Endangered: Children in a Hostile (Bruderhof) World
purcell family
chapter of Christoph Arnold's new book to this
newsgroup. I accepted his offer (for which I expected
to be invited - with others - to meet with the
courageous elder himself) and have heard nothing. Soooo
- here's my review of Christoph's book and how it
relates to reality - but I won't post the chapters
until they provide the formatted text:
First, I have to consider a book whose first chapter
ends with "We serve children best simply by noticing
them -- by paying attention to them..." to be
substantially suspect when published by the Bruderhof.
Consider the "attention" paid to a young Hutterite boy
when the Bruderhof "merged" with the Hutterites; from a
private note he sent me:
"It was the Bruderhof system that created things like
the so-called "Children's Clearing House" at Forest
River (a Bruderhof location); those running it were
cogs in the Bruderhof machine. I was caught in the
trap, and unable to understand what it was about.
" What is really criminal, and what amounted to a power
grab by Bruderhof leaders, is the story they told my
parents about our behavior. It must have been an awful
report, because my parents agreed to the solution
proposed, (that we, (four boys, aged 7 to 14) be
separated from them and placed in 24 hour a day
detention) even though they were totally heartbroken
about it.
"In all the one-on-one questioning sessions I endured,
I never uttered a single word to my (Bruderhof)
interrogator. I was in complete distress and unable,
under the circumstances, to speak, especially since
English was a relatively new language to me, one that I
was just learning.
"The complete and condescending dismissal of Hutterite
people who might have been helpful is evidence of a
process that was set in motion at Forest River by the
Bruderhof. They wanted to bring down any Hutterite who
may have had stature or authority. What better way to
emasculate a father than to convince him that his sons
were sexual deviants who needed to be taken over by
them (the Bruderhof) and reformed.
"Much of what the Bruderhof brought to Forest River was
positive, but the legacy created by the children's
detention center they established, has been made
unnecessarily more harmful than it might have been,
because it has never been acknowledged for the wrong
that it was and for the injuries (to the children AND
their families) that it caused, instead it has been
hushed up and treated as though it had never happened."
I should also mention, in the case of my own wife, she
recalls being severely scolded, as a YOUNG teenager,
for holding hands with another girl at the Bruderhof.
She was completely unable to understand what the big
fuss was until several years later. While in nursing
school, a chapter on homosexuality provided the
information she required to comprehend the anger
expressed towards her years before by those in charge -
they thought she was a lesbian!
Chapter three of this ghost-written book describes the
"power of a hug." All I can say is thank goodness my
wife did not hug her friend. She might have had to
endure still another "children's clearing house."
I spoke also with another young woman who desperately
wished to leave the Bruderhof a few years ago. She was
told that if she left she would become a prostitute,
get AIDS and die. So much for instilling confidence in
youngsters who may wish to live in the real world!
This young woman, incidentally, ran away in the dead of
night to escape the Bruderhof. She is now happily
married and attending university.
Final paragraph from chapter six: "Instead of hushing
up the children that embarrass us, instead of clamping
down on the ones that don't fit in, instead of
analyzing the troubled ones and drawing conclusions
about their delinquent futures (become a prostitute,
get AIDS & die seems to me to be conclusion!) we ought
to welcome them all as they are."
Yes, Bruderhof, you ought.
So much of what is written (in books) by the Bruderhof
is so completely hypocritical in regards to
reconciliation, forgiveness and endangered children
that I would hesitate to recommend any of their
publications except as examples of the "good" side of
the two faces presented to the world by the Bruderhof
and Plough Publishing. Buyer beware in regards to the
"bad" side.
Blair Purcell
Dakota8800
>John Von Hine recently challeged me to post each
>chapter of Christoph Arnold's new book to this
>newsgroup. I accepted his offer (for which I expected
>to be invited - with others - to meet with the
>courageous elder himself) and have heard nothing. Soooo
whois john von hine? i understand from my source that arnold is overseas
somewhere. perhaps that explains lack of response. i say that not to defend the
guy, but because i love the idea of posting the book publicly. gotta admit, i
found the book pretty good.
>- here's my review of Christoph's book and how it
>relates to reality - but I won't post the chapters
>until they provide the formatted text:
perhaps i could prevail on my source to supply the text, though i'm not sure
how thrilled he would be to know where it's going to appear!
later purcell writes:
>"It was the Bruderhof system that created things like
>the so-called "Children's Clearing House" at Forest
>River (a Bruderhof location); those running it were
>cogs in the Bruderhof machine. I was caught in the
>trap, and unable to understand what it was about.
give me a break, purcell. if you're going to criticize bruderhoff, stick with
the present. if the best u can do is dredge up stuff from the 30s and 40s then
i have to question the relevance of your comments. how do u expect them to
defend the actions of dead ministers?
>" What is really criminal, and what amounted to a power
>grab by Bruderhof leaders, is the story they told my
>parents about our behavior. It must have been an awful
>report, because my parents agreed to the solution
>proposed, (that we, (four boys, aged 7 to 14) be
>separated from them and placed in 24 hour a day
>detention) even though they were totally heartbroken
>about it.
>
>"In all the one-on-one questioning sessions I endured,
>I never uttered a single word to my (Bruderhof)
>interrogator. I was in complete distress and unable,
>under the circumstances, to speak, especially since
>English was a relatively new language to me, one that I
>was just learning.
based on my recent exposure to bruderhoff, i can't imagine this story reflects
current reality. do u have any current stories?
>"Much of what the Bruderhof brought to Forest River was
>positive, but the legacy created by the children's
>detention center they established, has been made
>unnecessarily more harmful than it might have been,
>because it has never been acknowledged for the wrong
>that it was and for the injuries (to the children AND
>their families) that it caused, instead it has been
>hushed up and treated as though it had never happened."
not in my experience. i found a remarkable candor about past failures among my
friends at bruderhoff.
>This young woman, incidentally, ran away in the dead of
>night to escape the Bruderhof. She is now happily
>married and attending university.
not this story again! puhleeze!
>So much of what is written (in books) by the Bruderhof
>is so completely hypocritical in regards to
>reconciliation, forgiveness and endangered children
>that I would hesitate to recommend any of their
>publications except as examples of the "good" side of
>the two faces presented to the world by the Bruderhof
>and Plough Publishing. Buyer beware in regards to the
>"bad" side.
again, at the risk of sounding like a b'hoff member myself, i gotta tell u,
purcell, that you're hurting yourself to load the table with sour grapes like
this. remember, that to a visitor today, especially one who stays longer than a
few days, the overwhelming impression is the innocence and charm and vitality
of their kids. obviously their doing something right, and we might learn from
that. and this new book endangered contains a helluva lot of answers. can u
find nothing redeeming in bruderhoff that u have to come off sounding like
this?
lighten up, scrooge.
dakota
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
purcell writes:>John Von Hinden recently challeged me to post each
>chapter of Christoph Arnold's new book to this
>newsgroup. I accepted his offer (for which I expected
>to be invited - with others - to meet with the
>courageous elder himself) and have heard nothing. Soooo
Who knows? He wrote from JCA's e-mail address. I have to wonder if it isn't JCA himself pretending to be someone else. He's done that before, once pretending to wonder if he (writing under an assumed name) might be welcomed if he should visit the Bruderhof and how wonderful it would be to meet the descendents of Eberhard Arnold. You have to wonder about that kind of behavior; perhaps you might find a few references at this site to be useful:who is john von hinden?
http://www.8886kinder.20m.com/
i understand from my source that arnold is overseas
somewhere. perhaps that explains lack of response. i say that not to defend the
guy, but because i love the idea of posting the book publicly. gotta admit, i
found the book pretty good.
John Von Hinden could post the chapters himself - he doesn't actually need me to do it for him. Why don't you contact your sources and ask them to post it on this newsgroup - and other newsgroups involving the welfare of children? Don't you think that would be a wonderful service for those as concerned as JCA in regards to the the endangerment of children?
>- here's my review of Christoph's book and how it
>relates to reality - but I won't post the chapters
>until they provide the formatted text:perhaps i could prevail on my source to supply the text, though i'm not sure
how thrilled he would be to know where it's going to appear!
It was a Bruderhof suggestion that I post it here. They must think it's a great idea.
later purcell writes:>"It was the Bruderhof system that created things like
>the so-called "Children's Clearing House" at Forest
>River (a Bruderhof location); those running it were
>cogs in the Bruderhof machine. I was caught in the
>trap, and unable to understand what it was about.give me a break, purcell. if you're going to criticize bruderhoff, stick with
the present. if the best u can do is dredge up stuff from the 30s and 40s then
i have to question the relevance of your comments. how do u expect them to
defend the actions of dead ministers?
That wasn't me writing. The writer was not speaking of "dead ministers," he was speaking of the "Bruderhof system." It was not the 30's and 40's; it was the fifties. The "actions" in question are indefensible - but the institutional Bruderhof has made no moves to right the wrongs and, in fact, continues its patterns of behavior to this day. The incredibly cruel actions were carried out in the name of the church - not in the names of the dead minsters (another convenient excuse - to blame the dead. How courageous!). The church is still here to make amends if it wished to do so.
And, if Christoph can reach back to his childhood in "his" book (describing the time his father almost spanked him), I think it fair that others be allowed to recall more or less contemporaneous events. Is that not justified?
>" What is really criminal, and what amounted to a power
>grab by Bruderhof leaders, is the story they told my
>parents about our behavior. It must have been an awful
>report, because my parents agreed to the solution
>proposed, (that we, (four boys, aged 7 to 14) be
>separated from them and placed in 24 hour a day
>detention) even though they were totally heartbroken
>about it.
