And even though those two documented instances (who knows how many more went undocumented) took place back in the late 70's, what about Hassan's views today? Has he ever really rejected such extreme and illegal methods? His 1998 book seems to indicate otherwise. In it he states
"the non-coercive approach will not work in every case, it has proved to be the option most families prefer. Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail."This is the kind of man that the anti-Witness forces idolize and quote regularly from? It is very telling.
What's that old saying about ends and means again?
ReplyDeleteThe ends don't always justify the means, and sometimes neither the ends nor the means can be justified.
ReplyDeleteTeary thinks that this guy would epitomize that saying.
Imagine this scenario:
ReplyDeleteA man is kidnapped and held captive for days. The kidnappers' purpose? To force the man to accept their religious beliefs. When he tried to escape, he was seized by the arms and thrown to the ground, resulting in injuries to his face. Thereafter he was tied up for 3 days, so tightly that his hands swell up and turn purple. During this time, he can only urinate into a pot - with help - and refused to defecate due to being watched constantly. He could neither wash nor sleep. He refused to speak or eat, for which reason he was threatened with a series of shots. During his being held captive, his captors humiliate, insult, and attempt to force him to accept their beliefs.
'What horrible cult did this?,' you may be asking. But the shocking truth is that the persons who allegedly did this were not a religion. Rather, they were leading persons in the so-called "ANTI-CULT movement." One of them is the same man whose person and book is practically idolized by many anti-Witnesses.
Ironic, huh?
There is documentation of Russel and the WTBS's colorful past as well. The Jehovah's Witnesses I know just say it isn't true or that it's not relevant anymore. So, which is it? Do we believe documentation of an unsavory history or don't we? Seems you can't have it one way for you and another way for others.
ReplyDeleteExcept the difference is, Hassan actually admitted to the horrible things that he did, and advocated them at the very least up until 1998.
ReplyDeleteBut with Russell, we have the court and historical documents that prove that much of the allegations against him were bogus, and that they mainly came from religious opponents who only wanted to slander him because of theological differences.
So the difference is whether or not the accused party admits to it? I still see how the same arguments could be made on both sides. I'm not sure about court and historical documents concerning Russel. I was referring to his own writings that show him to be more than a little "off" and "colorful". I guess I don't understand how people just ignore those things.
ReplyDeleteNo, the difference is that many of the accusations against Russell were PROVEN to be lies and exaggerations. Russell did not admit that they were true like Hassan did.
ReplyDelete"I was referring to his own writings that show him to be more than a little "off" and "colorful"."
But here you are not referring to statements of fact or history like I do with Hassan -- you are merely giving negative, personal value judgments on teachings that you don't agree with.