|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Media Reports
Larry King Live: Inside a Cult | from Peter - Monday, July 28, 2008
accessed 2176 times On Thursday, July 31, 2008, CNN's Larry King Live broadcast a show about The Family International/Children of God cult. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
A transcript of the show is available at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html
Guests included Juliana Buhring, Celeste Jones, Amy Bril, Davida Kelley, Miriam Williams-Boeri, Stephen Kent and Rachel Bernstein. A producer for the Larry King Live show invited child molester and Family International spokesperson Claire Borowik and other members (including the "Prophet Bus team" in Texas) of The Family to appear on the show and they all declined. They also did not respond to further requests for a statement and other information. Before the show on which they refused to appear ended, they released a statement on a cult propaganda web site. Like most statements they have released over the years, this one contradicts their previous statements. For example, in January 2005, they issued and made public statements claiming that The Family implemented a policy declaring raping children to be an excommunicable offense in 1986. In 1989 and 1992 they issued statements claiming this policy was implemented in 1985. Now they say they did not make raping children an excommunicable offense until 1989 and that they will not excommunicate members who raped children before they announced the policy in mid-to-late 1989.
Perhaps someday they will admit that while their "stringent policy" for the protection of child molesters was enacted in the late 1980s, as of mid-2008 they have yet to implement any policies that adequately protect children from abuse.
They have certainly had a a lot of trouble keeping track of their lies and making sure they are consistent. In order to help them out, I've started archiving their statements at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Category:Family_Public_Statements
The different versions of their recent statement titled "The Family International’s response to the July 31st Larry King Live Show (CNN)" can be found (along with video and a transcript of the show) at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/CNN_Larry_King_Live:_Cults:_Sordid_Sex_%26_Secrets%3F#Response_by_The_Family_International
and
http://archive.xfamily.org/docs/fam/pr/tfi-mycon-response-to-cnn-lkl-2008-07-31.pdf
http://archive.xfamily.org/docs/fam/pr/tfi-mycon-response-to-cnn-lkl-2008-08-01.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from king and stuff
Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 10:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
documentary called 'spin'. features larry a lot!
Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=spin&emb=0#
............
MONEY AS DEBT
Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of "Money as Debt" tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its "Duncan Initiative" received high praise from those who previewed it. I recommend it as a painless but hard-hitting educational tool and encourage the widest distribution and use by all groups concerned with the present unsustainable monetary system in Canada and the United States.
(helpful for older children)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=spin&emb=0#q=money%20as%20debt&emb=0
(reply to this comment)
| from down time
Saturday, August 09, 2008 - 07:28
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I found this on the LKL show web site--its a PS to the show and Larry's take on it. He seems to have taken a cautious and possibly even a skeptical approach to the program and what was presented. Interesting, but not surprising considering some of his past shows.
From Larry King:
A major part of the program devoted to cults, to sexual cults to the Children of God cult.
We had former members of the cult, we had experts discussing it.
It’s an interesting situation as to what attracts people to a cult, and also the definition of a cult. Is it a group of people just together with a common belief who society doesn’t like? I have difficulty with that, as you can take a lot of groups and call them cults. But we have to be careful how we use the word.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/31/lkl.about.thurs.cnn
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Oddman
Saturday, August 09, 2008 - 03:38
 (Agree/Disagree?)
No form of abuse is less important, newsworthy, or vile than another. Each is a dagger of a different length. And at times all it takes is the smallest and thinnest of razor blades. Suicides are no cult baby patent. Today, I'm still here. I don't know if I should be, or if I will be here tomorrow. Today I'm still here. Just days ago, a victim of child abuse died in my arms. Like me, during her hours of darkness, the childhood scars itched to the point of insanity. Young children are killing and dying in Japan over abusive comments on their blogs. Is there something in the air? Maybe it's the earth saying "I can't take more of you". Maybe advances in the medical field, and the stubbornness of the elderly is throwing off nature's balance. Too many deaths. Too many too young to go.
It's difficult to get accurate statistics due to the Family's policy of separating families, disowning "backsliders" and the systematic destruction of records.
But as part of the larger picture, those who are abused as a child do have much more difficulty coping with life. Abused children are much more likely to develop emotional disorders and personality disorders. Does it matter how many succumbed to their demons? I feel those living in pain are victims that cannot be ignored. And there are very many of us. Less by the year, but still many. If a victim is surviving today, does it make the abuse any less vile or harmful? How many deaths will it take till they know, that too many people have died? How do they not feel pain at the loss of their own kin? Too much I don't understand.
A scarred childhood WILL make it harder to cope with life. The effects may seem absolutely irrelevant, and the effects may not be immediate, but trauma and pain will forever remain a landmine in the field of a the victim's subconscious. Everybody has their lows. At times of extreme hardship, when one ponders ones existence, one will ponder those childhood moments that one does not understand. The knife remains in the child's back as she grows, and death may not come until the knife is removed. Will you blame it on the child for removing the knife.
As they get older I'd like them to sit and ponder. If you knew you would die tomorrow, would you have lived yesterday the way you did? If you knew they would die tomorrow, would you have done the things you did?
And yes I'm depressed and drinking.
(reply to this comment)
| from Haunted
Thursday, August 07, 2008 - 16:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the claim that nearly 30 suicides occurred in the past 15 years has no basis in fact or official causes of death"
- - - Excerpt from statement issued by The Family International
I have posted a list of these deaths under the title "in memoriam"
http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=34&ID=2380
The RISE website has further information posted on each death with details, including the manner of death for those morbidly inclined and those who need further "proof" beyond the tragic death of our brothers and sisters
http://memorial.riseinternationalcic.org/.
I have documented proof and emails from the families for each person listed. There are over 40.
The saddest part is that they feel no sense of grief or loss but rather attempt to deny the deaths of their own children...i for one do not need their acknowledgment - I've been to the funerals and seen the blood on the ground.
(reply to this comment)
|  From down time
Friday, August 08, 2008, 13:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I believe she is referring to actual suicides, not deaths. Even though you have listed 40 deaths on this site, and there are around 78 or so deaths listed on the RISE site, there are a number of those listed on both sites that are definitely not suicides and others that were never confirmed. Let's be sure we're keeping our stats in order as well, or we'll suffer on the side of OUR credibility. The truth should stand on its own.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Peter
Friday, August 08, 2008, 20:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Regardless of where his sympathies lie, he does have a point. Both of those lists include individuals who died of causes other than suicide so it is inaccurate to characterize either one as a list of suicides. I also agree that it would inaccurate to say that only 30 current or former members of The Family/Children of God have committed suicide in the past 15 years. While the actual number is unknown (and very difficult or almost impossible to determine), it is likely to be much higher. Indeed, at least 3 former members reportedly committed suicide in the first 7 months of 2008. It does seem quite likely that the rate of suicide amongst current and former members is higher than normal. However, no one has yet collected enough accurate data to accurately calculate this.
The Family International's claim that they have collected enough data to accurately calculate and compare the suicide rate and that anyone in The Family is qualified to perform such calculations is false and has no basis in fact. It is possible that they have some data on suicides (what they would call "graduations") by current members but they have tried very hard to keep such information secret and when it comes to former members they have very little data and the data they do have is the most likely to be completely inaccurate and unreliable. For example, in the years after my brother's death in February 1994, Family leaders and members spread false information about how he died. He died of untreated severe acute bronchopneumonia yet The Family inexplicably claimed at various times that he hung himself or that he died of a drug overdose. So not only do they have very little data but the data they do have is useless garbage. Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO): if the data used to calculate the result is wrong, then the result will also be wrong. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Holon
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 - 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
It was ok I think. True, just more of the same but for some I am sure it was there first time hearing about it.
I know its bad of me but I am always amused by how imbarassed my parents are everytime a show comes on about it. Knowing our whole family and friends might watch it ect.. Everyone who knows us knows we were in the group. But oh well, Having to hang your head in shame ( and trust me they do.LOL) is a small price to pay Mom and Dad.
(reply to this comment)
| from Randi
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 - 05:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Im not sure I really liked the show. It was a bit too redundant for me. Saying the same stuff over and over again. It seems to be me like news about TF and its horrors are running thin... and journalists, tv shows and what have you are just squeezing "it" for what's left, for its last drop of monetary worth. I respect and admire Davida and Amy etc for speaking out, I do... but I would feel slightly used at this point, at least if I was Davida. The last couple shows I've seen with her, they have embarrassed her I fear, in regards to her profession etc, and I see it as part of the "show," an extra interesting tid bit from the medias perspective. I'm not sure I like that. At least Montel tried to make a point out of it by suggesting therapy, but on Larry, I felt it was awkward and counter productive.