>
>"In all the one-on-one questioning sessions I endured,
>I never uttered a single word to my (Bruderhof)
>interrogator. I was in complete distress and unable,
>under the circumstances, to speak, especially since
>English was a relatively new language to me, one that I
>was just learning.based on my recent exposure to bruderhoff, i can't imagine this story reflects
current reality. do u have any current stories?
Yes, several - including ones told by children and fathers who, as yet, will not allow their stories to be told here. The day will come when they will be willing to speak out. You will be the first person I will share them with - when I have permission.
But - for now, how about Jason Barton's story of being homosexually molested, as a child and young man, by four different men at the Bruderhof? He spoke publicly about that. At the time he left the Bruderhof, he observed and commented on the fact that he was gone - and the four men remained. Better to dispose of a child than to address the embarrasing reality of a Witness Brother alledgedly being a pedophile?
How about the young woman who alleges she was molested by her father? Actually, I can think of two examples of that - and I have spoken directly with the two women involved. How about the Nigerian fathers who are barred from visiting their children? If these examples of "endangerment" are not current, perhaps you could define the term a little more accurately for me?
And here's another oldie describing incredible cruelty towards a tortured child - I'm sure you've read it. Perhaps you were at the bonfire where the Bruderhof burned the copies they bought up to keep the book out of the hands of the public?
http://www.8886kinder.20m.com/faith.html
>"Much of what the Bruderhof brought to Forest River was
>positive, but the legacy created by the children's
>detention center they established, has been made
>unnecessarily more harmful than it might have been,
>because it has never been acknowledged for the wrong
>that it was and for the injuries (to the children AND
>their families) that it caused, instead it has been
>hushed up and treated as though it had never happened."not in my experience. i found a remarkable candor about past failures among my
friends at bruderhoff.
Can you share the candor? Here's an additional excerpt from the personal note to me about the Forest River situation:
This refers to the currently published book by the Bruderhof "telling" the Forest River story.I don't know what started or propelled the hysteria that led to the establishment of a children's detention center at Forest River or what behavior the Bruderhof learned about that caused them such alarm. This book
According to the writer of that note, there is little or no candor in the book - nor has there EVER been any attempt to reach out to the victims of such incredible cruelty.only refers to it as: "the dirt among the children", or "the horrible stores about his children", "the miserable children's difficulties" and the children's problems you write about". The gravity that Bruderhof leaders brought to the situation and the "clearing house" they set up, ended up causing tremendous harm to some of us, even though our questioner may have been convinced that he was "The Catcher In The Rye", saving us before we went over the deep end of perdition. But I think if it hadn't been one thing it would have been another. What they needed from their new Hutterite members, children included, was self criticism, self flagellation, subservience, a total groveling sense of yes-daddy-ism.
Those victimized so cruelly were not just the children - the parents suffered in silent anguish as well. I can only imagine how it must feel to have abandoned a child (much less four of them) to the Bruderhof interogators in such a system. The guilt would be overwhelming.
>This young woman, incidentally, ran away in the dead of
>night to escape the Bruderhof. She is now happily
>married and attending university.not this story again! puhleeze!
Why not?
The story is factual. It is current. A few paragraphs back you were complaining the stories were too old! How about the family who recently escaped (with their children) in the middle of the night. How current do you need?
>So much of what is written (in books) by the Bruderhof
>is so completely hypocritical in regards to
>reconciliation, forgiveness and endangered children
>that I would hesitate to recommend any of their
>publications except as examples of the "good" side of
>the two faces presented to the world by the Bruderhof
>and Plough Publishing. Buyer beware in regards to the
>"bad" side.again, at the risk of sounding like a b'hoff member myself,
Honestly, you don't sound like a Bruderhof member at all. You sound like someone who has studied the evidence and come to an intelligent conclusion based on reason and rationality. What you write is most assuredly respected and believed by all who read it. How could it possibly be otherwise? You always provide proof and evidence of your statements and are willing to put your name right out there where everyone can know who you are and reach conclusions for themselves - knowing so clearly what your relationship to the Bruderhof actually is. We are fortunate to have you on this forum - otherwise, we could only stumble and struggle in our efforts to comprehend and understand the Bruderhof.
i gotta tell u,
purcell, that you're hurting yourself to load the table with sour grapes like
this. remember, that to a visitor today, especially one who stays longer than a
few days, the overwhelming impression
Impression vs. reality. It takes time to discern the difference. Ask Wayne and Betty Chesley who were EXTREMELY fortunate to keep their family together at the time they left. Ask your sources how many married women are living within the gated walls WITHOUT their husbands. How many of these fathers are encouraged (no matter what the differences may be between them and the Bruderhof) to visit their children? How many children are growing up without fathers?
is the innocence and charm and vitality
of their kids. obviously their doing something right, and we might learn from
that. and this new book endangered contains a helluva lot of answers. can u
find nothing redeeming in bruderhoff that u have to come off sounding like
this?
Not much - although there could be a great deal. It gets obscured by the incredible continuing perversity of the leadership and the obtuse observations of its "friends" on this newsgroup.
lighten up, scrooge.Open your eyes, your ears, your mind, your heart - your gates.
Let's face it - the Bruderhof went too far in publishing a book about endangered children. How can the children who were endangered by this incredibly malignant system keep quiet in the face of such puerile mendacity?
Blair Purcell
purcell family
Honestly, you don't sound like a Bruderhof member at all. You sound like someone who has studied the evidence and come to an intelligent conclusion based on reason and rationality. What you write is most assuredly respected and believed by all who read it. How could it possibly be otherwise? You always provide proof and evidence of your statements and are willing to put your name right out there where everyone can know who you are and reach conclusions for themselves - knowing so clearly what your relationship to the Bruderhof actually is. We are fortunate to have you on this forum - otherwise, we could only stumble and struggle in our efforts to comprehend and understand the Bruderhof. Thank you for providing a beacon.
wche...@ime.net
Nice try, "Dakota", but you blew it. In your attempts to make the
Bruderhof look good when so much is clearly very bad, you are nothing
less than transparent.
You write to Blair Purcell "Lighten up Scrooge"?
How about you waking up? Haven't you been reading the posts, seeing the
lovely letters "arnold" is sending to people at their homes, seeing the
lack of "bruderhoff" response to people who *do* want the Bruderhof
walls to come down and see their families and aging parents? Why aren't
the Nigerian fathers allowed to see their own children? Is the
Bruderhof anything less than the hostile world it claims to have answers
against?
What do your "sources" say about any of that?
I won't play your game, Joe.
Betty Chesley
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dakota8800
>Nice try, "Dakota", but you blew it. In your attempts to make the
>Bruderhof look good when so much is clearly very bad, you are nothing
>less than transparent.
try some transparency yourself. you're hopelessly opaque here.
>You write to Blair Purcell "Lighten up Scrooge"?
>How about you waking up? Haven't you been reading the posts, seeing the
>lovely letters "arnold" is sending to people at their homes,
sorry, i missed those.
>seeing the
>lack of "bruderhoff" response to people who *do* want the Bruderhof
>walls to come down and see their families and aging parents?
frankly the lack of response doesn't surprise me, given the vitriol displayed
generally here.
>Why aren't
>the Nigerian fathers allowed to see their own children?
who knows? i know what one side says. but i can only guess at what the other
side of the coin may reveal. perhaps there's been some abuse. perhaps the
mothers have requested no contact. u see, you're taking a very private affair
and spouting out your version in a very public forum. do u honestly hope to
bring about healing to these families in this manner? i doubt it.
>Is the
>Bruderhof anything less than the hostile world it claims to have answers
>against?
come again?
>What do your "sources" say about any of that?
my sources, frankly haven't said much about this. i've talked about a lot of
stuff with them, but the claims and posturing of those who write here doesn't
seem to occupy their thoughts much. why is that?
>I won't play your game, Joe.
huh?
>Betty Chesley
pur...@erols.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> later purcell writes:
>
> >"It was the Bruderhof system that created things like
> >the so-called "Children's Clearing House" at Forest
> >River (a Bruderhof location); those running it were
> >cogs in the Bruderhof machine. I was caught in the
> >trap, and unable to understand what it was about.
>
> give me a break, purcell. if you're going to criticize bruderhoff,
> stick with the present. if the best u can do is dredge up stuff from
> the 30s and 40s then i have to question the relevance of your
> comments. how do u expect them to defend the actions of dead
> ministers?
Passing thought - those "dead ministers" were the direct agents and
emissaries of Christoph Arnold's father and/or grandfather. That being
the case, JCA is in a very good position to consider the means to make
effective amends for the incredibly cruel Children's Clearing House.
Do you think Christoph would have enough courage for that? I wonder if
the Bruderhof has such a department in place today?? Do they still keep
the kids locked up 24 hours a day? Do they still work them in the shops
in violation of state labor laws?? Check with your sources.
Honestly, Dakota, you seem to fit the mold - just another regular ol'
Bruderhound, snapping and nipping at the heels of those whose who are
willing to tell the truth. The internet isn't exactly the playground the
Bruderhof once hoped it would be - is it?
