Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from ??? Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Is ***** for real? I smell a hoax. Looks like someone is trying to get people riled up. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Thursday, August 22, 2002, 05:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Yup, he's for real. I used to live with him in a Family home in Switzerland. I don't know if his goal is to get people riled up, but he has stated that he is an exFamily SGA (29) who "feels sorry for us", and is "a lone voice" of reason with the intent to warn us of where the path we have chosen in our lives will take us.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Thursday, August 22, 2002, 14:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Is he really? Well that changes things,just a bit. I can understand when people feel they have the "cure" for something that they'd want to share it. But if the "sick" people have made it clear that they don't want the antidote, the "healers" have no business trying to shove it down throats. But then again,this "lone voice" bit may be a psychologically imbrued characteristic left over from many years in the COG. In other words,this obsession with being in the "minority", "me against the world", as well as a hint of the persecution complex.(reply to this comment)

from Anthony Monday, August 12, 2002 - 17:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m not a monster and I’m not in the business of taking children away from their parents. However, I can’t help but think what some of our lives would be like now if someone had taken us away from our parents and put us under the care of loving, caring and responsible individuals. Of course I don’t sit around crying about this, what’s done is done, and I like my life right now, especially since I did it all myself, I don’t owe anybody anything and I have no one to thank but myself. But one can’t help but imagine “what if?” What if the Child Protective Agency had taken Andrea Yates‘five kids from her before she drowned them in the bathtub one at a time in cold blood? Chances are they would still be alive today. I say chances are because in this life as we know it, many things (not all things) are possible. Yes, if I had been taken from my parents, I probably would’ve been traumatized, it’s a delicate situation, but (chances are) I’d be very happy about today. Is the current state of the cult so bad that it calls for the removing of their children? I can’t really say; having been out of contact with them for a good while now, but it is something worth cogitating. Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

from ******* Monday, July 15, 2002 - 09:36

from thepersoniamnow Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 04:42 (Agree/Disagree?) It really depends on alot of factors. I think its fair to say that most Family members are good enough people now. Now its true that when they were given the freedom to "be they're real selves" (like in the 80s-90s) those same FGAs literally tortured mentally, emotionally and some physically us. But if someone began to judge me and started with stuff I did ages ago...I would want them to give me a break! Its apparant to me that most Family members right now are in the Family doing the best they can to help others. Although may even be naive and controled they are sincere and love what they do. For instance I totally think my parents are way brainwashed and will believe anything that Zerby throws at them. However they are feeding the poor, preaching the word and all that stuff. It makes them happy and I really have no desire to stop them. course when I say that I can`t judge someone for past sins I have to realize that these things occured when the adults were way past accounting age. They were all in they`re 30s. To be guilty of abuse at that age is NOT a matter of growing up and learning (as many would like to claim). For instance its commonly said that the sex with minors and horrific disciplinary measures were due to "lack of experience, even though Dad was right in his assuming." It may even be permissable for a teenager but never a adult. Zerby and co should be stopped. But I wish there were anyother way, without hurting so many others (reply to this comment)

from Monday, July 01, 2002 - 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

from Monday, July 01, 2002 - 18:44 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

from kiki Monday, June 24, 2002 - 19:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony ,so that means that now catholics should be agaist catholicism bacause a couple of priest aboused some kids.....? I lived in the family for 9 years and never saw any of that stuff going on ... I actually thought we were to stict on sex ... at least where I lived ... I defently agree that the fam made a lot of mistakes, but who dosen't ? I left 7 years ago and I defently would never go back ...... believe me ... but that dosen't mean I am agasit them ... They did help me alot then I most need help ....Why should we always think about the negative when there are alot of positive things to think about ....? Well, this is just my opinion ... I know a lot of former members who belong to this site are totally bitter .... so you can say that I am total weirdow... but the facts is that I am not! (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 03:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Kiki, the fact that your opinion may differ from the majority of those found on this site does not in any way make you, as you say, a “weirdo” (notice that I left off the last “w”). On the contrary, it shows that you formulate your own thoughts, as opposed to “going along with the crowd”. For a variety of reasons, I believe that it is very important to welcome diverse opinions. In answer to question, no I don’t think that Catholics (with a capital “C”, see?) should be as you say, “agaist (against) Catholicism” (also with a capital “C”), “bacause (because) a couple of priest aboused (abused) some kids”, based on that alone, it would be unfair to Catholicism, Catholics, and the concept of fairness. However, there are many more substantial reasons why Catholics (and non- Catholics alike) would be “justified” in taking an Anti-Catholic position. It is often very easy to get caught up in the surface sensationalism of the news media’s headlines; this is because it is easier than the often-laborious work of digging to the bottom of the matter(s) in question. Yes, the American Catholic Church is in the news again; however, as far as Catholicism is concerned, this is nothing new. This is made evident simply be examining the lives and actions of the early Popes and Catholic leaders such as Adrian II (867-872), John VIII (872-882), and Marinus (882-884), sadly, the list goes on and on. While we as a society hold individuals in any given organization responsible for their own actions, we must not fail to investigate the cause(s), which allow for the protraction of malfeasance in those organizations. While I was in the COG, I did not have it as bad as many of my friends and peers; however, this does not allow me to deny the fact that atrocities against humanity happened. Because I was neither raped nor a witness to one while in the cult, I cannot in all honesty say that this never happened (in the COG/Family), it did! By the way, how is the weather in Columbia these days? Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