I'm not saying that shows regarding TF should stop, Im not saying that!!! Im not saying that we should stop "being heard." Esp, because justice has not been served in any way. What Im saying is that, I thought the show was a little thin and redundant... nothing new, old stuff that's been repeated too many times.
We need to be careful that we don't hurt ourselves by making the public numb to what we have to say.. Broken records are annoying and simply not interesting. Just a point... but feel free to rage!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From grimley
Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 10:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I drew a contrary conclusions from the interview - and while the well-known history was reiterated to give a sort of background, there was actually quite a different angle this time around such as raising the issue of child protection in the cult at present, discussing the lack of adequate scrutiny in place and the prevalence of abusers still sheltered within the group - I think that despite the show mentioning the past there was a greater emphasis on present concerns.
It also raised some (new) points about Members aging.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Randi
Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
If anything, hopefully some brainwashed F members will gain some form of awakening from these shows... that in it self would be salvation.
Some good points were made, yes..but it was not a very good show. I am mostly speaking on behalf of ourselves...If these shows, shows that are repetitive at least, if they are serving a purpose on our behalf, if they are helping us to find justice, to find peace and closure, save lives and raise awairness...than its fantastic and worth it, but I wonder if that course has been run, or at least in need of a "time out."
The girls did fine, they did their best...but the show didnt serve them justice.
That other woman, the more middle aged ex member, can't recall her name... well that part didnt go too well, and I didnt get her points about sex within the cult... that it was only in close concentric circle of the leaders..it was kind of messy... what was the point? I'm not sure about the cult expert either... it looked to me like, that was her hope for 5 minutes of fame and like he couldn't find anyone else. I know I'm being harsh... excuse me.
Personally I am tired of having to see this stuff all the time.. I want it to go away. I just dont seem to see any tangible results. I am rather dubious of the media as I feel that they exploit far too many...This family crap is a good show in regards to sick sex stories and that always sells. Im glad some of our parents are embarrassed, that makes me feel warm inside, but we should not be shaming and embarrassing ourselves in the process. The price isnt right!!
The truth shall set you free..but the truth has been told, its out there for anyone who cares enough to open one eye.
TF reputation is so soiled that one needs to be stupid or very 4rth world not to notice and succumb to their BS...Justice, however, has not been served and those leaders are still in charge and getting away with murder...I think we're gonna have to find a more "intelligent" way of claiming justice. Not saying I know how... maybe something is better than nothing, but we can say no to interviews if we're not certain that they will serve a worth while purpose.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From jeez
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 22:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Personally I am tired of having to see this stuff all the time.. I want it to go away. I just dont seem to see any tangible results."
Then don't FUCKING WATCH!! Armchair critic.
"The truth shall set you free..but the truth has been told, its out there for anyone who cares enough to open one eye."
Oh yeah??? Oh yeah??? what about those who told their stories when nobody was backing them up and could not go on?
The truth has been told my ass. But GBY anyway. And go find a way to tell the truth more "intelligently" you superior (but silent) genius, you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Randi
Friday, August 08, 2008, 01:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is it possible that we can engage in a more intelligent and decent dialogue? You're obviously personally offended. That was not my intention. My critic was in regards to the show... not the brave women who were in fact interviewed. I was trying to express that I felt the media is taking advantage of some people...and that one should be aware that "we", "you", "they" or whoever are not hurt or embarrassed to an unnecessary degree in the process of "speaking out," esp. if these horrors have already been exposed. It was clear to me that Larry or the producers were not interested... this was a show in every sense of the word, not a chance to speak out and that is not the women's fault.
I'm just trying to raise awareness to the fact that some media producers etc are only out for a good or sensational story and are not interested in what you we whoever have to really say...and because of the content of what we (or whoever) have to say, we should be more selective... but of course as Falcon said, its not always easy to determine or control.
I agree that I should not criticise those who are trying to "speak out" esp. when "speaking out" to that degree, is not my personal prerogative. However, if people are just saying the same things over and over and over again, that is not really "speaking out" is it? Redundancy is not valuable or worth listening to. I know that some were actually trying to raise new issues, however, they didnt really get a chance did they?
Saying "then don't watch it." is not very realistic. I have several times been watching TV, flipping channels and suddenly I see a show about TF...yes I can change the channel, but its hard to ignore as it was such a huge part of my life. Saying "I want it to go away" is my way of expressing my feelings about all this stuff, don't you ever wish that it could all just go away?
I guess I have a specific perspective. I am mother trying to live a normal life I am not interested in exposing my traumas to the world. I admire those who speak out however and those who are genuinely trying to make a difference and raise awareness. I am sorry if I have offended any of the women on the show; it was not my intention to "diss."
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From define
Friday, August 08, 2008, 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
What criteria of "selectivity" would you apply? If quality and/or reputation and/or influential charachter of the show matter, I think Larry King Live makes the cut. But Larry King does not care about much anymore, he is coasting to whatever his finish line is. If you want people to go by how much the personnel that first spoke to them manage to seem to care, I would be surprised if you Randi were satisfied with the outcome of the show. If you ever work on any of these tasks (which it appears you won't), you might get a more realistic idea of how little the 2nd generation survivors of the COG/Family control the media.
I don't know what makes it seem that this has been sufficiently exposed, since so much is couched in "alleged" and lacks real perp names and consequences. I suffered enough in my flesh and that of those I love, my runaway child siblings and peers who made it so far or did not that I cannot for the life of me conceive of this horrible injustice as having been sufficiently exposed. But maybe you were raised in "nice" homes by "nice" uncles and aunties, or were younger (so they found out on us before you were "it" that they better not do it anymore).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 00:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didnt quite understand all of what you said... but Fine, was just making an observation. If you feel that its fulfilling a worthwhile purpose...then please continue. If you think that repitition will help fine. I just said that it looked to me like there are too many shows saying the same things... with no tangible results.
I suffered enormous abuses myself... spent lots of time in victor camps, beaten, bloody and bruised physically and mentally and I had to be punished for pedifiles having their way with me... I was punished and I was merely a victim... I have suffered too... I still dont think that it would help me achieve my personal objectives in life or that for the cause of justice if I were to tell my stories over and over again to every newspaper so that they could get their cut too. Its my story and would friek if I had the slightest inclination that anyone was using my pain for their gain or amusement.
I do not think nore did I suggest that we have control over the media...Selective...Well I would not want to talk about the same things again and again, so I would say yes to the interview only if they could garantee that I would get a chance to talk about what I want to talk about, otherwise No.. I suppose its a matter of opinion, but I do not think that Larry King is a good show for a cult discussion because the topic is much too dynamic for his style of interviewing...In retrospect... His previous show on the TF blowed as well, and the ex member was the one that looked bad...it was scewed and wierd.
Nothing we do will ever serve as repayment for what we have suffered... Nothing. It will never turn out as fair... it never does in these cases. I admire those who dare to speak out and expose their hurts to the world.. otherwise we would have nothing...if we were all quiet, we would have nothing...I cant do it... it would hurt too much and it would hurt my kids for sure... but how do "you" or how is one that has been so hurt, tell the story again and again with visual images even in some cases...on TV while not seeing any results of justice... how does one survive that and is it necessary to survive that?(reply to this comment) |
| | From GoldenMic
Monday, August 11, 2008, 11:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Randi, I appreciate you working so hard to note that you are simply processing your own reaction and not criticizing the participants in the show. Also, you have a legitimate question in asking if there is any point to such painful presentations when the abusers will probably never be brought to justice. In fact, true "justice" would be that children never had to deal with these issues in the first place, and had been raised by loving parents in a safe environment, so we will NEVER have true justice in that sense.
One thing, though, that is worth noting is the inherent value of being able to "tell the story" of one's abuses. Trauma theory has repeatedly demonstrated that "telling the story" and having others attend to that story is, in itself, hugely beneficial for the psyche of the survivor. I guess what I am thinking is that such an activity can be worth such effort even if it does not change things as much as we would like. The exposure DOES change at least some things, and it does create the potential for doubt, disruption, and discomfort for current members of TF, not insignificant effects.