Blair Purcell
Dakota8800
because i'm still impressed with what i'm reading in the new bruderhoff book
"endangered," i'm wondering if it isn't possible to discuss the book on its own
merits, and strip away all the other baggage we seem to bring to this
discussion group. take for example this striking quote (from one of my favorite
writers, barbara kingsolver), that appears on page 74 (easily accessed from
their e-book edition):
"In the aftermath of the high school killings in Littleton, Colorado, we have
the spectacle of a nation acting baffled. Why would any student, however
frustrated with mean- spirited tormentors, believe that guns and bombs are the
answer? If we're really interested in this question, we might have started
asking it awhile ago. Why does a nation persist in celebrating violence as an
honorable expression of disapproval? In, oh let's say, Yugoslavia. Iraq. The
Sudan. Waco - anywhere we get fed up with mean-spirited tormentors - why do we
believe guns and bombs are the answer? Let's not trivialize a horrible tragedy
by pretending we can't make sense of it. "Senseless" sounds like "without
cause," and requires no action. After an appropriate interval of dismayed
hand-wringing, we can go back to business as usual. What takes guts is to own
up: This event made perfect sense. Children model the behavior of adults, on
whatever scale is available to them. Ours are growing up in a nation whose most
important, influential men - from presidents to film heroes - solve problems by
killing people. It's utterly predictable that some boys who are desperate for
admiration and influence will reach for guns and bombs. And it's not surprising
that it happened in a middle-class neighborhood; institutional violence is
right at home in the suburbs. Don't point too hard at the gangsta rap in your
brother's house until you've examined the Pentagon in your own. The tragedy in
Littleton grew straight out of a culture that is loudly and proudly rooting for
the global shootout. That culture is us. It may be perfectly clear to you that
Nazis, the Marines, "the Terminator" and the N.Y. P.D. all kill for different
reasons. But as every parent knows, children are good at ignoring or seeing
straight through subtleties we spin. Here's what they see: Killing is an
exalted tool for punishment and control. Americans who won't support it are
ridiculed. Let's face it, though, most Americans be-lieve bloodshed is
necessary for preserving our way of life, even though this means we risk the
occasional mis-fire - the civilians strafed, the innocent man wrongly condemned
to death row. If this is your position, I wonder if you'd be willing to go to
Littleton and explain to some mothers about acceptable risk. In a society that
embraces violence, this is what "our way of life" has come to mean. We have
taught our children in a thousand ways, sometimes with flag-waving and
sometimes with a laugh track, that the bad guy deserves to die… Sound
extreme? Don't kid yourself. Death is extreme, and the children are paying
attention."
dakota
David E. Ostrom
Dakota8800 wrote:
>"Much of what the Bruderhof brought to Forest River was
>positive, but the legacy created by the children's
>detention center they established, has been made
>unnecessarily more harmful than it might have been,
>because it has never been acknowledged for the wrong
>that it was and for the injuries (to the children AND
>their families) that it caused, instead it has been
>hushed up and treated as though it had never happened."
The BCof NY is very adept at "plausible deniability" while making these threats.
Sincerely,
David E.Ostrom
David E. Ostrom
>
> "In the aftermath of the high school killings in Littleton, Colorado, we have
> the spectacle of a nation acting baffled. Why would any student, however
> frustrated with mean- spirited tormentors, believe that guns and bombs are the
> answer? If we're really interested in this question, we might have started
> asking it awhile ago. Why does a nation persist in celebrating violence as an
> honorable expression of disapproval? In, oh let's say, Yugoslavia. Iraq. The
> Sudan. Waco - anywhere we get fed up with mean-spirited tormentors - why do we
> believe guns and bombs are the answer?
If you truly believe what you just wrote, why then did Mr. Arnold purchase a .44
magnum pistol plus other armament with accompanying permits for "self defense"?
When questioned about this, his snide comment was, "Oh, we needed it (the pistol)
for defense against rabid animals." At that time Mr. Ramon Sender and myself were
known around the various hof's as "rabid animals". There is a basic law of physics,
one can apply unrealistic controls during any experiment. However, there is a point
when criticality is reached with corresponding catastrophic results. The French
Revolution is empirical proof of what occurs when legal abuses and violation of
basic human rights are not addressed, acknowledged and dealt with in the human
world. There is another, untold, unrecognized side to the story of Littleton. Mr.
Enroth's book (if he did in fact write it) does not deal with the complex issues of
society, economics, ethics morality and religion. Rather, this book along with the
others he has authored (?) is a typical shoot-from-the-hip one-liners that have a
certain emotional appeal but do not address the complex issues that create the
situations Mr. Arnold so glibly writes about.
Respectfully,
David Ostrom
pur...@erols.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> here's a thought:
>
> because i'm still impressed with what i'm reading in the new
> bruderhoff book "endangered," i'm wondering if it isn't possible to
> discuss the book on its own merits, and strip away all the other
> baggage
You just don't get it. Content of a book (its merits) cannot be divorced
from the unethical, immoral and illegal practices of the author. What
Christoph Arnold practices is diametrically opposed to what is
ghost-written in his name.
> we seem to bring to this discussion group. take for example
> this striking quote (from one of my favorite writers, barbara
> kingsolver), that appears on page 74 (easily accessed from
> their e-book edition):
>
> Why does a nation persist in celebrating violence as an
> honorable expression of disapproval? In, oh let's say, Yugoslavia.
> Iraq. The Sudan. Waco - anywhere we get fed up with mean-spirited
> tormentors - why do we believe guns and bombs are the answer?
Here is a perfect example - Arnold includes these wonderful ideas when
he practices the complete opposite by aquiring a license to carry a .44
magnum revolver for self-protection.
I quote from the Greensburg, PA Tribune-Review 02/08/99.
quote:
Registered Weapons for Self Defence
Johann Christoph Arnold, the founder's grandson and the community's
leader, in November told the Tribune-Review that Bruderhof members are
against all violence, abortion, capital punishment and
physician-assisted suicide. In his latest book, "SeekingPeace," Arnold
also denounces the use of weaponry.
Nevertheless, records show that Arnold, 58, of the Woodcrest Bruderhof
in Rifton, N.Y.,got a pistol permit in 1991 in Ulster County, N.Y.
Arnold listed his occupation as minister on the application for a
license to carry a .44-caliber revolver "for self-protection and
protection of community members."
endquote.
Now, Ben Cavanna (a child of the Bruderhof) asked his family at the
Darvel Bruderhof about this and was told that Christoph never had a gun
and, essentially, called their son and brother a liar. If one denies a
mistake in judgement (the best construction I can place on his essential
stupidity in getting a gun), it would appear that Ben is either being
lied to by his family or Christoph Arnold lied to his family. Which do
you think it was?
Dakota, how can this possibly NOT have an effect on the qualifications
of Christoph Arnold writing a book on endangering children? He has
DISQUALIFED himself by his actions.
No matter the questionable quality of the ghost-written content - the
source (?) for this book is so contaminated with Bruderhof history and
practice that the books very premise is hopelessly compromised
> Children model the behavior of adults, on whatever scale is available
> to them. Ours are growing up in a nation whose most important,
> influential men - from presidents to film heroes - solve problems by
> killing people. It's utterly predictable that some boys who are
> desperate for admiration and influence will reach for guns and bombs.
And what is Christoph's influence on Bruderhof children in this regard?
You may say that 1991 is a long time ago. That article in the Greensburg
Tribune-Review also quoted Richard John Domer (brother of one of the
Bruderhounds) as follows.
quote:
John Domer, 38, of Grand Rapids, Mich.,who once worked as a paralegal
among Arnold's advisers at Woodcrest, said his duties included
purchasing weapons.
"I bought carbines, rifles and ammunition," Domer said. "There was a
paranoia that people were out to get the Bruderhof."
endquote.
John left the Bruderhof in 1998. I have spoken with him about what he
said in this article in the Tribune-Review. He confirmed what is said
here and MUCH more that I cannot yet reveal publicly. His statements
have been forwarded to the FBI.
Christoph DARES include references to Waco in a book about children when
the Bruderhof continues to accumulate carbines, rifles and ammunition?
What perverse hypocrisy! You ask a discussion of the book on the merits.
The book has NO merit considering its source - no matter what words have
been gathered by the editors of this "terrible book" (quoting John Von
Hinden) from those who do not know what the Bruderhof has done to its
children, from those who do not know about the guns, from those who do
not know about the factory "pushes" during which young teenagers are
worked until 10 pm and sometimes roused from bed as early as 4 am - to
fill the orders for schools and churches throughout the USA.
> We have taught our children in a thousand ways, sometimes with
> flag-waving and sometimes with a laugh track, that the bad guy
> deserves to die.
And just how does the Bruderhof teach its children? At what age are they
vetted for introduction to the gun room? Who decides which child is
willing to abandon the anabaptist principles they have been taught all
their lives? Who finally tells them that, YES, Christoph has a gun and
here are the others that we have stockpiled - and here is the
ammunition. And here is Christoph - everything you are and everything
you have you owe to him - above ALL else. Now, children, do as Christoph
tells you to do.
> Death is extreme, and the children are paying attention."
Believe it.
wche...@ime.net
> here's a thought:
>
> because i'm still impressed with what i'm reading in
> the new bruderhoff book "endangered," i'm wondering
> if it isn't possible to discuss the book on its own
> to bring to this discussion group.
Not likely. You, by your masquerade, bring along your baggage everytime
you post.
I think we could discuss the content of the book and it's authorship and
marketing as it relates to Christoph Arnold and the commune he leads.
Does the Bruderhof endanger it's children with the type of upbringing
it's memebers practice? I think it does.
Wayne
take for example this striking quote (from one of my
favorite
> writers, barbara kingsolver), that appears on page 74 (easily accessed
from
> their e-book edition):
>
> "In the aftermath of the high school killings in Littleton, Colorado,
we have
> the spectacle of a nation acting baffled. Why would any student,
however
> frustrated with mean- spirited tormentors, believe that guns and bombs
are the
> answer? If we're really interested in this question, we might have
started
> asking it awhile ago. Why does a nation persist in celebrating
violence as an
> honorable expression of disapproval? In, oh let's say, Yugoslavia.
