|
In Reply to: Re: Question posted by Mike W. on April 04, 2002 at 08:47:47:
I do not think these issues can be so easily or simply defined.
It is not so much a matter of being pro-Family or anti-Berg. (God that is the thing that drives me a bit bananas, the lack of critical thinking on the part of some on NDN. It is like watching those mindless debates between 'conservatives' and 'liberals' that do not look at the issues and follow party lines.
It is a question of ISSUES and human rights. Human rights that were grossly violated, people who were exploited, etc etc. It reminds me of the clever way in which in the US cult abuse issues are cloaked in the rhetoric of the freedom of religion of the First Amendment. The point is, nothing wrong with the First Amendment, but that is a red herring. The issue of abuse in cults has everything to do with disempowerment and the violation of human rights and nothing to do with freedom of religion.
If a fraction of the things that happen to cult "employees" happened instead in any company one works for the abuse would be a no-brainer.
Just like the issue of violence in the family has often been judged unfairly. For example, in sociology we know that if a person is a woman's boyfriend/husband and there is a rape, that will be looked at more leniently than if the person is a stranger. Isn't the offense the same?
If a parent beats the shit out of a kid, for a long time authorities struggled to preserve the family unity at any cost, OVER the welfare of the child. Some children have died in the process. Read the story of Eli Creekmore in WA state. Some laws changed there after the horrific death of this 3 yr old.
All of this to say that the public consciousness is shaped in a certain way in certain places so that a type of rhetoric works in swaying it. In some countries in Europe, for example, the freedom of religion defense/issue/reason is seen as ridiculous when used to attempt to obscure or even justify severe human rights violations.