Meanwhile, I also respect the discomfort you experience in having your own tragedy exposed yet again to the world, especially as you are trying to live a more normal life. I was recently talking with a fellow SGA from TF and discussing how such exposure inevitably creates a confrontation between two valuable perspectives; 1) the need and right to tell one's story of abuse as part of personal development and public awareness, and 2) the fall-out of others feeling exposed by the telling of that story. I am not sure those two perspectives could ever be fully addressed and resolved, since BOTH perspectives are legitimate.
For me, this conflict is simply one more undeserved consequence and burden that has been unfairly laid upon us by the actions of our parents. Of course it is unfair and disturbing, and it seems to be part of the natural legacy of our parents having made horrible choices for our lives. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 04:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the constructive feedback. It is rather nice to receive a response showing that you have actually read my comments with some insight. I guess the topic is rather sensitive as some are really putting themselves out there.
I think that exposure is very important especially in a case where so much abuse occurred in secret behind closed doors. It is important to tell the story. However, in my opinion…you CAN tell a story too many times, from a personal perspective (as far as what is even psychologically healthy) and in regards to the media. There have been shows about alleged child abuse and prostitution etc etc about TF for years now. It's not a new thing. I think that it can have the opposite effect from that "we" are in fact trying to accomplish. Eventually people will stop taking notice and it could even affect ones credibility… Fair? No… But I think it is possible to reach a stopping or a pause point and more importantly, to know when you've reached it.
I just think it’s a bit nasty that the media is always interested in the sex stories…they can't get enough and so I think its important that they are not benefiting too much from "our" pain (selling emotional porn) in the process of "us" exposing the cult and telling "our" stories.
Our parents have certainly made "mistakes" and we are certainly dealing with undeserved circumstances…yet I can't help but feel lucky… I survived, I'm here, and I'm actually ok. Scarred, but I'm ok. That’s huge!! I have made goals for myself and I am slowly reaching them step by step. I'm not a victim anymore because I chose not to be… I'm living my own life and loving it and that is something worth celebrating. What really annoys me though is that TF doesn't seem to acknowledge the long term effects of abuse…a lot of us have children now, and I'm sure that our pain has in many ways or at least to some extent, become theirs… that is the tragedy. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sighh
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 17:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
"No tangible results" other than forcing the cult to change some of its practices (as has been done, and may be considered worthwhile as prevention) is something we all have to swallow.
Hell yeah Larry King Live's previous show on the cult blowed. Anyone who has been working to expose the cult knows that (but some kiddies apparently don't) and that makes this show, as uninterested as he is in anything, all the more important.
So if you concede that nothing will ever turn out as fair, etc., why do you demand more from those who are willing to speak out in the media?
As to how one survives, for me it's arguably that I don't, but I blame the abusers and since I have been involved in the matters that you can sit back and evaluate, I do not have the luxury of looking into a crystal glass and seeing whether there will ne "any results of justice" before I cooperate with the authorities etc.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From anonymous commentator
Sunday, August 10, 2008, 20:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am sorry that you seem to have taken a hostility to me as what you derisively term "You sound like one of the particular women that "speaks out" a lot...and if you are... you should of course do what you think is working for you and your objective."
Whatever. My objective? Pray tell. Sorry you feel such negative sentiments to "the particular women that "speaks out" a lot".
You seem to think that trying to do what is right and just is an evil deed. If so, I am not sure what more I can say to you, Randi.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Sunday, August 10, 2008, 22:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You lost me there... I haven't taken any hostility to anyone... Whats up?? I said you sound like a particular person by the way you write... Im guessing here as you want to remain anonymous (and why?)... that is not hostility. I dont know what your objective is...I said if what you're doing is working than carry on and all the best.. How can you take offense to that????
"You seem to think that trying to do what is right and just is an evil deed" If that is what you have gathered from my comments...then I dont think we speak the same language and you have clearly misunderstood everything.
Ok I will say no more. Thanks for the interesting but different dialogue
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Sunday, August 10, 2008, 07:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
The last show blowed.. ok, but this one was a winner you think?
You sound like one of the particular women that "speaks out" a lot...and if you are... you should of course do what you think is working for you and your objective.
I don't think you can determine any results for justice...but I think it's possible to investigate and make more demands in regards to the media so that you are not unecessarily hurt in the process and so that you get to say what is most important not just the same old sex stories that the media loves to hear about. Im not making demands on anyone...Im stating my observations and I have a right to do so.
I have never "evaluated" or esp disliked any other shows..I have generally been very glad that these shows were made and impressed that there are people willing to talk etc...I was merely saying that its getting too much now and its too much of the same stuff. However, I can understand that you dont want to be quiet and leave the story to the side untill something actually happens. What I was trying to say was that perhaps there are other avenues that we (ex members) could investigate.. other methods that might not directly involve the media, but could have more tangible results. I am doing a little research myself on the subject... so I am trying to look into it.
"Cooperate with authorities" I hope you dont mean the media...Its your life and dignity to protect... its your story. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From killing myself softly
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 00:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
"have nothing...if we were all quiet, we would have nothing...I cant do it... it would hurt too much and it would hurt my kids for sure... but how do "you" or how is one that has been so hurt, tell the story again and again with visual images even in some cases...on TV while not seeing any results of justice... how does one survive that and is it necessary to survive that?"
What is your actual question for me? I could never answer for you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Falcon
Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 12:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
You've made a good observation Randi. More and more I'm convinced that the media do not want to hear about the current issues, they want to hear the sex, scandal and salacious dirt. This was evidenced by Larry cutting off Celeste when she was about to make a very valid point about the leadership who are abusers not facing justice, and turned to Davida instead when Celeste had a hard-hitting, well-prepared answer.
Larry came completely unprepared, directed the wrong questions to the wrong people (I mean the guy couldn't even bloody read the statement on screen), rearranged who would stay and go in the room opposite the intentions of the producer, etc. We worked with the producer for a week before the show to try to put together something that was current and to date with the real issues at hand, i.e. accountability, child protection, help for kids leaving, etc., but when push came to shove, it seems ultimately it was Larry who botched it.
At the end of the day, we have no control over the media, and I, for one, am both frustrated and disillusioned by their evasion of current issues. My take is that it strikes too close to home with all the Christian fundamentalism crying 'Religious Freedom'. They don't want to hear about kids rights, or parents accountability, or that one day they may have to face the consequences of their fanatic, fundamentalist actions. Aaaand I'm gonna start ranting, so I'm outta here. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From cheeks
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
That and the fact that now the things that happen are hushed up instead of blatantly open like it once was. I know of several instances in the Family as late as 96 where adult men had sex with tn girls. The leaders also knew and basically gave the men a slap on the wrist.
I still don't think that sexual abuse is the main issue we should bring into the light so to speak. It is what the media wants to hear but what damaged so many of us is the other abuse that we went through. The menial labor, lack of education and of course the ever-present mental and psychological abuse. The spiritual abuse. That we were never good enough, that we were never worthy enough, that we always had some sort of spiritual sickness they had to cure. Some evilness they had to weed out. I hate it to this day thinking about my childhood and my teenage years and the dread I faced when the shepherds came to talk to me and what new punishment they cooked up for me. What the fucking hell were they thinking? And it was done to every fucking one of us. They used us against each other so we couldn't even trust our friends. You never knew who was going to rat you out to save themselves.
Why can't the Family just face the music? Why can't one of the spokes people who are trying to mend fences or whatever the hell they are claiming to do go on Larry King and say,'You know we really screwed our kids over, and some of them are dying because of it and we are going to do everything in our power to make it right.' Why don't they start by turning a list over to the authorities of everyone who confessed to having sex with a minor. After all as Berg said, Failure to report a crime is a crime.
I need a freaking drink.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From cheeks
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 14:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
It was Larry that botched it. It seemed like he came and did the interview flying by the seat of his pants. Sexual abuse happened but I don't think it was as flagrant and as open as the physical and emotional abuse was esp after 91. It still happened but not as obviously as it had in the past.
I think it is very hard for the younger Sg's to relate to the sexual abuse as so many of them have not experienced it. However many of them are able to remember the silence restrictions and Victor programs.
I still think you ladies did fantastic, I think Larry is getting too old and needs to hang up his suspenders.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 15:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have a feeling King was probably absorbed in the Caylee case. It's no excuse, as his Producers should have filled him in, but at least it explains some of his odd questions.