Iraq. The
> Sudan. Waco - anywhere we get fed up with mean-spirited tormentors -
why do we
> believe guns and bombs are the answer? Let's not trivialize a horrible
tragedy
> by pretending we can't make sense of it. "Senseless" sounds like
"without
> cause," and requires no action. After an appropriate interval of
dismayed
> hand-wringing, we can go back to business as usual. What takes guts is
to own
> up: This event made perfect sense. Children model the behavior of
adults, on
> whatever scale is available to them. Ours are growing up in a nation
whose most
> important, influential men - from presidents to film heroes - solve
problems by
> killing people. It's utterly predictable that some boys who are
desperate for
> embraces violence, this is what "our way of life" has come to mean. We
have
> taught our children in a thousand ways, sometimes with flag-waving and
> sometimes with a laugh track, that the bad guy deserves to die…
Sound
> extreme? Don't kid yourself. Death is extreme, and the children are
paying
> attention."
>
> dakota
purc...@my-deja.com
wche...@ime.net wrote:
> dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> > i'm wondering
> > if it isn't possible to discuss the book on its own
> > merits, and strip away all the other baggage we seem
> > to bring to this discussion group.
>
> Not likely. You, by your masquerade, bring along your baggage
> everytime
> you post.
>
> I think we could discuss the content of the book and it's authorship
> and marketing as it relates to Christoph Arnold and the commune he
> leads.
>
> Does the Bruderhof endanger it's children with the type of upbringing
> it's memebers practice? I think it does.
>
Every Plough book should have the following foreward as a warning for
those as yet unacquainted with Bruderhof practices:
"The Bruderhof, a group of people purporting to follow
Jesus Christ by living in intentional community,
consists of individuals more truly following a
personality cult. Their religion would more
accurately be labeled Arnoldianism, as the
personalities they have followed for the 80 years of
their existence are all of the Arnold family, starting
with Eberhard Arnold (probably the only Christian of
them all), followed by his second son, Heinrich, who
was succeeded after his death in 1982 by HIS son
Johann Christoph, the supposed author of this book.
In fact, a committee of literate members of the
Bruderhof have worked together to create this work,
and have allowed all the honor of its authorship to be
given to their "beloved" leader and elder, Arnold. It
is, however, a well-documented fact that any member
who challenges a direction of the eldership, by
pointing to Biblical mandates that would indicate the
Bruderhof is not pursuing a Christian manner of
dealing with an issue, is summarily dismissed from
membership--often cast off the commune's compound with or
withouttheir family and barely enough money to feed their
family for a week - after having given their whole
lifesavings, IRAs, and all their earthly possessions
to the commune. Does this support a nurturing safe
environment for the children of such families?
Granted, the author(s) often share meaningful
insights, and, more frequently, include meaningful
quotes (occasionally even from some real Christian
authors), but their actions towards family members who
have chosen to follow God on a path different from
their own, or members who have advocated a more truly
Christian modus operandum belie the "good intentions"
indicated by the publication of this book."
As required by the Librarian General.
Melchior Fros
here's a thought:
>because i'm still impressed with what i'm reading in the new
bruderhoff book
>"endangered," i'm wondering if it isn't possible to discuss the book
on its own
>merits, and strip away all the other baggage we seem to bring to this
>discussion group.
Dakota raises an interesting point: is it possible to discuss a book
aimed at exploring societal ills without regard for the integrity of
the author? Is it possible to focus on content and ignore the man
behind the Plough? What can a person promoted as experienced pastor
and marriage counselor possibly have to do with the best interests of
children when he:
TAUNTS (in a public forum) a former member about a sexual struggle
LIES about weapon ownership in a public forum
LIES about open communication between parent and child: "I allow every
letter through."
THREATENS to arm himself again
PRETENDS not to know about illegal and clandestine activity committed
under the umbrella of his leadership
BRAGS about sales of “his” books: “Perhaps it will even sell more
copies then "She Said Yes?"… “since this show sales for this book has
jumped at least by 20%..”
PREACHES that the continuity of his church is more important that
natural and God-given family ties.
The end quote from “Endangered” which Dakota offers can be slightly
altered without changing the intended self-reflection it encourages:
The author-elder and his society have embraced the violence of gun
ownership and unethical behavior. “ Is this what (their) way of life
has come to mean?” Has Christoph Arnold, not
taught the children in his care “a thousand ways” in which the bad guy
(who won’t support him) deserves to rot in Hell? “Sound extreme? Don't
kid yourself.” Arnold is extreme, and children in his care are paying
attention.
Mel
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved
darkness instead of light,
because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light,
and will not come into the
light for fear that his dark deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives
by the truth comes into the
light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been
done through God.' " (Jn.
3:19--21)
Melchior Fros
And here is mine.... a bit irreverant, maybe, but worthy of
consideration? Consider this: at the recent US Open, a Spanish golfer
hit a seagul and still managed to par the hole. Guess what? It happened
again the next day, and again he made par the HONERABLE way.
GOLF 101
Moses, Jesus, Christoph and his dog "Kit", went golfing. Moses teed up,
missed the fairway badly and his ball rolled into a water hazard. He
parted the water and chipped the ball into the cup for an eagle. Next,
Jesus teed off, and he too put his ball into a water hazard. He turmed
the water into wine, the gleeful crowd quickly lapped it up. Jesus took
off his sandals, walked into the mud and chipped the ball into the cup
for an eagle. Now it was Christoph's turn. He also teed off badly. In
fact, his ball went no more than 10 yards. In disgust, he commanded his
dog, "hohl" (which is German for "fetch"). Kit, confusing Christoph's
German with his heavy-accented English, picked up the ball, raced down
the course, and plunked it in the "hole"!!! Christoph smiled with
satisfaction at his apparent legal-eagle. Ans now a person Christoph
_did not recognize_ came by and asked if he might join the game. He was
welcomed. The stranger teed off, his shot hit the club house, bounced
down the cart drive way, into the pond, and came to rest on a lily pad.
A frog jumped onto the pad and swallowed the ball. An eagle scooped up
the frog and flew away. The startled frog threw up the ball, and it
landed in the cup; an apparent hole-in-one. Christoph turned to Jesus
and said, "I hate playing with the guy!" Jesus answered him, "Oh,
that's my father".
And the moral, dear Dakota is?:
Mel
purc...@my-deja.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> here's a thought:
> bruderhoff book "endangered," i'm wondering if it isn't possible to
> discuss the book on its own merits,
I guess the answer is no.
Here's an excerpt for the KIT Newsletter (January 1998) which shows just
how the Bruderhof endangers their children:
Quote:
Renatus Kluver 12/5/97: Regarding forgiveness, the Bruderhof has never
issued and/or asked corporately for forgiveness of individuals they have
harmed. My father had a nervous breakdown when he and my mother were
denied access to the Sinntal hof. They had been sent from Bulstrode in
England where my father had the responsibility of Steward as well as
having been elected as a witness brother, to help in the Sinntal hof in
Germany (my parents were German and spoke German). They arrived in Bad
Brueckenau at the railway station, close to the Sinntal hof, and were
picked up by Joerg Barth and Arno Martin. These two were rather
monosyllabic, which my father found rather strange. They were off-loaded
in a spa hotel in Bad Brueckenau When my father wanted to know why, he
was told that they did not have enough room in Sinntal.
The two brothers got back into the car. My father wanted to know when
would they be collected for a round-trip to Sinntal. At this
point, Arno informed my parents and my youngest sister Karola,
ENDANGERED CHILD ALERT
who was only fifteen years old at the time, that they would not be
picked up and that they would not be allowed to come to Sinntal. "Ihr
seid Ausgeschlossen" (you are excluded), Arno informed my
parents. Absolutely no reason was given. One moment they were members in
'good standing' and the next they were 'out in the cold.'
They were devastated. When Karola tried to visit Sinntal to be with the
young people, Joerg told her that she was not welcome and that she would
not be allowed to come. The hof was only ten minutes' walk from where
may parents were living.
ISOLATE THE CHILD
My sister had to sit around in the little flat, until the landlady
offered her some work in the hotel for a pittance, but it gave her
something to do. My father had been away from Germany for nearly twenty
five years and had to find his way in a totally alien world, a Germany
that had been defeated in war and now had to, grudgingly, absorb
expatriates.
Over the following years, my father had to take a lot of stick from
fellow-workers, who blamed him for leaving Deutschland in its hour of
need and now, with the economic miracle, to return and reap the
dividends. He found a job in a clothing-trade factory and had to cut
out, with an electrical cutter, patterns for leather jackets, about ten
layers at a time. He found it very difficult to fulfil his quota and had
the 'timer' with his stop watch looking over his shoulder all the time.
The management kept telling him that if his output did not improve, they
would give him the sack. Father was 55 years old at the time.
FORCE THE PARENT INTO POVERTY - SO AS TO MAKE THEM CRAWL AND BEG
When my father phoned Sinntal, he was given Jonny Mason to talk to. My
father told him that the place he was working at was untenable. Jonny
told my father that he should stop feeling sorry for himself and pull
his weight and that it was clear that my father had had a cushy number
on the Bruderhof and that these days of loafing about were now over.
Now you have to consider that Jonny is about my age and was at the time
about twenty-four years old. When I heard from my mother the despicable
way he treated my father, I was ready to go to Sinntal and give that
arrogant impertinent bloke a piece of my mind, especially in the light
of all the years of sacrifice at the beginning in Germany, then in
Liechtenstein, then yet again the beginning in England and then the
dangerous crossing to South America over U-boat-infested seas, and the
start in an culturally alien and climatically so different country and
all the hardships of the beginning in the wilderness of Paraguay this
entailed.
For the time being, the SoB paid the rent in the spa hotel. The
accommodations comprised a tiny kitchen and two tiny bedrooms (they
used the kitchen as their dining room and also living room). They were
housed right underneath the roof, which sloped down to about
three feet off the floor. The place was designed for the servants of the
hotel, not insulated and with no central heating. My mother tried
to cope with a little portable electric heater of one thousand watts.
