else be whipped for him. The man could have always chosen going to court and have a trial rather than accept the JCs deal. He chose to take the deal. So then the question is, were the JCs within their rights to offer this deal to the accused? I think the answer is yes.

In court cases the prosecution, representing the people of the state, is allowed to offer a deal to the accused. Usually this is a reduced punishment in return for not having to go through the trouble of the actual trial. The accused is not forced to take this deal, he can take his chances and continue on to trial. So since the procecution has been granted the legitimate right of the people to offer deals to the accused to avoid going to court does that nullify the right of individuals to offer deals to people that have wronged them to avoid being taken to court? I don't think so, infact this happens all the time in civil cases, usually with a cash payment.

So the only way in which the JCs situation differed from a normal court case settling out of court is that the JCs offered corporal punishment rather than asking for a cash payment and they performed the punishment themselves.

I don't see the moral difference of who was swinging the whip. If the JCs had struck the deal and hired an employee of the state to swing the whip using tax funds to do the hiring I don't see how that would be more acceptable. And as far as offering corporal punishment rather than asking for a cash payment, since the man wasn't forced to take the deal I don't see how the JCs were wrong for offering whatever kind of crazy deal they could dream up.

So while I think there are better ways to handle the theft than the way it was handled, I do think that the JCs did not violate anyones rights in handling it the way they did.

The end.

Quote
zeuszor
Hi all. I hope that all are well. Just a short note from me to let to let you all know that I am still out here and am doing well. I still read this board, have not forgotten about you all, and keep up here in general but am done with spending (notice I didn't say wasting, as I regret none of it) so much time and energy obsessing about DM and his group's activities. I have better, more satisfying, and more important things to do with my life. It's not that I have lost interest, it's only that I have been busy lately and really do not have that much to say. Also, my Internet connection has been down anyway...a blessing in disguise, as it's helped me wean off from my forum addiction. ;-)

David, I hope that you are reading this. I don't have to be so wound up worrying about you. It's only a matter of time. You'll get yours. I'll be watching and waiting.

More as time allows. Stay tuned. If/when I can get my scanner back (sometime soon I hope) I'll put more stuff up for the Visual Archive; I have wanted to scan this material for weeks now. It'll be fun. See y'all later,

Z

Brian! I'm glad you're well! Namaste bro.xx
I don't think any JC would post porn on the other site to be honest. I think it's probably just general spam.

Hi Josh,
interesting reply: thank you for being willing to write and discuss your beliefs here.
I think the crux of the matter is where you stated that you do not see something wrong with whipping someone.
Everyone is entitled to their own views on appropriate punishment. And apparently the Kenyan government at least at some point in the past agreed with yours.( I think international law does not however allow this , though am not sure of this. For the record by the way, I personally view it as barbaric..)

The problem is in this case that the belief that whippping is ok is directly ( from my understanding ) in conflict with the basic belief of the Quakers that violence is wrong.

And it does add, given the Christian beliefs of the Jesus Christians the question: what would Jesus do to someone who wronged him...Turn the other cheek perhaps??
Of course, always easier to say that one than actually do it, for everyone, and most of us don't manage to pull it off very often.
All the best, Yasmin