And while I'm here, did anyone notice that Claire said that her e-mail coorespondence is available upon request to prove her accusations that they ignored her statements? In light of what Steve Kelly has told the flock, perhaps someone should ask her for to present the e-mails and see what she does.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From VA Immune from from Challenge over Religion
Friday, August 08, 2008, 07:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
VA Immune from from Challenge over Religion
Appeals Court Denies FFRF Taxpayer Standing over VA's Incorporation of
Religion in Healthcare
Aug. 7, 2008
A 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
Chicago ruled on Tuesday that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its
three taxpayer plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the
incorporation of religion into all aspects of healthcare by the Veterans
Administration.
The Foundation is interested in retaking the challenge with patient
plaintiffs and would like to hear from any veterans who have encountered
unwelcome religious promotion at the VA.
The Foundation had challenged the VA's formal shift over the past 10
years to incorporate "pastoral care" into patient care, using "spiritual
assessments" for all patients. The Foundation also challenged the
promotion
of chaplain services for outpatients, who are 80% of VA patients, but do
not suffer any "free exercise" burden, as hospitalized patients may.
The appeals court, in denying jurisdiction, cited a U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in which the Foundation and its taxpayer plaintiffs
were
not allowed to sue over Pres. Bush's faith-based offices.
...........
"The Courts are rapidly moving to the position that government can fund
religious activities, and endorse religion, without restraint," said
..........
Richard Bolton, the Madison, Wis., attorney who has represented the
Foundation in most of its faith-based challenges.
“We are gravely concerned over the fact that administrators and the
executive branch who violate the constitutional separation between church
and state are increasingly immune from court scrutiny," said Dan Barker
and
Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-presidents.
"The VA believes that the spiritual dimension of health must be
integrated into all aspects of patient care, research and healthcare
education. The Service has been reorganized to reflect this change," wrote
Justice Ripple, joined by Justices Rovner and Tinder.
The VA conducts "spiritual assessments" to measure each patient's
religious characteristics, and disseminates sample assessments which ask
such questions as "How often do you attend religious services during the
year?" "How much is religion (and/or God) a source of strength and comfort
to you?" "How often do you privately pray?" "How often do you read the
bible or other religious literature?"
The appeals court admitted that the spiritual assessment recommended by
the VA includes a scoring index in which a low score indicates the patient
should be referred to chaplain services.
The Foundation lawsuit additionally pinpointed abuses at four
particular
VA facilities: the use of a religious "lament" (prayer) to treat patients
with post-traumatic stress disorder at the Dayton VA Medical Center; the
use of a "Spiritual Recovery Support Group" for veterans deemed to have
"significant spiritual injuries" as measured by a Multi-Level Spiritual
Assessment" at the Sheridan VA Medical Center; a "Spirituality in
Substance
Abuse Detoxification Treatment" at the VA Medical Center in Gainesville,
and a similar program in Detroit.
Ruling by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals
(PDF file)
Read the Associated Press story about the decision:
Religion
allowed in VA care, court rules
by Ryan J. Foley
Associated Press
Aug. 6, 2008
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in
Madison, Wis., is the largest national association of freethinkers
(atheists, agnostics), with more than 12,000 members, which has been
working since 1978 to keep church and state separate.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Randi
Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 05:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I could see that Celeste maintaned her composer rather well considering the ghastly video they aired on international tv of her being stripped of her innocence, dancing for Berg etc... but I was deeply troubled by the fact that I could see the hurt on her face and she was obviously unsettled.
Was she even asked if they could show this film?
I want to ask if we are doing ourselves a favour... still(reply to this comment) |
| | From cassy
Wednesday, August 06, 2008, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wasn't aware they were going to play that video, nor could I see the video or Larry or any of the guests. I was in a room by myself staring into a black box, so it was difficult and I was just hoping I looked in the right place. I could hear everything with an ear piece. I don't like the clip played especially when they ask for your reaction right there.
Anyway, we want to bring current issues to attention which we tried to do, however, I agree there was no time really to get into detail with anyone. I guess I look at it as a taster, that hopefully people would have looked at the RISE website afterwards and done some research.
I also agree that the last thing I want to do is rehash the old. I often have to remind myself of the 'goal' in all this, and at least for me, it's to focus on 2nd generation coming out, and getting proper support networks, etc. and getting people to realise the signs of cult so that it doesn't happen again. I also think we should bring into the public arena the discussion about how much does society have a responsibility to groups that isolate themselves to make sure basic human rights are not being infringed. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 00:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I asked above... How do you survive that? How do you deal with a video like that being aired on TV for the world to see? How? I am a mother, I wanted to run into the screen and rescue you that poor little girl dancing. I just felt so bad for you. I have also had to survive a lot of shit...but I can't bring myself to tell anyone, only a therapist or a close close close friend. How do you deal with that? What about your child, does it effect him/her?
I liked what you said about bringing up the issue of how much responsibility do governments have in regards to these secluded cults thriving in society. Sick people won't take responsibility...but maybe governments will.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From scarface
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 09:04
 (Agree/Disagree?)
“uum ok?” are you serious? Clearly you do not have the capacity to understand what is being said here. I also was offended by your original comment, although you did make some valid points. Here is the way I see it, you tell me if im wrong. You don’t like the way the media commercializes the suffering you and many others went through. Although I agree partially, I don’t think there has been to much news coverage. You are entitled to your opinion, so is everyone else.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Falcon
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 - 00:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Skip to Main Content
Search
Search
HOME
ABOUT THE FAMILY
MISSION STATEMENT
WORLDWIDE WORK
CHILDREN
VIEWPOINTS
CONTACT
Email Us | Sitemap
Home » News
The Family International's response to the CNN Larry King Live show
From Claire Borowik for the Family International July 30th, 2008 (updated August 1st, 2008)
Contact:
Claire Borowik, Public Affairs Desk for the Family International,
(202) 298-0838, or publicaffairs@thefamily.org
It's a sad day for serious journalism when a program with the standing of Larry King Live produces a sensationalistic segment focused on the claims of a handful of apostates of the Family International and anti-religious lobbyists. Over its 40-year history, over 35,000 people have been members of our fellowship. The detractors featured on this program are not representative of the thousands of former members who have at one time served as missionaries with our movement.
The usage of the label "cult" in reference to the Family is particularly pejorative. Such labeling is an age-old tactic—Jesus and his followers were also maligned as the "cult of the Nazarenes" in their day. The Family International, founded in the late 1960s, has expanded into an international missionary fellowship located in over 100 countries around the world, that has led millions to faith in Christ, and has assisted the needy in a multitude of volunteer and humanitarian efforts (see http://www.thefamilyinternational.org).
Producers' claims that the Family International never responded to their invitation to participate on the program or to submit a statement are false. I submitted a statement on three occasions to the producers, in fact to seven different producers, as well as communicating on a number of occasions with the program coordinator, Rosy Stefanatos (Rosy.Stefanatos@turner.com). She did not acknowledge my statement, or my phone calls, or e-mails (e-mail correspondence available upon request). For this reason, I opted to post our response on our public site. I find it quite disillusioning that this program would ignore the Family's right of response, and it raises a question as to why the producers would not inform Larry King of our communications. It seems clear that the intent was to demonize my fellowship with a completely one-sided, biased program.
Family Policy for the Protection of Minors
The Family International has a zero tolerance policy in regards to the abuse of minors. The Family will immediately expel and excommunicate any adult member deemed guilty of physically or sexually abusive behavior towards children. Family members are advised to conduct themselves in conformance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live and to cooperate with the justice system of the land.
Allegations of abuse are taken very seriously by Family leadership, which has the obligation under the Family's Charter to investigate such reports in a timely fashion and to take appropriate measures (" Procedures for Excommunicating Family Members," The Family Charter). The Charter stipulates that the parents and the members of the community are responsible to provide a safe environment for all minors residing in their community. Parents are ultimately responsible for all decisions pertaining to the care and well-being of their children ("Rights of Children and Responsibilities of Parents," The Family Charter).
The Family's policy for the protection of minors was adopted in 1986. We regret that prior to the adoption of this policy, cases occurred where minors were exposed to sexually inappropriate behavior between 1978 and 1986. This was addressed in 1986 when any sexual contact between an adult and minor was officially banned and, subsequently in 1989 declared an excommunicable offense. This policy has remained unchanged for nearly two decades, and the Family's Charter (first published in 1995) reaffirms this standard.