She hardly went out, because she had very bad legs and found
climbing six flights of stairs nearly impossible. After a few weeks in
residence, the SoB refused to pay the rent and the electric bill.
MAKE THEM GROVEL. FIFTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER AS WELL.
The flat was always bitterly cold because my mother tried to save as
much money as possible (so that the SoB would not have to pay too
much).
MAKE THE CHILD WORK FOR PITTANCE TO HELP SUPPORT PARENTS.
I travelled to Germany from New York in mid-October, 1961, having
decided to visit my parents because no one would give me an
answer about why my parents had been chucked out. I myself was living
outside the commune at the time in Kingston, N.Y., near Woodcrest, and
repeatedly tried to talk to Heini on the phone, but he was never
'available'. One of the operators at the Woodcrest end was Mary Pappas.
She got fed up with me continually phoning to ask for Heini and in a
very sharp tone of voice told me to face up to my sin ("what sin?" I
asked her) and not to call again until I had repented genuinely. Of
course I later learned that this was the way they 'protected' Heini from
receiving unwanted calls and the receptionists acted as a buffer and
filter.
GOD FORBID AN ARNOLD SHOULD TALK TO A CHILD CONCERNED ABOUT HIS PARENTS.
THAT WOULD TAKE COURAGE.
I then asked to be sent my British Passport, which they declined to do,
telling me that they would not give me permission to travel.
ILLEGAL CONTROL, CONTROL OF EVERYONE IS CRITICAL TO THE CONTINUANCE OF
THE BRUDERHOF.
I had travelled to Woodcrest from Primavera when I was only 19 years old
and Heini had taken on the guardianship for me because I was still,
as the law then stood, a minor. By the time I was chucked out I had
reached the grand old age of twenty three and therefore no longer
dependent on their permission to go.
THROWN OUT. DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT PARENTS.
I rang the New York City British Consulate and explained what the
circumstances were. I told them that I wanted to travel to Europe to
reunite with my parents, who I had not seen for four and a half years,
and that the Society was holding my passport, refusing to hand it over
to me. The British official at the other end of the line audibly sucked
air into his lungs. He then informed me that they knew of the SoB and
that they had several complaints from expatriates because the commune
would not foot the cost of travel back to England.
A COMMON OCCURENCE? SOUNDS LIKE IT.
I told him that I had saved enough money to pay for the trip, but needed
my passport to enable me to buy my ticket. He then became very friendly
and said that they would contact Woodcrest and inform them to hand the
passport over to me. I should let him know if they had complied. He also
stated that they would send an official from the embassy if the SoB did
not comply with their request and assured me that the passport was Crown
property.
They could pick it up on that basis alone, but would prefere an amicable
solution without further involving them. The very next day Don Noble
turned up with my passport and tried to pick a quarrel with me for
having 'gone behind their backs' in order to get possession of the said
document.
OH RENATUS, YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE BEHIND THEIR BACKS. YOU SHOULD
HAVE GROVELED.
My parents met me in Bremerhaven, when the boat finally docked and we
stayed at an uncle of mine, one of my mothers brothers, for a few days
and visited various relatives. These relatives turned out to be very
wary about getting close to our family, because they were afraid that
they might have to help us financially. None of us had any funds, just
two changes of clothing and that was it. I then travelled with my mother
down to Brueckenau, my father having made contact with friends he knew
before the Bruderhof.
One of the couples, when they heard that my father had been ousted and
living in such primitive accomodations, had travelled six hundred
kilometers from Hamburg to Brueckenau, leaving after work one Friday
night, to see how they could help my father.
AND THE BRUDERHOF WAS A TEN-MINUTE WALK.
He was self-employed and also held a lectureship, part-time, at the
University of Hamburg. He was able, through church connections, to
secure a flat for my parents. At this moment in time (1961) it was
nearly impossible to secure an accommodation, because there were so many
Germans fleeing the Eastern Sector, as well as many expatriates
returning to Germany after enforced or voluntary exile and there was an
acute housing shortage.
My parents were able to pay a down-payment on the flat, which was within
a housing estate, but which was not yet ready. The promised date of
completion was for the beginning of December. That is why my mother was
living down in Bad Brueckenau with Karola, and my father and Konrad, who
had come from Brasil where he had lived for the past year, were living
with the graphic artist and his family, who had generously taken them
in. Konrad then found a place in a hostel for young single men and
women, which was run by the Evangelische Freikirche (Free-Church of
Germany), so there was a place available for me to share a room with my
father, after having visited for a few weeks with my mother and youngest
sister in Brueckenau.
A FAMILY BROKEN APART BY THE BRUDERHOF - STRUGGLING TO STAY TOGETHER.
We, that is my father, my mother, my sister Karola, my brother Konrad
and myself, managed to move into the not-quite-finished new flat a few
days before Christmas. Thomas, who was living at the time in Fulda, also
came, even though he was determined at the time to go back to the
Bruderhof. Then Hartmuth, my youngest brother, turned up. He had
travelled from England, where he had started an apprenticeship and my
father had encouraged him to complete it, because he would have been too
old for the German system to do an apprenticeship (he was eighteen at
the time). So we had a lovely Christmas together. My parents were able
to make a down payment on the flat, having been able to secure a
Soforthilfe (immediate-help), which the German Government made available
to people who had been persecuted by the German state, before or during
the Second World War.
Since Thomas was born in Germany, he was also eligible for the 5000 DM,
which at that time was a lot of money. One evening he was in the cinema
having a look at some film or another.
When the film finished, he went into the foyer and who was waiting there
to see him?
Hardi Arnold.
He had travelled all the way from Sinntal to see Thomas with the
intention to demand the 5000 DM. First he had gone to Thomas' digs and,
not finding him there, he found out from the landlady where he could
find Thomas. He told my brother that the community needed the money and
that, in any case, he had given his word in the baptismal vows that he
would give the group everything he had and would also inherit in the
future.
PART OF THE BRUDERHOF DREAM - TO EXTRACT *EVERYTHING* THEY CAN.
Since my brother wanted to go back to the Society, he agreed to hand
over that amount. Needless to say, after that handover, whenever
Thomas asked to visit Sinntal he was fobbed off and told that it was
time for him to 'stand on his own two feet.' It took him years to
chuck overboard the mind control that the SoB had on him.
A WHOLE BOOK CAN BE WRITTEN ON THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS OWED TO
INDIVIDUALS BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND ABSORBED BY THE BRUDERHOF.
There is a lot that happened in those early years, and I got rather
carried away with relating those first weeks and months after my
parents had been chucked out, without any explanation or reason given.
Years later, and this is the crux of why I started to write about
my parents' experiences in those long-ago-days, they had a visit in
Hamburg from Art Wiser and Dwight Blough. Art was on a tour of
visiting the various members whom he had thrown out when in charge at
Bulstrode. He asked my father to forgive him for the underhanded way in
which my parents were ousted, stating that it was his decision and no
one else's. My father wanted to know why he and my mother had been
pushed out, wanting an explanation, but Art could not give one. My
father insisted that Art could not have acted on his own and that there
must have been a group, if it wasn't the brotherhood, who had made that
decision.
NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT UNITY.
My father also told Art that, as a Christian, he would of course forgive
him, but to put right what had been done and the communal life that had
been destroyed, it would be of paramount importance to invite all those
who had been chucked out to a meeting with the "brotherhood" during the
time in question.
It was years ago that I put this proposition to Heini: "If it had not
been for the Cotswold and Primavera Bruderhoefe, you would not be in
existence now. So merely from a historic point of view, your denial of
their existence and the influence they had on the movement is tantamount
to a betrayal of the brothers and sisters and young children who died
during those poverty-stricken years. It is that such a denial makes all
that follows a total lie." Needless to say, I never had a reply.
Something else now: regarding the use of the abbreviation of 'SoB:' for
me, it stands for 'Society of Brothers' and I can't imagine what is
offensive about it. I certainly will desist in calling that outfit
'Bruderhof'. My parents were members of the Bruderhof and, as far as I
am concerned, that organisation has ceased to exist. Also another point:
as I define the concept and also the word Community. 'Com-' ( the
prefix generally meaning in Latin: 'together, together with') and then
of course 'unity' (meaning 'the quality or condition of being one in
feeling, action, purpose, etc.'). Now I have immense difficulty in using
this compound word in reference to the SoB, when thinking how
they treat their own members. Yes, they are 'together', but for what
purpose and to what end? Their expressed vision and action holds
common ownership of property as the ideal life style, primary to any
other possible consideration. So anyone who might jeopardise this
expressed view, which has become their religion, will have to bow under
the pressure of the prevalent group dynamics.
INCLUDING THE CHILDREN
These dynamics make the individual conform to all the dictates of the
power brokers and tell them how they are expected to react and how they
think that the group would want them to act or react.
Unquote.
