Thank you for your email. We certainly appreciate your pointing out the errors you found, as exFamily.org endeavors to provide accurate information to the public.
Going over the article again, I can only find mistakes obviously due to manual typing, and perhaps lax attention to detail--omissions of accents and some missing or incorrect letters. The article you refer to is a replication of something that was found online at another news site concerned with cults and sects, probably one similar to this one: [ http://antisectes.net/lafamille.htm ]. It was copied onto our site around the time of its launch. Unfortunately we did not have the resources to authenticate the document at the time, but the source was credible and trustworthy and we decided to copy-paste it onto our site.
In order to correct the errant document, I would of course welcome your further input re. specific instances or errors. I would also like to get your assistance with the following questions:
As to the nuance of the case being "dismissed" vs. "charges dropped," could you provide any reference(s) for this? Could you specify why this distinction is important and not just a minor question of perspectives?
You mention that "justice-secte" is better translated as "a cult determined to uphold justice" rather than the potentially ambiguous "cult justice." The word "justice" implies equilibrium. Is this not also a question of potentially-different interpretations borne of perspectives?
You mention your willingness at "discrediting The Family/Children of God," your support of those with "genuine claims or greviances" (grievances) and identify yourself, together with exFamily.org, as part of the "anti-COG community." You further state your concerns about our "embarrassment," "shame" and "our credibility."
Please allow me to assert that it is not the mandate of exFamily.org to be "anti-COG" or "discredit" anyone, but our main focus is rather to credit the group with truthful facts about its deeds and doctrines. It is also our mandate to provide a voice for perspectives and experiences with the group, which it has historically preferred to discredit and ignore. And further, we do not feel any "embarrassment" nor "shame," much less the need to reduce or defend any such said "embarrassment" or "shame" for our mandate.
May I ask who you are in relation to the supposed "anti-COG community" and what efforts you have put forth re. credible exposes of facts ("genuine articles" as you say) surrounding The Family International, etc?
Probably in your rush to find fault, you chose to post on Soapbox--our only unmoderated forum--believing that your complaint would be published instantly. Soapbox, however, is a political forum. If you wish to reply to this please use the genX board.