All previously published literature underwent careful scrutiny to ensure that it reflected this position, and questionable publications were officially renounced and expunged between the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1994, official acknowledgement was made of the responsibility David Berg bears in publishing writings that proclaimed a teaching of sexual liberty (in 1976 and 1978) without instituting safeguards for the protection of minors. This was officially corrected in 1986, when clear guidelines were instituted banning any such contact and subsequently in 1989, when infractions of this policy were rendered an excommunicable offense.
The successful institutionalization of this policy is evidenced in the 600+ children of Family members that were subjected to government-enforced examinations in the early 1990s in several countries. These examinations confirmed the absence of physical, emotional, educational, or sexual abuse among children of Family members, resulting in the vindication of members by courts of law on three continents.
Official Apologies Tendered
Since 1993, the Family's administrative branch has issued eight official apologies to former and current Family members for any grievances regarding their experiences in the Family. Family leadership officially addressed therein any questionable past actions regarding discipline, education, or sexual misconduct that may have taken place. These apologies were published a number of times and have been a matter of public record for the past decade.
Our sincere hope for those who were once part of the Family is that they can lead constructive, fulfilling lives and progress in the new goals they set for themselves once they decide they no longer wish to make serving the Lord with the Family their career. Our prayer is for reconciliation and mutual respect in the path that each one has chosen of his or her own free will.
Although the Family has apologized on a number of occasions to former members for any hurt, real or perceived, that they may have suffered during their time in our membership, we do not give credence to tales of institutionalized abuse told by those who seek to cause harm to our church and children. There is no basis in fact for such allegations, as evidenced by the findings of courts around the world, which evaluated over 600 children living in Family communities by means of extensive court-appointed physical, psychological, and educational testing. In every case, the courts have been satisfied with the standard of life offered to the children. (For summaries of court rulings see http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm.)
Incidence of Suicide amongst former members
There is no factual basis to claims of Family detractors that a high incidence of suicide exists amongst former second generation members. We find it very grievous that even one former member would succumb to suicide, however, the claim that nearly 30 suicides occurred in the past 15 years has no basis in fact or official causes of death. According to available records, the rate of incidence of suicide amongst the approximately 32,000 former members of the Family is far below the average in general, and in conformance to the expected rate in some age ranges.
We acknowledge that those who were once a part of our movement are as likely to succumb to social illnesses as the population at large. The World Health Organization estimates that suicide is responsible for a global mortality rate of 16 per 100,000 people per year. In the last 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide, rendering it among the three leading causes of death among those aged 15-44. In a period of history where the rates of suicide are rising at an alarming rate, suicide and acts of violence are virtually unknown in the Family International.
Not Without My Sister, by Juliana Buhring and Celeste Jones
Juliana Buhring's dramatic tales and escape narrative have no basis in fact, and she was actually assisted by Family members in her transition from the Family International, and departed on good terms. Celeste Jones' account is likewise riddled with distortions and inaccuracies, to the point that it's difficult to discern fact from fiction in this book. Juliana and Celeste are clearly benefiting from the publicity afforded them by programs such as this to make a name for themselves and to sell books.
Stephen Kent
It's surprising that the producers of the Larry King Live Show would invite two people from the academic field that are of the infinitesimal minority of scholars that are active in anti-religious campaigns. Many scholars have researched, studied, and published their research on the Family International in recent years, unlike Kent, and yet none of these were contacted for this show. It's clear that the scope of this program was narrowed to people antagonistic to minority religions. Kent's only source of information on the Family is hostile ex-members. His allegations are false, and have no foundation in fact.
Approximately half the young adults born in the Family continue to be members of the movement. They tell a very different story than the tales of the detractors featured on this program, and have published a blog in response to such allegations, to ensure that their voices will be heard. Over 400 young people raised in the Family have posted statements and testimonials with photos. (Please see www.myconclusion.com.)
It seems we never learn from history, and despite the trauma that hundreds of Family children suffered in the early 1990s due to unfounded allegations such as those presented on this show (and disproved by the courts), the witch hunt continues.
(reply to this comment)
| From cheeks still needs to rant
Saturday, August 09, 2008, 19:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
The only way to count the suicide number is to count the Second Generation Members. I don't think First Generation Members should count whatsoever. I don't think third generation members should count either as to the best of my knowledge none of them have committed suicide and most of them are under ten. I think only then will you get a true count. And painful as it is we need to get a list together of only those who have committed suicide. If we are unsure as to how they died or what their intentions were, we cannot include them. I think it is time for us to really show the Family up on this matter once and for all. (reply to this comment) |
| | From more lies..
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
(reposted)
...it's hilarious. If you study it careful you'll find out that the rebuttal was written before the actual program. Can you believe it? "Although we don't know all the details about this program, considering that it will feature detractors and anti-cultists, we can expect that it will be quite a negative program. Since Larry King Live airs in a number of countries around the world, we wanted to let you know so that you are aware of this, should any of your contacts or friends see it.
Our Family spokespersons have put together a statement for the program, which you are welcome to use. (See "In Response to the CNN Larry King Live Show.") They are also posting this statement on the www.myconclusion.com site and on the www.thefamily.org site, so that people who visit our sites after watching the show will be able to read this statement."
This whole text was obviously written before the program aired Although we don't know all the details about this program and then Our Family spokespersons have put together a statement for the program. What a joke! I guess they have lost all their proof readers that could point out such an obvious faux pas to them.
And what a weak explanation as to why they decided to declined to participate in the program. It was a top notch opportunity to appear on a non-editable program - life -, since they're always complaining about all their powerful responses being edited out in non-life shows. The truth is they have no more effective spokes people. Claire is just about as weak as Saeb Erekat for the Palestinians, she makes no sense whatsoever and is so very easily intimidated and reduced to rubble already by innocent subtilities. All their good spokes people have quit long ago. The only ones left are Gideon and Rachel in South Africa, but they have been quiet too in recent times. Problem is that the accusation these days are too devastating to be properly responded to. Even in a life show. Hence - no show!
Anyway, here's the latest from Peter:
It's been a while since I've written you a media update. Thankfully‚ the Lord has given us a time of relative peace since the media storms of 2005. From time to time‚ there has been some media attention in different parts of the world, but not on an ongoing basis or as part of a sustained campaign.
In 2006, a British television station produced and aired a program on Ricky, featuring our apostates. This program was translated into a number of languages and aired in several countries during the Feast this year. It was clear that the Enemy was not happy with the launch of the Offensive and was attempting to hinder it before it had a chance to take off. The Lord raised up a standard against the Enemy, and the airing of this program had no impact on the work in any of the countries in which it was aired, thanks to our wonderful Husband!
On another front, over a year ago, three former member SGA sisters collaborated on a book about their upbringing in the Family, entitled, Not Without My Sister. Although the book has many inaccuracies and distortions, they have received some media attention. The book has served as a springboard for them to speak on a couple of networks, such as CNN‚ which did a short clip on them a few months ago.
Recently it has come to our attention that they will be featured on the Larry King Live Show, along with other detractors. The program is scheduled to air July 31, Mama's birthday. Once again, it seems that the Enemy is furiously attempting to hinder the Offensive in some way. His efforts will be futile, as we know that the Offensive is the Lord's plan, and as we obey and follow His leading, He'll continue to bless and prosper our work.
Although we don't know all the details about this program, considering that it will feature detractors and anti-cultists, we can expect that it will be quite a negative program. Since Larry King Live airs in a number of countries around the world, we wanted to let you know so that you are aware of this, should any of your contacts or friends see it.
Our Family spokespersons have put together a statement for the program, which you are welcome to use. (See "In Response to the CNN Larry King Live Show.") They are also posting this statement on the www.myconclusion.com site and on the www.thefamily.org site, so that people who visit our sites after watching the show will be able to read this statement.
I wanted to give you a little background on this particular program, since some of you may be familiar with the Larry King Live Show and the program he did on the Family back in 1993, when the brethren in Argentina were suffering persecution. His coverage of us at the time was fairly balanced, even though the show featured a few of our detractors and anti-cultists.