From Fedburin Friday, June 28, 2002, 04:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I am happy to see that Anthony has shown he knows how to use spell check. Good for you Anthony. No one else would've seen those errors had you not pointed them out in excruciating detail. I can only hope that you don’t point out all of my grammatical errors. Who is to say that Kiki hasn't already "found her own truth" as Afflict said that people need to do? Just because Kiki was not sexual abused, tortured, etc and doesn’t hate the Family with everything in her soul does not mean that her opinion is not a valid one. Most of the people that post on this site have taken the stance that if one does not devote enormous amounts of energy hating the Family then one must not have found the truth or that one is not anti-family enough. Many are as passionate about hating the Family as the Family is about what they do. It seems that in striving so hard to escape a cult that perhaps some of you have formed your own cult. The definition of cult according to James Henslin PhD sociology is simply a new or different religion, whose teachings and practices put it at odds with the dominant culture. I want to state this very clearly as I know there will be numerous replies stating that I am a Family sympathizer. I am not. I had a fairly rough time in the Family. As a matter fact my mother was murdered and Berg wrote a letter about saying that it was her fault. Do I agree with this? No I do not but on the other hand I do not devote all of my energy to cursing a dead man or criticizing those that don’t despise him. I do not see how it possible that you say that “I never want my exercise in free expression to come across as pushing my perspective(s) on anyone”. It seems that every reply you give is trying to push your opinion on somebody. While I was in the Family I was witness to this same type attitude. The truth is subjective. I am almost certain that your rebuttal would contain something regarding child abuse, etc. and how the Family’s version of the truth condoned this. I couldn’t agree with more and I believe that to be wrong but that does still not change the fact that my opinion is only my version of the truth created by the society that I live in. The truth is different from every different perspective and every culture. Of course you already know this. I welcome your response. Cheers. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Monday, July 01, 2002, 19:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Part 1 Fedburin, first of all I would like to say how sorry I am about your mother. I too have lost someone close to me and it is a painful memory. There are several good articles about victim blaming on this site that come to mind when I think of the callousness Berg demonstrated to your family during that difficult time. The following is my answer to your reply. ANTHONY wrote: Kiki, the fact that your opinion may differ from the majority of those found on this site does not in any way make you… a weirdo. On the contrary, it shows that you formulate your own thoughts, as opposed to “going along with the crowd”. For a variety of reasons, I believe that it is very important to welcome diverse opinions. FEDBURIN wrote: Just because Kiki was not sexual abused, tortured, etc and doesn’t hate the Family with everything in her soul does not mean that her opinion is not a valid one. ANTHONY wrote: I realize that many of us ex-members (including myself) are occupied with many other matters and thus cannot spend the entirety of our lives physically “going-after” the cult. FEDBURIN wrote: Most of the people that post on this site have taken the stance that if one does not devote enormous amounts of energy hating the Family then one must not have found the truth or that one is not anti-family enough. ANTHONY says: Hey guys aren’t those spelling & grammar tools cool? All we need now is a reading comprehension checker; maybe I’ll write such a program in C/C++, or would Java be better to address cross-platform issues? Or better yet, an Expert System. It seems that Fedburin completely missed what was being said in the post, on which he decided to comment. FEDBURIN wrote: Many are as passionate about hating the Family as the Family is about what they do. It seems that in striving so hard to escape a cult that perhaps some of you have formed your own cult. The definition of cult according to James Henslin PhD sociology is simply a new or different religion, whose teachings and practices put it at odds with the dominant culture. ANTHONY says: Fedburin, the day that you see someone on this site trying to start a new or different religion, whose teachings and practices put it at odds with the “dominant culture”, please let me know as I’ll have to see this to believe it. In case you hadn’t noticed, this site aims to help ex-members adjust to the “dominant culture”; clearly your quoted definition of a cult does not apply here. Man, I really should write that reading comprehension program (ReadingComp.exe) J. Regards Anthony (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Monday, July 01, 2002, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Part 2 FEDBURIN wrote: I do not see how it possible that you say that “I never want my exercise in free expression to come across as pushing my perspective(s) on anyone”. It seems that every reply you give is trying to push your opinion on somebody. ANTHONY says: Yes, I know we come from an environment that looked down on self-assertion and required unquestioning acceptance of statements no matter how un-intelligible. Thus, when we see or hear someone voicing her/his opinions with clarity and reason, substantiated by logical arguments, it may seem very odd, and as you say “trying to push your opinion on somebody.” I simply will not say that I believe in something without at least an attempt to explain why; this is very different than proselytizing. Beauty, religion, morals, ethics, taste and style are all subjective; truth is not, regardless of culture. The statement “truth is personal and subjective” is a class book example of a contradiction in terms. But perhaps the word “truth” has been corrupted like many other words. If you mean that an individual choice of lifestyle and belief is a subjective truth, I agree with you 100%, but I do have a problem with the wording (why call it “truth”). I understand truth to be one of the very few things in life that holds “constant”. The fact that I am a human being and not a rabid monkey is truth, although there are those who will dispute this. The fact that you are a human being is truth, whether you are a “good” and “beautiful” human being is subjective. The fact the religion exists is truth, which should one follow, if any, is subjective. Please remember that these are my opinions, I urge you to disagree with me if you should feel the need to, and I only ask that you use logic when doing so. I will always listen to new ideas, with the hope that I will learn something new and continue to expand my knowledge. The day I cease to do so will be a good day for me to cease (pun intended)! However, when I arrive at some belief or opinion through reason I will hold on to it ONLY as long as it does not prove to be defective. If I were logically shown a “better” or “truthful” argument, I would be doing myself a tort by not embracing it. Regards Anthony (reply to this comment)

