Moving On - Children of the Children of God

Consequent of the tragedy surrounding Ricky Rodriguez and the subsequent media attention that has focused itself around the COG/TF I have recently been more involved in dialog with my parents who are themselves current members of the COG/TF. As such it has become apparent to me that certain processes which we in society take for granted as due diligence are sadly lacking within the hierarchal structure of the movement known currently as The Family International.
Chief among these is the concept of vicarious liability. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines this secondary liability as;
“Liability (as of a guarantor) that arises from a legal obligation owed to an injured party to pay damages for another's failure to perform or negligent act.”
Translated, this occurs when the law finds a company, institution, or other organization liable for the actions of its members/affiliates. In connection with TF the disregard of the concept is most evident in relation to allegations and instances of abuse, wherein TF much like the Catholic Church provided shelter from legal authorities to perpetrators of crimes against children.
I spoke to my mother about this recently, as she is still a member of TF and challenged her on the moral, not to mention legal culpability of TF in this regard. She presented to me in TF’s defense a case she was aware of wherein an abuser was excommunicated from fellowship resultant of the crimes he had committed against children. In her mind TF had fulfilled it’s obligation to prevent the abuser from causing more harm. When queried as to whether TF as an organization had made the authorities aware of the danger that said individual posed, her response was that such was not the duty of TF but rather of the parents of the victim---who to her knowledge did not press charges. The reason being that to do so would have placed TF’s work in a selah location at jeopardy.
In so saying she identified perhaps the greatest flaw in TF’s “reported” efforts to curb the rampant abuse of children to which this site (movingon) makes claim by sheer number of personal and tragic testamony. Namely, that TF as an organization continues to actively “trade their children for lost souls” with disregard for the consequence to their own children. TF does this by actively engaging in a cost/benefit analysis wherein they weigh the lives and emotional well being of their own children against a hypothetical measure of ‘souls saved’ as a justification for sheltering abusers from legal justice.
To assume that this paradigm will change is to be guilty of the same rationalization process, which has enabled current members of TF to assuage them selves of guilt.
This faulty logic is so pervasive within The Family as an organization that justification and outright lies seem to be the order de jur when dealing with any allegations pertaining to abuse. Furthermore, when caught red handed The Family’s strategy has been to claim religious persecution, deny the allegations and have their members and a select pool of misinformed apologetics go to bat for them.

Reader's comments on this article
Add a new comment on this article
from
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:44
(Agree/Disagree?)

Another area of law that has application here is the law of agency.

The Family says that they are "Professionals" and that Family discipleship is their "chosen career."

What employment agreement have the Family Professional disciples entered into? I have been out for a long time, but I would say the terms of their "employment" is spelled out in the Word (the Mama Letters & Peter Letters, GN's, maybe still some of the Bible -- as understood in The Family). I guess these days, the Charter also comes into play. I also seem to have heard of some kind of papers that the Family has been having people sign from time to time in connection with various "moves of the spirit." These papers would be a sort of addendum or rider. My understanding is that these papers and the Charter incorporate by reference the terms of the Word.

As an aside -- I have not yet heard of a career where you pay your bosses. But I digress.

Principals don't tend to be held liable for agent's havoc wreaked while the agent was "on a frolic of their own" as opposed to acting within the scope of the agency. But we all know who promoted the child abuse, and what vehicle was used to carry that message, and who had the vehicles printed.

And what about the services that these "Professionals" offer? The fact of holding yourself out as providing something of value tends to carry some basic implied warranties such as warranties of fitness.

The Catholic church has been held liable for abuses committed by priests, and in their case, the sex abuse was not religiously/ institutionally sanctioned. But in The Family, as Chancellor has noted, people are so much more dedicated than your regular parishioner and family, and so a much larger proportion of the believers are the equivalent of clergy.

Selah.

Selah.
(reply to this comment)
from
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 22:12
(Agree/Disagree?)

Unfortunately, as long as the group keeps its elitist attitude, it won't care what damage excommunicated pervs do after leaving, unless something happens to hold it liable.

The way I see it as a child who grew up in TFEW (I think that's what I'll call it from now on, it stands for The F-ing Evil Weirdness) and then escaped, TFEW disavowed any responsibility once I left and wasn't one of "its children" (so couldn't earn them brownie points in the category of "protecting their children"). Of course, so far it cares not one whit about protecting kids who were never "its children" from being abused by its members.

Now while I was one of "their kids," whatever was in the interest of the group, its survival and advancement and its leadership, was automatically deemed to be in furtherance of my "well being." Hence, they cared about my well being...

No provision was made in the event that my well being/interests ceased to be defined by them and thus, supposedly identical with the group's.

So I'm out and I am the arbiter of my well-being and I decree that it doesn't include having been abused as I was. Guess what, they have washed their hands like surgeons going into the operating theater.

"[H]er response was that such was not the duty of TF but rather of the parents of the victim" -- that would be more accurate in a place where the parents were unaffected by the illegal behest of their god-appointed prophet and leaders, who in our parents' lives reigned supreme. At a minimum, TFEW is responsible in the same proportion as our parents' tithe held to their income, or better, to the time in a day devoted to reading the GN's and other activities pursuant to The Word of TFEW. Or how about pro rata with the portion of their lives that our parents spent, or caused us to spend, in TFEW.
(reply to this comment)