CNN invited Family members to represent the Family on the upcoming Larry King Live program. The spokespersons considered the possibility, and it was a difficult decision for them to make as to whether to participate or not. Although the natural choice would have been to participate, considering that the Family was given a somewhat fair opportunity on this show previously, the Lord indicated that it would be best not to participate on the program at this time. He indicated that the program would not provide the Family with a good platform to promote who we are and our work around the world, but would focus on the claims of our detractors. Additionally, He indicated that it could work against our efforts at reconciliation and building bridges with our former members.
From what we understand, the program will feature a number of our detractors and anti-cultists‚ and would have afforded the spokespersons very little opportunity to speak on behalf of the Family and to promote the Family of today. Thus they opted to issue a statement to the program, which hopefully will be read on the show, or at least portions of it.
Following are excerpts from the letter sent to the producer, in which they declined to appear on the program and explained their reasons for doing so:
I'm sorry to say that it won't be possible for us to participate in your program at this point in time. As I mentioned in the course of our telephone conversation‚ and I say this in my capacity as an official representative for the Family International‚ we are concerned for the well-being of our former members, and we have no desire to antagonize, incite hostilities, or further polarize issues through public debate.
Since Ricky Rodriguez tragically took his own life after brutally murdering former member Angela Smith in 2005‚ a small minority of our detractors have devoted themselves to vocalizing their grievances against the Family in the media, and calling for governments to investigate our communities. Although this small contingent of detractors is not representative by any means of the 35,000+ individuals who have at some point been members of our fellowship‚ their stories have been highlighted continually in recent years in the media. Their actions do not reflect the overwhelming majority of former Family members who have opted to pursue secular careers and have integrated well and made a stable transition.
I realize that you explained that the program would not focus on creating debate between current and former members. However, at this point in time, I believe that our appearance on the Larry King Live show would unavoidably serve to further polarize the issues, and would work against reconciliation and closure with our former members. Our sincere hope for those who were once part of the Family is that they can lead constructive, fulfilling lives and progress in the new goals they set for themselves once they decide they no longer wish to make serving the Lord with the Family their career. Our prayer is for reconciliation and mutual respect in the path that each one has chosen of their own free will.
As such, I feel that at this particular point in time, it is not in the best interests of reconciliation and closure to perpetuate the debate in the public forum.
—Excerpts of e-mail from Claire Borowik‚ Family spokesperson
We appreciate your prayers against any fallout from this program in the countries where it will air. Please also pray that the Lord will use this program to reach those who are searching for truth and answers. Thankfully, after every unfavorable program that has been aired, the Family's website has received a number of e-mails from people wanting to become members of the Family and asking how to join us, or asking for more information on our beliefs and how to visit a Home.
As the Word says, "nevertheless the Gospel is preached" (Phil.1:18)‚ and though it may not be our preferred format for preaching the Gospel, our mighty Defender is always faithful to keep and prosper us, and to help us to continue spreading His message throughout the world. We've got so much to look forward to, as we build our works and expand our flocks!
With much love and fervent prayers,
Peter
So, same old, same old. saying they were not asked to come on the show- when they were- and then refuse and crumble about not being asked in public statements.
and what she stated- without evidence-about Julie and Celeste is libelous. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Falcon
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 16:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeh, maybe we should sue claire for defamation of character!
Best part is the whole "home helped me in the transition"...come again? Walked out in the middle of Africa with no money, no job and they had the nerve to come to me and ask me to tithe to them and then came to the restaurant I ran for freebees which came out of my salary! If anything I helped them. What a bunch of liars! Our book was combed through by a team of lawyers who ensured that everything we wrote had factual backing that could be proven in court. I think we should start making Claire accountable for what comes out of her mouth against people and sue the witch! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, August 07, 2008, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
" It's a sad day for serious journalism when a program with the standing of Larry King Live produces a sensationalistic segment focused on the claims of a handful of apostates of the Family International and anti-religious lobbyists. Over its 40-year history, over 35,000 people have been members of our fellowship. The detractors featured on this program are not representative of the thousands of former members who have at one time served as missionaries with our movement. "
Claire, I know members of The Family aren't allowed to watch much TV, but if you think LKL was sensasonalist, you really need to get out there and see what is going on in the real world. The lack of sensationalism is what I liked best about this particular show. They stuck to the facts, even to the point that they used words like "tampered" instead of television buzz words like "molested". As for your claim about 35,000 members, I believe you're using fuzzy math. There are important things to consider like: How many of those members joined of their own free will, and how many were minors who joined with parents and had no say in the matter? How many were born in? How many chose to do "missions work"? Were others who did not choose to forced to do it? How many were abused? How many got a decent education?
Which leads me to another question. Who could you possibly be labeling as anti-religious? You do realize, I'm sure, that there is a difference between advocating for children's rights in cults, and being anti-religious!
You throw the word apostates around a lot. I guess you consider me one, despite the fact that I am still a Christian. I guess the main difference is my Jesus doesn't expect people, particularly young kids, to masturbate to him, doesn't mind if I drink a Pepsi every now and then (though I'm trying to cut back on that), and doesn't mind if I decide to give my tithe to my church, or World Vision, or LIFE Today if I choose to rather than giving it all to The Family. My Jesus loves me, but not in that way, okay?
"The usage of the label "cult" in reference to the Family is particularly pejorative. Such labeling is an age-old tactic—Jesus and his followers were also maligned as the "cult of the Nazarenes" in their day. The Family International, founded in the late 1960s, has expanded into an international missionary fellowship located in over 100 countries around the world, that has led millions to faith in Christ, and has assisted the needy in a multitude of volunteer and humanitarian efforts (see http://www.thefamilyinternational.org). "
Oh, how special. You're being labeled as a cult, just like Jesus' disciples were. I'll have you know that the definition of a cult has come a long way over the past 2,000 years. And you use such big words like "pejorative". It's amazing how you are able to take these stories that were made public on TV, and make yourselves out to be the victims in each case. FYI, a "cult" is " a religion or religious sect (like TF) generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living communally under an authoritarian charismatic leader." Nothing really wrong with that, until you start abusing the kids that were born into it.
One other thing, I notice that you posted a link to The Family's site. I also recall several former members on this site asking you to take down their pictures from the main site as they wanted no further affiliation with The Family. Did they ever do that? And did it ever occur to you that the primary responsibility of any parent is to provide for their own family? Now, if they want to open up a food aid warehouse in the slums, that's fine, but their children and families come first! "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8).
"Producers' claims that the Family International never responded to their invitation to participate on the program or to submit a statement are false. I submitted a statement on three occasions to the producers, in fact to seven different producers, as well as communicating on a number of occasions with the program coordinator, Rosy Stefanatos (Rosy.Stefanatos@turner.com). She did not acknowledge my statement, or my phone calls, or e-mails (e-mail correspondence available upon request). For this reason, I opted to post our response on our public site. I find it quite disillusioning that this program would ignore the Family's right of response, and it raises a question as to why the producers would not inform Larry King of our communications. It seems clear that the intent was to demonize my fellowship with a completely one-sided, biased program. "
Claire, I do not believe that you did anything of the sort. You've been a "deceiver yet true" before to cover your ass, or your leaders’ ass, and I believe you are doing it again.
Family Policy for the Protection of Minors
"The Family International has a zero tolerance policy in regards to the abuse of minors. The Family will immediately expel and excommunicate any adult member deemed guilty of physically or sexually abusive behavior towards children. Family members are advised to conduct themselves in conformance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live and to cooperate with the justice system of the land. "
Do members have to leave The Family in order to get the justice system involved? And what if the abuse happens in a country with a lower age of consent, such as Canada (14) or parts of Europe (15)? Do the local laws apply, or the Charter?
"Allegations of abuse are taken very seriously by Family leadership, which has the obligation under the Family's Charter to investigate such reports in a timely fashion and to take appropriate measures (" Procedures for Excommunicating Family Members," The Family Charter). The Charter stipulates that the parents and the members of the community are responsible to provide a safe environment for all minors residing in their community. Parents are ultimately responsible for all decisions pertaining to the care and well-being of their children ("Rights of Children and Responsibilities of Parents," The Family Charter). "
I've heard that the same Charter says members have to leave The Family in order to get the authorities involved in a child molestation case. Is this true or not? I also notice that you say parents are ultimately responsible for all decisions pertaining to the care and well-being of their children. While I certainly agree with that, I have to ask, what happens in the many instances that children are being raised by someone other than their parent, often in different countries? Who is considered ultimately responsible for taking care for the well-being of their child then?