From Fedburin Tuesday, July 02, 2002, 01:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I was going to research a well thought out response but then I figured, "Why the hell am I doing this?" I really don't have time and sometimes I just like to argue for the hell of it and for that I apologize. Basically anyone that is zealous about anything irritates me. You compared the Family to Hitler’s regime. Don't think you think this might be a little on the extreme side? When was the last time you saw anyone in the Family conducting genocide? When I said that you seem force your opinion on everyone else that was only because you attack the credibility of every person that you respond to on this site. Credibility in this case being the mastery of the English language. I think we can agree that when "truth" was mentioned on this site that it was in reference to someone beliefs not to a proven hypothesis or fact such as "we are not monkeys". When we are talking about peoples' beliefs yes peoples' opinions of what the truth is subjective. I apologize. I wrote my last response at 4am. I work graveyard shift and I should have never attempted to respond to you without being fully awake. I did re-read my post and will admit it was disjointed. As a side note: Good luck with your reading comprehension program. I myself prefer using visual basic .net but unfortunately too many programmers just hit the compile button nowadays to fix crappy code. C++ programmers are prone to this. Actually I have been guilty of this in the past. Anyway cheers, Tim.(reply to this comment)

from Afflict Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 23:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony--when I first left the Family, I was desperatly unhappy with my life, but placed all the blame on myself. For two years, I supported and praised the Family in order to ease my profound guilt and please my father. Even the day I realised the truth and denounced the cult, I was still lived in fear for the first few weeks: thinking every car ride, every night of sleep would be my last for committing this ultimate sin. The guilt and conditioning goes so deep. So, please be patient with those coming out. In time, they will find their own truth. We all know the long term effects of such intense conditioning, and each individual will deal with it in their own way. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, June 23, 2002, 23:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Afflict, I feel ya. I felt the same way (you said weeks, it took me at least a year), there is almost nothing worse than that intense fear of reaping the “judgment and fate” of the “backsliders”. However, those I am referring to in my article are not the “newly emancipate”; thus, I did not post the article under “Leaving”. I am referring to those who have been out for a considerable amount of time, know what the deal is, but choose to live in denial. I have met such people. On the other hand, I want to help, and perhaps, in some instances, a direct approach can help reverse what you called “the long term effects of such intense conditioning”. Now, to change the subject just a bit, by you comment, “in time, they will find their own truth”, are you suggesting that the “truth” is subjective? Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, June 23, 2002, 23:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Typo. Line 5 should read: Newly emancipated. Regards, Anthony(reply to this comment)

From afflick Monday, June 24, 2002, 01:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I am. I am the last person in the world to debate theology, my confidence to my level of knowledge on the subject dips below zero, but this is my opinion: We each come to peace our own way: some people connect to Eastern religions, some embrace environmental issues, some are agnostic, some are devote Christians or Muslims, Wiccan, etc. There was this episode of 'South Park' where one of the characters dies and arrives in Heaven. He immediatly meets His Maker and asks God what was the key to being allowed into the afterlife. "It's Mormon." God replies, "The answer is Mormon." He is then promptly sent to Hell while the Mormons in Heaven knit hot pads or such. It was a funny episode and I blungened it to death with my faulty memory, but it had a point: Is life a guessing game, hoping that you have indeed chosen the 'right' religion, and then finding out when you die if you happened to guess correctly? Many people are dogmatic in their belief that their religion is the true path to enlightenment and redemption. Wars have been fought, much has been lost. Heck, just look at The Family if you want to see fanatically-held beliefs! If God is Love, then why wouldn't He allow His Children to come to Him in whatever way they are most comfortable, or not coming to Him, if that is their choice. After so many years of swallowing someone else's perspective on life and how it should be lived, is there any greater gift to give yourself than the opportunity to, at last, make all your own decisions?(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Monday, June 24, 2002, 01:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Thoughtful reply. I never want my exercise in free expression to come across as pushing my perspective(s) on anyone; If does, I apologize. And just to clarify my last question, it deals with epistemology and not theology. Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

From afflick Monday, June 24, 2002, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Type. Line 22 should read 'come', not 'coming'.(reply to this comment)