]"Anita seems to be having some difficulty in answering the questions I posed to her on another thread in this section. Here are the questions I asked:
How do your actions line up with the Quaker testimony of Integrity? What about Peace and Community?.... " etc, etc."
While you are tossing those stones, Fran, how do your actions line up to the same standards?
Are you going to confront your leader to retract and apologise for making false testimony against so many people? You know that Blackhat is not David Lowe or his wife or his grandmother, and yet a whole thread remains on your forum making that false assertion with no word of correction. You know that Dave's story about being in Sydney when he was doing a fulltime bachelor of science degree and working as co-editor on the student newspaper at Deakin University in GeelongVictoria is not credible and that the claim he only heard about the boy in the wheelchair and offered advice via email is a nonsense as email did not exist in Australia at that time. What effort do you make to maintain peace and community with family members? You know that your community "gossiped" about its own members and conspired to remove them in contravention of its own standards on 'grievance' procedures. You must know that much of Dave's account of the Split is an inverted fabrication, that has undergone a series of revisions over time. Have you, like others in the community, complied with Dave's request to shun Sheri and to rudely rebut her family newsletters and birthday greetings? You must be able to see that much of Dave's posting concerns confronting and attacking others. How does Dave's accusations of corruption against the Quakers, his name calling of concerned mothers, and personal insults that are peppered throughout the forum represent Integrity, Peace and Community?"Anita says that she will answer my questions when I answer hers and that her question is how we justify the whipping that happened in Kenya. ... Are you aware, Anita, that we have NEVER whipped anyone against their will? Perhaps when you realise that, you will start taking responsibility for the things that you have actually done wrong."
No, you presented a black servant who you accused of petty theft the option of being handed over to police (that you have described as the most corrupt in the world), to be beaten severely by them, or to submit to a "lesser" beating directly from your hands and had him sign an affidavit before it was administered. Much has been made of the claim that a community member offered to take the beating on his behalf and he, as all reasonable people would, refused to allow someone else to suffer for him. This speaks of his integrity rather than your own. The fact that psychological games were introduced into the brutal act of whipping, only compounds the fact that you exploited an opportunity to assert authority over someone in the most transparently brutal way, that all reasonable people and civilised conventions oppose. It gives some insight into what you are capable of if you could get away with it in countries where you don't have the power to literally whip people, and where one assumes more covert methods of control are used."We are still waiting for your answers."
So are we.
A private citizen has a right to privacy and is entitled to keep their beliefs, associations etc private. But a group that seeks public exposure to promote itself, to recruit new members and to make accusations against others, exposes itself to public scrutiny and will be rightly judged for their failure to justify their behaviour.
I don't know where you get off, Fran in preaching to someone your whole organisation is doing all it can to undermine and destroy, about taking responsibility for the things you think they have done wrong. I bet you have a list of people you would like to whip into submission.
The JC's remind me of the story Jesus tells of a servant who gets a massive debt erased that could have seen him and his whole family jailed for life, but who then shows no mercy in picking on someone who owes him a trivial amount.