|
In Reply to: i am very sorry. posted by ray on August 08, 2003 at 20:48:00:
Ray, thank you for apologizing, it is entirely and gratefully accepted. I am sorry about your loss and apologize myself for any ill effect on your feelings of my words at a time like this. I know what it's like.
Your hope that I find what I need is also sincerely appreciated, and I just want to explain that I was precisely trying to work toward whatever that is by analyzing the implications of the '93 Summit Jewels. I notice that below you say you are out of breath on the subject, so I don't ask for a response, but I just want to state where I am coming from, which is:
The people in the Family with basically good hearts may have taken a conscious stance against child sexual abuse, and that is an unspeakably good thing.
However, the predators who got a taste of this fruit that is highly forbidden elsewhere and remain in the Family pose a danger in the Family (those who have left pose a danger without) that is only exacerbated by the fact that the heads of that organization believe, and have outlined for the leaders who run the organization, that child molestation is OK (even if not allowed because dangerous) "if done in accordance with the law of love." The fact that the 93 SJ's raised the issue of how to counteract the impression the youth got from the prohibition that the things that happened to them were wrong, is very worrisome.
That impression the youth were said to be getting and which Maria called erroneous and wanted to counteract (i.e., sexual fondling of children is JUST PLAIN WRONG whether in "selfish hurtful systemite lust" or supposed "godliness" by "loving" Family members) may remain among the rank and file despite the 93 SJ discussion, but the 93 SJs indicate a chilling consideration of how to keep the way paved and free of too many troublesome potholes, so that reversion, if unexpedience disappeared, would be feasible. In addition, it ignores the damage already inflicted and twists the knife in the open wound.