Dakota8800
> GOLF 101
>
>Moses, Jesus, Christoph and his dog "Kit", went golfing. Moses teed up,
>missed the fairway badly and his ball rolled into a water hazard. He
>parted the water and chipped the ball into the cup for an eagle. Next,
<cut>
>And the moral, dear Dakota is?:
beware of pedantic carpenters.
dakota
Dakota8800
>You just don't get it. Content of a book (its merits) cannot
>be divorced from the unethical, immoral and illegal practices
>of the author.
no, purcell. you're the 1 who doesn't get it. of course it can be done.
however, i was foolish to think that it can be done in this forum with this
particular group of participants.
later, you dredge up a ten-year-old gun story that's been cited ad nauseum to
prove bruderhoff is not pacifist. gimme a break. u really don't get it.
remember purcell you're talking about a group that's existed for 80 years
consistently resisting war and violence. one handgun ten years ago during a
rabies epidemic is going to negate that message? the public is not buying your
logic, believe me. stop spitting into the wind.
later you quote john domer. i know a bit about this character. i recommend
before u use his "evidence" u inquire about the circumstances of his departure.
by any standards, he's not exactly a credible source. perhaps that's why the
fbi has done nothing with his statements. i'd like to think that our national
police force uses more common sense than u.
i'm beginning to tire of this. where do u get all the energy, purcell?
dakota
purc...@my-deja.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> purcell, writing voluminously, says:
>
> >You just don't get it. Content of a book (its merits) cannot
> >be divorced from the unethical, immoral and illegal practices
> >of the author.
>
> no, purcell. you're the 1 who doesn't get it. of course it can be
> done. however, i was foolish to think that it can be done in this
> forum with this particular group of participants.
Yeah - you just can't fool everybody. The author IS the issue when it
comes to endangering children. Why don't you try a different forum?
8^)
>
> later, you dredge up a ten-year-old gun story that's been cited ad
> nauseum to prove bruderhoff is not pacifist. gimme a break. u really
> don't get it.
That's nine years and it involved the ELDER.
> remember purcell you're talking about a group that's existed for 80
> years consistently resisting war and violence. one handgun ten years
> ago during a rabies epidemic is going to negate that message? the
> public is not buying your logic, believe me. stop spitting into the
> wind.
A rabies epidemic with one .44 magnum for the elder? Even a pacifist
knows that a .44 (dirty Harry model) is not suitable for shooting
raccoons and foxes at close range. That gun is designed to KILL people.
When certain KIT folk were referred to by folks at the Bruderhof as
rabid animals? Contemporaneously with the acquisition of the gun?
>
> later you quote john domer. i know a bit about this character. i
> recommend before u use his "evidence" u inquire about the
> circumstances of his departure. by any standards, he's not exactly a
> credible source.
So you, a sometime visitor to the Bruderhof, are sufficiently in their
confidence that "you know a bit about this character." You are damning
him by innuendo. What are the facts?
Are you willing, under your own name (dakota just doesn't cut it for
credibility) to attest that the Bruderhof did NOT acquire rifles,
carbines and ammunition in 1996, 1997, and/or 1998? Are you willing to
put up a $10,000.00 bond, forfeit if I am wrong?
> perhaps that's why the fbi has done nothing with his statements.
Oh?
>
> i'm beginning to tire of this. where do u get all the energy, purcell?
If lying in any form comes from below, the answer must be that I don't
get my energy from the same place you do. 8^)
I continue to state and maintain that the elder of a religious community
who once (?) carried a .44 magnum revolver and continued, as late as
1998, to acquire rifles, carbines and ammunition because he/they were
convinced people were out to get him/them, is not a fit author for a
book about endangering children.
THAT is nonsense.
Blair Purcell
Bencavanna
>purcell, writing voluminously, says:
>
>>You just don't get it. Content of a book (its merits) cannot
>>be divorced from the unethical, immoral and illegal practices
>>of the author.
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) writes:
>no, purcell. you're the 1 who doesn't get it. of course it can be done.
Ah - so you admit " the unethical, immoral and illegal practices of the
author."
Little slip there - don't you think?
(but then from your posts it is obvious that you can't)
Ben Cavanna
(ex) Child of the Bruderhof(tm)
wche...@ime.net
> however, i was foolish to think that it can be done in this forum with
this
> particular group of participants.
Then why did you bother bringing it up?
> later, you dredge up a ten-year-old gun story
> that's been cited ad nauseum to
> prove bruderhoff is not pacifist. gimme a
> break. u really don't get it.
> remember purcell you're talking about a group
> that's existed for 80 years consistently
> resisting war and violence. one handgun ten
> years ago during a rabies epidemic is going
> to negate that message? the public is not
> buying your logic, believe me. stop spitting
> into the wind.
I remember well when the story of the guns broke in the brotherhood. We
were told that some of the ministers had purchased them for target
shooting -as a form of relaxation. It was only later that the story
about rabid animals was presented.
I was quite skeptical , even after I left the Bruderhof, of the
suggestion that Christoph had obtained the gun for personal protections,
but no other conclusion fits. It was on the permit application after
all, and the story changed over time as to who had the gun(s) and why it
was purchased. If it was purchased to be used by Christoph against
rabid animals, it seems that the rest of the commune's members would
have been told before KIT broke the story. Community members would have
to know to call Christoph when they encountered a rabid animal.
As one who regularly dispatches garden pests with appropriate firearms,
I know that a .44 magnum would be the wrong choice for shooting a rabid
animal. I can't imagine a gun dealer recommending it when Christoph
purchased it. I can imagine a gun dealer recommending a .44 magnum
for self defense. The conclusion voiced by Blair fits the facts better
than any of the stories concocted by the Bruderhof. Christoph probably
got so paranoid out of his hatred for KIT that he armed himself for
protection.
As for consistency -we were told that the Bruderhof, being of course
pacifists, never resorted to lawsuits. If the Bruderhof reversed that
policy under Christoph Arnold's leadership, then other changes in the
Bruderhof's beliefs and practices are not surprising. We were still
members when many changes were taking place at the Bruderhof
-consistency is not a characteristic of the Bruderhof.
.
Wayne
purc...@my-deja.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> here's a thought:
>
so the messages without "Bruderhof" won't come up in a search for the
word. I wonder if the search devices work that way on the word
"bruderhoff."
Blair Purcell
pur...@erols.com
>
> > later, you dredge up a ten-year-old gun story
> > that's been cited ad nauseum to
> > prove bruderhoff is not pacifist. gimme a
> > break. u really don't get it.
> > remember purcell you're talking about a group
> > that's existed for 80 years consistently
> > resisting war and violence. one handgun ten
> > years ago during a rabies epidemic is going
> > to negate that message? the public is not
> > buying your logic, believe me. stop spitting
> > into the wind.
>
> I remember well when the story of the guns broke in the brotherhood.
> We were told that some of the ministers had purchased them for target
> shooting -as a form of relaxation. It was only later that the story
> about rabid animals was presented.
>
> I was quite skeptical , even after I left the Bruderhof, of the
> suggestion that Christoph had obtained the gun for personal
> protection, but no other conclusion fits. It was on the permit
> application after all, and the story changed over time as to who had
> the gun(s) and why it was purchased. If it was purchased to be used
> by Christoph against rabid animals, it seems that the rest of the
> commune's members would have been told before KIT broke the story.
> Community members would have to know to call Christoph when they
> encountered a rabid animal.
> As one who regularly dispatches garden pests with appropriate
> firearms,I know that a .44 magnum would be the wrong choice for
> shooting a rabid animal. I can't imagine a gun dealer recommending it
> when Christoph purchased it. I can imagine a gun dealer recommending a
>.44 magnum for self defense.
Dakota still doesn't seem to think a ten year old (really nine)
incident justifies all the fuss we're making about a .44 caliber magnum
revolver purchased for self defense. The permit said it was for his
protection and the protection of other members of the church. Yet, if
the others didn't know he had the gun, how could they have possibly been
"protected" when the need arose?
And, while JCA claims (?) he no longer has the gun, it appears to have
been replaced by others. The real challenge is how many guns does he
have today and for what purpose? Are they being stockpiled for self
defense as R.J.Domer stated?
I contend again: Johann Christoph Arnold, who owned (?) a .44 magnum for
self defence and who is stockpiling guns for self defence, cannot write
a book about endangered children in a hostile world and expect to go
unchallenged.
Take your discussion of the merits of Christoph's book to another forum
Dakota - or do you dare? Perhaps I can post a thing or two in
appropriate locations. Then you can argue the merits of our thoughts
with a new audience.
Note the change in the subject line. Good work, Bruderhound.
Melchior Fros
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
(Lausbub)> >And the moral, dear Dakota is?:
> beware of pedantic carpenters.
>
> dakota
Shoot! I had something more profound in mind. Something like this:
"God is working His purpose out"... or
The Master Golfer is in control even when one choses not to play by His
Ten rules...
Lausbub, Mel's clone.
Melchior Fros
forum with this
> particular group of participants.
Not at all. It can be done, provided you allow participants to illumine
the discussion with material not known to most readers.
Now, I'd like to know what _you_ find meaningful about the passage you
quoted. Explain to me why you are willing to ignore the "author's'
track record in favor of this material? Explain why you think it
unimportant the average reader should know about the details we try to
bring to light regarding the organization and the golfer behind the
Plough.
>... consistently resisting war and violence.
I have to take issue with that statement. I believe the Bhof. has a
long history in violating the sacredness of family and the natural, God-
given bond between parent and child. Want examples? Current? Dated?
>... the public is not buying your
> logic, believe me. stop spitting into the wind.
What the public makes of my/our testimony is not my main concern. It's
important to bring to light that which the Bhof sweeps under the carpet
in favor of book $$ales.
> before u use his "evidence" u inquire about the circumstances of his
>departure.
I have and am at this stage satisfied with what I have heard.
> i'm beginning to tire of this.
Are you ready to seek and speak the Truth? Truth-seeking will never
tire you, believe me!
Fondly, Mel
Wish me a happy 5ive-0h tomorrow, dear chap!
wche...@ime.net
purc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Pretty clever - changing the subject line to remove the word
"Bruderhof"
> so the messages without "Bruderhof" won't come up in a search for the
> word.
Not so clever. It's interesting what a search on the word "bruderhof"
will bring up on the search engines. Except when they try to load sites,
a lot of material that comes up is clearly not the party line.