"The Family's policy for the protection of minors was adopted in 1986. We regret that prior to the adoption of this policy, cases occurred where minors were exposed to sexually inappropriate behavior between 1978 and 1986. This was addressed in 1986 when any sexual contact between an adult and minor was officially banned and, subsequently in 1989 declared an excommunicable offense. This policy has remained unchanged for nearly two decades, and the Family's Charter (first published in 1995) reaffirms this standard. "
That’s just lovely. Who was it that introduced this kind of behavior, and advocated it in their writings, which Family members were convinced was on the same level as the word of God? Is it true that certain members have been excommunicated under these guidelines, and have been allowed to rejoin afterwards? Is it true that these guidelines are not always enforced? Having a policy in itself does not do anything to prevent child abuse unless that policy is enforced.
"All previously published literature underwent careful scrutiny to ensure that it reflected this position, and questionable publications were officially renounced and expunged between the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1994, official acknowledgement was made of the responsibility David Berg bears in publishing writings that proclaimed a teaching of sexual liberty (in 1976 and 1978) without instituting safeguards for the protection of minors. This was officially corrected in 1986, when clear guidelines were instituted banning any such contact and subsequently in 1989, when infractions of this policy were rendered an excommunicable offense."
It seems to me that the real reason behind doing this is so that the authorities would have a difficult time finding the evidence. But that was before Al Gore invented the internet.
“The successful institutionalization of this policy is evidenced in the 600+ children of Family members that were subjected to government-enforced examinations in the early 1990s in several countries. These examinations confirmed the absence of physical, emotional, educational, or sexual abuse among children of Family members, resulting in the vindication of members by courts of law on three continents.”
Wait, this is good. In the last paragraph, you admitted that some children had been exposed to sexual abuse before 1989. In the next paragraph, you talk about government examinations in the early 1990’s in several countries, claiming that these confirmed the absence of any sexual abuse among children of Family members. Apparently then, the government examinations are not a good way of determining whether sexual abuse occurred or not.
Oh, and I do hope you’re not considering Europe to be one of those three continents. England is definitely a part of Europe, and the Judgment of Lord Justice Ward handed down in that country found The Family guilty on many counts of child sex abuse, and placed that blame squarely on David Berg. In fact, one of the requirements given by the Judge for The Family to fulfill is that they had to renounce David Berg. Therefore, as the spokesperson for The Family in North America, perhaps you would be a good person to ask how much progress The Family has made in this direction in the past 13 years?
Official Apologies Tendered
“Since 1993, the Family's administrative branch has issued eight official apologies to former and current Family members for any grievances regarding their experiences in the Family. Family leadership officially addressed therein any questionable past actions regarding discipline, education, or sexual misconduct that may have taken place. These apologies were published a number of times and have been a matter of public record for the past decade. “
A sincere apology from Family leaders would include:
Apologizing for the abuses that they allowed and condoned in writing.
Apologizing for the abuses that they themselves ordered on children at Teen Camps, Victor Programs and the like.
Apologizing for the abuse that they themselves committed. This would include an apology to Mene and Amy for starters.
Announcing that they are turning The Family over to someone else, who has no criminal past, and are turning themselves in to the police.
Anything short of this is not sincere.
“Our sincere hope for those who were once part of the Family is that they can lead constructive, fulfilling lives and progress in the new goals they set for themselves once they decide they no longer wish to make serving the Lord with the Family their career. Our prayer is for reconciliation and mutual respect in the path that each one has chosen of his or her own free will.”
I’m glad that Family leadership finally grasps the concept of free will. It’s just a shame they didn’t grasp it sooner, or allow the first generation to apply it.
“Although the Family has apologized on a number of occasions to former members for any hurt, real or perceived, that they may have suffered during their time in our membership, we do not give credence to tales of institutionalized abuse told by those who seek to cause harm to our church and children. There is no basis in fact for such allegations, as evidenced by the findings of courts around the world, which evaluated over 600 children living in Family communities by means of extensive court-appointed physical, psychological, and educational testing. In every case, the courts have been satisfied with the standard of life offered to the children. (For summaries of court rulings see http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm.) “
Wait, did you just say what I think you said? You’re denying the Victor Camps and Teen Training? That is completely nuts, Claire! I mean, who are you trying to fool? What’s the use? And why make the victims out to be liars just so you can pretend for a few days, or weeks, or months that it didn’t happen, because you know it’s only a matter of time before the truth comes out!
Incidence of Suicide amongst former members
“There is no factual basis to claims of Family detractors that a high incidence of suicide exists amongst former second generation members. We find it very grievous that even one former member would succumb to suicide, however, the claim that nearly 30 suicides occurred in the past 15 years has no basis in fact or official causes of death. According to available records, the rate of incidence of suicide amongst the approximately 32,000 former members of the Family is far below the average in general, and in conformance to the expected rate in some age ranges.”
Claire, suicide is a very difficult issue to deal with. Some people commit suicide by slitting their wrists, some do it by jumping out of a window or off a bridge, some people do it by pulling a gun to their head, others do it by running into traffic, some people do it by harassing armed police, others do it by blowing themselves up in front of complete strangers, and some people do it by drug overdose. But however they do it, they usually leave behind clues. Clues that let us, those who they have left behind, know their motives and their pain and why they are doing it. Their legacy deserves to be remembered. Do not, even for one moment, think that you can just gloss over these suicides or try to alter their stories, Claire. They are sacred. The Bible says that not even one tiny sparrow falls to the ground without the Father in Heaven knowing it (Matthew 10:29). You may be able to pass one off on the media, or the public, but God knows all, and he will judge righteously. God is not mocked. What you sow, you will reap (Galatians 6:7).
“We acknowledge that those who were once a part of our movement are as likely to succumb to social illnesses as the population at large. The World Health Organization estimates that suicide is responsible for a global mortality rate of 16 per 100,000 people per year. In the last 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide, rendering it among the three leading causes of death among those aged 15-44. In a period of history where the rates of suicide are rising at an alarming rate, suicide and acts of violence are virtually unknown in the Family International.”
I’ve got to hand it to you, Claire; you are a professional when it comes to twisting the facts. Perhaps if you ever decide to “retire” like the child abuser Matthew did recently, you just might be able to find a job as a spin doctor on Keith Olbermann’s show. While suicides inside The Family are rare, there have been many suicides among young people after they have left The Family. For you to spin this as if The Family had a clean slate is unconscionable.
Not Without My Sister, by Juliana Buhring and Celeste Jones
“Juliana Buhring's dramatic tales and escape narrative have no basis in fact, and she was actually assisted by Family members in her transition from the Family International, and departed on good terms. Celeste Jones' account is likewise riddled with distortions and inaccuracies, to the point that it's difficult to discern fact from fiction in this book. Juliana and Celeste are clearly benefiting from the publicity afforded them by programs such as this to make a name for themselves and to sell books. “
How is it that this book is so riddled with distortions and inaccuracies, but you cannot bring yourself to point out even one? Give an example of an inaccuracy in Juliana’s tale! Give an example of how The Family helped Juliana, apart from what a Father would be expected to provide for his daughter! Give an example of an inaccuracy in Celeste’s account! And if you cannot do these things, then please, for the love of God, shut up about the book!
You seem to be forgetting that RISE International also benefits from sales of the book, as do the child soldiers that they are helping in Uganda. The Family claims to be a humanitarian organization, so I would like to ask you, what exactly is The Family doing for the child soldiers in Uganda? (Making them animal balloons does not count)
Stephen Kent
“It's surprising that the producers of the Larry King Live Show would invite two people from the academic field that are of the infinitesimal minority of scholars that are active in anti-religious campaigns. Many scholars have researched, studied, and published their research on the Family International in recent years, unlike Kent, and yet none of these were contacted for this show. It's clear that the scope of this program was narrowed to people antagonistic to minority religions. Kent's only source of information on the Family is hostile ex-members. His allegations are false, and have no foundation in fact.”
I see you’ve decided to jump on the Character Assassination bandwagon! Just so you know, I have read Kent’s work, and much of his information comes from- SURPRISE...David Berg’s own writings! To claim that they have no foundation in fact is ridiculous.
“Approximately half the young adults born in the Family continue to be members of the movement. They tell a very different story than the tales of the detractors featured on this program, and have published a blog in response to such allegations, to ensure that their voices will be heard. Over 400 young people raised in the Family have posted statements and testimonials with photos. (Please see www.myconclusion.com.) “
For The Family’s sake, I recommend you take that blog down. The poor education that The Family has given their children, their lack of critical thinking skills, and their naďveté about the world outside their homes speaks volumes about what it means to be raised in The Family. And unlike so many Family statements that have come out, I am not afraid to quote some examples:
Veronica Giordano Mackinnon is quoted as saying “There are hundreds of us, young people (those who you, our apostates and detractors are so “concerned” about and want so much to “save from psychological abuse” and a “terrible and ruined life") who are proclaiming here, loud and clear, that we will stand strong by Maria and Peter and the Family. And for your record, you will not be able to disband the Family.”
It’s not us against them. Nobody said anything about wanting to disband The Family! In fact, as far as RISE International is concerned, their purpose is to speak out for the rights of children in cults. But she continues…
“I feel pity for those of you who are fighting the Family, who approve and encourage the murder done by Ricky —when you finally come face to face with God—for in all you do against the Family you are being found fighting against God.”
The “us against them” mentality was bad enough, but wait! It gets worse! Now there is the “us and God against them” mentality. Claire, please tell me you see the same problem I’m seeing. Why is it that God seems so partial towards The Family? If God is fair and just, and I believe he is, why wouldn’t he want to see Peter and Maria brought to justice?
Then there is Elizabeth Amber M., who cries “How can one slander a murder victim? How can someone who knows nothing about a situation write or speak about it without having done any research?”
The sad truth here is that no one slandered Angela Smith. She did abuse Ricky, and I am quite certain you have seen the pictures to prove it. I know you don’t believe the stories, but you really don’t have to. The Judgment of Lord Justice Ward found that Ricky had been abused. But I am afraid that what they people on Myconclusion.com are doing in most cases is exactly the same thing she accuses the media of: writing and speaking about this story without having done the appropriate research. And if she had done research, it would have been against the will of Family leadership that asked members not to read the newspaper articles about Ricky. Go ahead and ask her if she tried to track down “The Davidito Book” and see what she says. She can say “I love this group and will defend it with my life and gladly die for it. “, but I have to ask: If worse came to worse, would The Family’s leadership do the same?
They are very dedicated, I will give them that, but they do not have the skills needed to survive in the real world. But I guess that’s how leadership wants it, isn’t it? Do you remember the song “The Room”? Because from my point of view, things are the other way around. You are the one who is telling them
“Sleep on my son,
Tomorrow’s another day.
Don’t fret yourself about,
Things that will never pay.
‘The Room’ it has the space,
And there’s a place for you.
You’ve been here a long time,
There’s nothing else to do.”
And I long to see the day when those friends of mine that I know, and who were raised in the cult will be able to live freely if they show choose. You see, I believe the wind still blows. I believe that the voice of freedom never stops calling. I believe it is something that God has engrained in each one of us to keep us out of bondage. And I believe that one day, when the young people find out the truth about what you did to their older brothers and sisters, they will realize that all they have lived for was a lie. They will follow the wind. They will run to the light in droves leaving the evil in a cloud of dust. They will complete the rest of the song…
“I want to see,
I want to feel.
I hear the wind blowing,
Don’t tell me it isn’t real.
I’ll climb out the window,
If you won’t open the door.
I’ll do anything,
I know there’s got to be
More…”
“It seems we never learn from history, and despite the trauma that hundreds of Family children suffered in the early 1990s due to unfounded allegations such as those presented on this show (and disproved by the courts), the witch hunt continues.”
Reading your complaint about the trauma that Family children have suffered I am reminded of the joke about the two hikers that were hiking through the forest when they came across a ferocious bear. The first hiker immediately dropped his backpack and started running in the other direction. “What are you doing?” the other hiker called “You’ll never be able to outrun the bear.”
The first hiker simply replied “I don’t have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.”
That is so typical of Family leadership. Don’t you think that if the authorities had been looking for them, they just might have come a little closer to admitting that Berg was wrong? Not just banning it because it could get them in trouble with the system, while maintaining that the Lord still thinks it’s okay “as long as it’s done in love”, but admitting that Berg was wrong to write what he did? But since they were safe and sound in Portugal, it didn’t matter much to them if a few homes in Australia, France, Argentina, Norway, or Peru got raided. It was good for Public Relations, wasn’t it? It’s always nice to be able to play the victim in front of the media, isn’t it, Claire? Do you even realize how you yourself were used as a pawn by top leadership to further their agenda?
I close my response with these words. Will The Family learn from history? Will they repent of their wicked ways? Will they give their children the resources they need to survive in the outside world if they so choose? Will The Family leadership ever take the full blame for what they have done? Will The Family cooperate with authorities and the media when it comes to finding abusers?
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. (Proverbs 28:13)(reply to this comment) |
| | from Perfect except
Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 20:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
The only element lacking was for someone to say that you were not always, as a cult kid, free to leave. There were many years when the oldest among us were most certainly not free to leave. So we escaped, very young, also with nothing. Maybe one day that aspect will be told as well.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Albatross
Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 00:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
So...I was in my hotel room in Cambodia about to head out for a lazy evening of sipping Angkor beer and watching the Mekong River flow by and what do you know LKL comes on. Huge huge kudos to everyone who participated. It was brilliant! This is one of my favorite programs on TFI to date. Let this be a lesson to all would-be pedo culties......you will be hounded to your grave.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from cheeks
Friday, August 01, 2008 - 14:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reality is the policies were a bunch of bullshit. As long as you pretended to be sorry and repent from your sins you were forgiven. When Flirty Little Teens Beware came out it only made it easier to get off the hook by blaming the teen girl for whatever incident took place. Lets face it Berg went to his grave thinking it was ok. What made the leaders believe anything different. It was only a crime if you got caught.
By the way, ladies well done. You did a fantastic job.
(reply to this comment)
| from Haunted
Friday, August 01, 2008 - 08:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Link to interview for those who missed it
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/08/01/lkl.cults.secrets.cnn
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Tinaph80
Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 21:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
The message got through I think. Davida came across as very sincere and caring.
(reply to this comment)
| From GoldenMic
Saturday, August 02, 2008, 08:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, they took the best of various video's she has been in, and she was able to come across as coherent and real.
I think the presentation was poignant, but stayed "on-task" by highlighting the way SGA's have to start with nothing but pain and a legacy from hell. Meanwhile, the sharp, articulate presentations made it impossible for TF to simply call this a bunch of whiners. As a counselor, I would have wished the "professional" commentary had been a little less naive and simplistic, but the personal stories overwhelmingly told the story without becoming so specific as to titillate (sp?) the audience, and the matter-of-fact discussion of such horrors made it very clear that this was not being sensationalized, but a tragic story being told in a basic and thoughtful manner. TF must have been furious, and as usual, their defensive BS responses only made them look more barbaric and un-feeling. I was watching with a group of non-TF SGA's, and it was truly freaky that the story rang so true of our own experience, too. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Shaka
Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 20:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeeeeaaahhh! Culties got fuuuuuuucked! Good job everyone who participated. You were awesome.
(reply to this comment)
| from Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good for Larry, I remember him doing an interview with members of the cult in 94' or 95' I hope he does a "before" segment of this interview.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Lance
Friday, August 01, 2008, 21:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
The cult made me watch that show when I was 15. It would be interesting to see a follow up to that show. Considering how many people who were interviewed as current members are actually ex members now and completely anti fam. Though, I wouldn't want to see the guy who was the current spoke person in front of the camera again. He was in NASCRO(I don't remember if that was the acronym) at the time and now is one of those crazy anti cult people who is still just as crazy as when he was in the cult. . . you know the type.
I liked the interview, though I only saw a six minute clip on the web site. I would have liked to see some more explanation as to where these cults come from. And some awareness that there are some ten thousand cults in the United States alone preying on young people and damaging the futures of countless future generations.
Public awareness is important. It is important for people to realize that such groups cannot hide behind the protection of religious freedom and still be allowed to engage is this behavior.
The more the public and the media are aware of this fact, the more we get our message out.
The psyche of the cult mind can be explained and awareness to the dangers of cults can be made public. The truth is that people need be at least made aware that these people deserve to be brought to justice. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes and there should be no such limitations for Berg, Zerby or any of these cult predators either.
(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]