Wayne
Melchior Fros
pur...@erols.com wrote:
> Dakota still doesn't seem to think a ten year old (really nine)
> incident justifies all the fuss we're making about a .44 caliber
magnum
> revolver purchased for self defense.
We'll pretend we know nothing about the bullet proof vest purchase.
>The permit said it was for his
> protection and the protection of other members of the church.
I've talked to hunters and firearm owners and they tell me without
exception there is one and only one reason to register a concealed
weapon. This is not a matter of Christoph's ignorance nor can blame for
it's purchase be conveniently placed on the shoulders of a Hutterite.
If Christoph really wanted protection from rabid animals, he should
have asked some of his Paraguayan-born contemporaries to make him a
Zwiesel and "Lehmis"....much more fun and far less dangerous to both
himself and humankind.
So....once again the question remains: who has "Endangered" whom?
G'day to all. "Hustle up you lazy good-for-nothing, sofa lover! Dust
the cobwebs from your soul.." (B'hof song of mirth)
Lausbub.
purcell family
Melchior Fros wrote:
> In article <8jv8uk$3e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> pur...@erols.com wrote:
> > Dakota still doesn't seem to think a ten year old (really nine)
> > incident justifies all the fuss we're making about a .44 caliber
> > magnum revolver purchased for self defense.
>
> We'll pretend we know nothing about the bullet proof vest purchase.
>
> >The permit said it was for his protection and the
> > protection of other members of the church.
>
> I've talked to hunters and firearm owners and they tell me without
> exception there is one and only one reason to register a concealed
> weapon. This is not a matter of Christoph's ignorance nor can blame for
> it's purchase be conveniently placed on the shoulders of a Hutterite.
>
> If Christoph really wanted protection from rabid animals, he should
> have asked some of his Paraguayan-born contemporaries to make him a
> Zwiesel and "Lehmis"....much more fun and far less dangerous to both
> himself and humankind.
I'm told that if you hit a particularly fat raccoon with a .44, you would
have raccoon stew splattered all over the township. You really do have to
be careful with a .44! Still, if Christoph doesn't have the gun anymore, we
shouldn't hound him about it - just the ones he was buying back in 1997 and
1998. Will Dakota come back long enough to positively state that our
information is just plain wrong and that rifles, carbines and ammunition
were not and are not being stockpiled? The clear implication from his last
post on this subject was that our source of information (the man who was
doing the accumulating on behalf of the Bruderhof) is not a reliable
witness to what he himself was doing.
So, Dakota, tell us unequivocally it wasn't so. Our source is lying and we
can again thank you for coming to the rescue in the defence of truth and
light. Without you, we wouldn't have been able to establish the reality -
or, perhaps, a version of reality.
What's a Zwiesel or a Lehmis??
Blair
David E. Ostrom
i'm wondering if it isn't possible to discuss the book on its own
merits, and strip away all the other baggage we seem to bring to this
discussion group.
"In the aftermath of the high school killings in Littleton, Colorado, we have
the spectacle of a nation acting baffled. Why would any student, however
frustrated with mean- spirited tormentors, believe that guns and bombs are the
answer?
OK Dakota,
Have you the intelligence, compassion and empathy to deal with this? If so there might be some reason for considering you a member of the human race.
In the first paragraph you ask to discuss Endangered on it's own merits. First, in the forward, there is no articulate definition of the author's proposed thesis. Even the forward is unsigned. Question, was the forward and the book written as indicated by the cover or was it ghosted by the esteemed Dr Moore and associates? Why not have JCA sign or acknowledge the forward?
First chapter. What is the meaning of Weisel's quotation? How does it
relate to the material presented?
What is the point of citing of S & N's story? We all have to work
to provide for ourselves. Life is just one continuum of decisions. We all
make decisions every day, some good, some bad, the bad ones we pay for.
Getting into the child care crises, the book and you glibly skim over a very complex and expensive issue. There is no analysis of conditions and issues that cause and effect the child care issue. Pg 3, line 19 is an example of literary "In your face" by the author. Read a posting in this thread by R. Kleuver. That story is multiplied by hundreds of my own knowledge and experience.
Page 5, M. Albright's quote. So, what about it? As you hide behind your anonymity, it is difficult to frame a response to your concerns. Sure, I, the Purcells, Chesleys and others responding to this thread are concerned about maltreatment of children everywhere. The question to me is, was this presented in the book to provide a solution to the world wide problem or was it used to super-charge an emotional issue in order to escalate tensions between people?
Mr. Arnold continues to quote extremely controversial and violent public
figures, a Mr. M.A.Jamal next. In reference back to your question about
guns and violence, why didn't the author quote Mr. Jamal on his views about
guns and the use of them? Mr. Jamal convicted killer who used a gun to
kill a policeman.
There is a paradox here, using as an example, a man prone to violence
as a means to his ends, to illustrate the indifference of society to social
problems.
The author continues to bounce off the pin-ball rubbers of his game Endangered with unconnected dissertation on he and his spouses' visit to areas of violent discontent. He makes some very shallow and unsubstantiated charges about the misery and desolation. He fails to mention that this ethnic problem has been in existence for a hundred years or more and in the case of Iraq, for more than a thousand years.
Finally, your reference to Littleton, Co, I have had the misfortune to visit that town on occasion and found it, along with many other small, narrow-minded towns, an "in your face, what are you going to do about it?" attitude. Combined with this was a strong prevailing attitude by the "Christians" of the area that they were supreme and in control of every thing and every one about them. This conduct is confrontational and escalates the tension between people and _specifically_ children. Yet, Endangered failed miserably in identifying this and other individual and social misconduct that leads to and escalates the abuse of children.
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
purcell family
"David E. Ostrom" wrote:
Dakota8800 wrote:i'm wondering if it isn't possible to discuss the book on its ownOK Dakota,
merits, and strip away all the other baggage we seem to bring to this
discussion group."In the aftermath of the high school killings in Littleton, Colorado, we have
the spectacle of a nation acting baffled. Why would any student, however
frustrated with mean- spirited tormentors, believe that guns and bombs are the
answer?Have you the intelligence, compassion and empathy to deal with this? If so there might be some reason for considering you a member of the human race.
In the first paragraph you ask to discuss Endangered on it's own merits. First, in the forward, there is no articulate definition of the author's proposed thesis. Even the forward is unsigned. Question, was the forward and the book written as indicated by the cover or was it ghosted by the esteemed Dr Moore and associates? Why not have JCA sign or acknowledge the forward?
Wouldn't the following be a more accurate foreward for ANY of Christoph's books?
Quote:
"The Bruderhof, a group of people purporting to follow
Jesus Christ by living in intentional community,
consists of individuals more truly following a
personality cult. Their religion would more
accurately be labeled Arnoldianism, as the
personalities they have followed for the 80 years of
their existence are all of the Arnold family, starting
with Eberhard Arnold (probably the truest Christian of
them all), followed by his second son, Heinrich, who
was succeeded after his death in 1982 by HIS son
Johann Christoph, the supposed author of this book.
In fact, a committee of literate members of the
Bruderhof have worked together to create this work,
and have allowed all the honor of its authorship to be
given to their "beloved" leader and elder, Arnold. It
is, however, a well-documented fact that any member
who challenges a direction of the eldership, by
pointing to Biblical mandates that would indicate the
Bruderhof is not pursuing a Christian manner of
dealing with an issue, is summarily dismissed from
membership--often cast off the commune's compound with or without
their family and barely enough money to feed their
family or themselves for a week, after having given their whole
lifesavings, IRAs, and all their earthly possessions
to the commune. Does this support a nurturing safe
environment for the children of such families?
Granted, the author(s) often share meaningful
insights, and, more frequently, include meaningful
quotes (occasionally even from some real Christian
authors), but their actions towards family members who
have chosen to follow God on a path different from
their own, or members who have advocated a more truly
Christian modus operandum belie the "good intentions"
indicated by the publication of this book."
endqutoe.
Works for me.
Dakota8800
>OK Dakota,
>
>Have you the intelligence, compassion and empathy
>to deal with this? If so there might be some reason for
>considering you a member of the human race.
if ever there was a poor invitation to dialogue, it's here. ostrom, try reading
that back to yourself and ask yourself if you'd like to talk to someone who
introduces himself like that. u guys have no idea how pompous u come across in
this forum.
>In the first paragraph you ask to discuss Endangered
>on it's own merits. First, in the forward, there is no
>articulate definition of the author's proposed thesis.
>Even the forward is unsigned. Question, was the
>forward and the book written as indicated by the
>cover or was it ghosted by the esteemed Dr Moore and
>associates? Why not have JCA sign or acknowledge the forward?
u asking me? how should i know? who's Dr Moore? what's this got to do with the
content of the book? ostrom, put down the vodka and sober up before trying to
engage in serious discussion.
>First chapter. What is the meaning of Weisel's quotation?
>How does it relate to the material presented?
here's the quote: "The greatest evil in the world is not anger or hatred, but
indifference."
what's not to understand here, ostrom? which word don't u understand? anger?
hatred? indifference? or maybe it's evil u don't understand. that would be
revealing.
>Page 5, M. Albright's quote. So, what about it?
>As you hide behind your anonymity,
>it is difficult to frame a response to your concerns.
who's hiding? and how am i any more anonymous than u, ostrom. i have no idea
who u are or what you're really like. that's the way the net is. it's a place
where people can be whoever they want. they can appear articulate, intelligent,
witty, when in fact they're none of the above. they can appear to be spiritual
giants with profound religious insight when in fact they are social misfits who
can't even get along with their spouses, let alone their neighbors.
>Mr. Arnold continues to quote extremely controversial and
>violent public figures, a Mr. M.A.Jamal next. In reference
>back to your question about guns and violence, why
>didn't the author quote Mr. Jamal on his views about
>guns and the use of them? Mr. Jamal convicted killer
>who used a gun to kill a policeman.
>There is a paradox here, using as an example, a
>man prone to violence as a means to his ends,
>to illustrate the indifference of society to social problems.
don't speak about jamal until u have your facts straight. obviously you've
never bothered to study his case or his cause. talk about brainwashing, ostrom,
u appear to be a classic victim. u should learn to think for yourself.
>The author continues to bounce off the pin-ball rubbers of his game
>Endangered with unconnected dissertation on he and his
>spouses' visit to areas of violent discontent. He makes
>some very shallow and unsubstantiated charges about the
>misery and desolation. He fails to mention that this ethnic
>problem has been in existence for a hundred years or
>more and in the case of Iraq, for more than a thousand
>years.
i take it you've been to iraq yourself? perhaps placed yourself in harms way to
show concern for the suffering going on there? that you're therefore endowed
with authority to criticize arnold for his references to iraq? perhaps you've
also been to cuba, to chiapas, mexico, to northern ireland, or other hotspots?
share with us, ostrom, your insights based on this experience.
>Finally, your reference to Littleton, Co, I have had the
>misfortune to visit that town on occasion and found it,
>along with many other small, narrow-minded
>towns, an "in your face, what are you going to do
>about it?" attitude. Combined with this was
>a strong prevailing attitude by the "Christians"
>of the area that they were supreme and in control of
>every thing and every one about them.
here's where u really lose me. u visit a town and can make pronouncements like
that. talk about stereotyping. it's no wonder to me bruderhoff has given up
hope of reaching any meaningful reconciliation if you've got people like ostrom
spouting off. the proverbial loose cannon. ever heard the word "supercilious"?
dakota
Melchior Fros
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
>
> don't speak about jamal until u have your facts straight. obviously
you've
> never bothered to study his case or his cause. talk about
brainwashing, ostrom,
> u appear to be a classic victim. u should learn to think for yourself.
Notes by Mel Fros from the captioned TV Program “20/20” about Mumia Abu-
Jamal
Nov.(?) 1998
Mumia Abu-Jamal: aspiring black journalist; the accused now facing the
death penalty
William Cook: Mumia’s brother and driver of the VW.
Daniel Faulkner: slain police officer
Gary Bell: Faulkner’s partner
Leonard Weinglass: Jamal’s defense attorney
Judge Albert Sabo
Prosecutor: Joe McGills
Sam Donaldson: “20/20” reporter
Priscilla Durham and James Legrand: hospital security guards
William Singletary: defense witness
Sam Donaldson opens the program with a brief accounting of events:
Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, stops a VW on Locust
Str. one night in Dec. 1981. Later, officers responding to a call for
back-up assistance find officer Faulkner lying in a pool of blood. A
VW, belonging to William Cook, is parked close by. A wounded Jamal is
found sitting on the curb of the street.
Back-up officers arrive “45 seconds too late” to save Faulkner’s life.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is arrested at the scene of the murder.
Witness include a cab drivers, a pedestrian, and a motorist; all within
close range of the scene of murder. All of them give statements to the
police within 30 minutes of the officers’ arrivals. The reports are
similar. These witnesses say they saw Jamal run up and shoot a police
officer in the back. As the officer fell, he spun around, fired, and
wounded Jamal in the chest. Jamal then executed Faulkner at close
range, according to the witnesses.
Prosecutor McGill makes it clear there are three witnesses, a murder
weapon, and a confession. Gary Bell, Faulkner’s partner, heard Jamal
confess to the slayings at a hospital: “I shot the mother-f….er and I
hope he dies.”
Though he had no prior criminal record, the jury quickly found him
guilty and sentenced him to death. Mumia claims he is “absolutely
innocent of the charges he is charged with”.
Leonard Weinglass has been Jamal’s lawyer since 1992. He is known for
taking on previous human rights cases, including the well-
known “Chicago Seven” trial 30 years ago. Celebrities have generally
accepted Weinglass version of what happened.
Judge Albert Sabo is accused of stacking the trial against
Jamal. “When Judge Sabo enters the court room, the Constitution dies a
little” according to the president of the criminal justice bar.
Court reporter transcripts show that Jamal humiliated his own attorney,
disrupted court, and insulted and threatened the judge with violence.
Weinglass contends Jamal was provoked after being removed from court
during jury selection, and by not being granted access to witnesses and
evidence.
It is for this reason, according to Weinglass, that Jamal “spoke out in
his own defense”. In his opinion, it was the judge who silenced Mumia
wrongfully.
Weinglass disputes the eyewitnesses, the ballistic tests, and the
confession. He has an alternative version of what happened. In his
view, Jamal came upon the scene where his brother was being beaten by
an officer. Jamal was shot. Then a police officer was shot. The person
who shot the officer then fled, “as reported to police that night”
according to Weinglass.
BALLISTIC TEST
Proponents of Jamal’s claim the fatal bullet was from a .44 caliber
weapon and not from a .38 revolver found at the crime scene. Ballistic
tests were done and prove the bullet came from a .38 revolver.
The claim of a .44 weapon comes from a “hastily-written note” on a
pathologist’s report. The pathologist later testified he
was “guessing”; that he has no training in weapon caliber
determination. Police contend the slug has the markings consistent
with those of a .38 .
Weinglass does not believe the pathologist was just “guessing” and
thinks the issue of a .38 vs. a .44 should be played out in a court
room. Reporter Donaldson clarifies for viewers that this was done 3
years ago and Weinglass’ own ballistic expert testified it was a .38
slug.
CONFESSION
Weinglass contends that the testimony regarding the confession came two
months late (not disputed). It came from the slain officer’s partner
and another witnesses who wanted to be a police officer. He also
contends that one of three police officers there at the time of the
alleged confession wrote in his report that “the negro made no
comments.”
Slain officer Faulkner’s partner, Gary Bell, can not explain why he
waited so long to make a statement regarding the confession. He claims
his state of shock may have suppressed his memory.
Another witness, hospital security guard Priscilla Durham told the jury
she reported the confession to her boss the next day. Security Guard
James Legrand also heard the confession.
Donaldson concludes that if there was a conspiracy, then at least 8
persons must have been involved:
2 security guards
2 hospital investigators
2 police detectives
2 police officers
The theory of a conspiracy has been rejected by two courts of appeal.
WITNESSES
Weinglass has 4 witnesses who claim to have seen the killer run from
the scene of the crime.
The first, William Singletary, waits more than a decade before
testifying that the alleged shooter stepped from the VW, yelling and
screaming , shot the officer in the head, and then ran away.
Whereupon, Mumia Jamal came upon the scene, exclaims, “Oh, my God, we
don’t need this”, bends over the wounded officer and says, “Is there
anything I can do to help you?” Then, according to Singletary, the
officer’s gun , which was lying in his lap, “miraculously discharged”,
wounding Mumia in the chest.
Donaldson: “That’s incredibly!”
Weinglass: “He might be wrong in some of his timing; there’s no doubt
about that.”
Donaldson: “Timing? He’s telling a story which clearly from forensic
evidence could not have happened.”
Weinglass: “This is my point. The jury should have heard from
Singletary.”
Weinglass’ second witness is a cab driver in “plain view of the
murder”. The driver told the arriving police officer “the guy ran
away”. Those are his first words, according to Weinglass.
Donaldson explains to viewers the police report Weinglass quotes from
goes on to say, “the shooter did not get very far and then he fell”.
Weinglass’ third witness is a person high up in a hotel room, one block
away, who insisted she looked out and saw what happened _after_ police
help arrived. She testified she “saw someone running”; not “running
away”. When pressed upon this matter, Weinglass says it is “slightly
different from what she told the police.”
Weinglass’ 4rth witness is a prostitute standing on a street corner two
blocks of almost football -field-length away. She admits she was, in
drug lingo, “half a nickel bag high”. This person waited 14 years
before testifying. According to her testimony, two men jogged away
from the scene of the crime.
In contrast, prosecutor Joe McGills three key witnesses were all within
50 feet of the crime scene and gave essentially the same accounts to
three different police officers within 30 minutes of the murder. They
are Cynthia White, Robert Chobert and Michael Scanian. There versions
of what happened were recorded at 4:15 am; 4:26 am and 4:24am
respectively.
One additional witness, even closer at hand, Jamal’s brother William
Cook, driver of the stopped VW only said, “I didn’t have anything to do
with it.” Weinglass claims Cook knows the truth that can save his
brother but is unwilling to come forward because he is wanted by
police on a minor theft charge. Cook is now missing, according to
Weinglass.
None of these “holes” in the defense seem to bother Mumia’s
supporters. As Mumia Jamal says, “They can not stop me. This
revolution is my religion.”
Faulkner’s widow sees it otherwise: “Tell a lie; tell it big enough;
tell it often enough and it becomes the truth. And that is just what
happened.”
Melchior Fros
According to Arnold, he took himself out of "harms way" because of
tensions in the Middle East (Manitoba Radio Show). However, he was
willing to send cousin Franshart and his wife Veronica Arnold to Iraq
to serve as human shields.
It is understandable Christoph Arnold has an interest in the suffering
and tensions around the globe. But why does he not clean up his own
house first? The insights he might gain from doing so would conceivably
help him better understand the historic causes of suffering elsewhere.
Mel
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
> if ever there was a poor invitation to dialogue, it's here. ostrom, try reading
> that back to yourself and ask yourself if you'd like to talk to someone who
> introduces himself like that. u guys have no idea how pompous u come across in
> this forum.
And you come across as a studious, urbane sophisticate to whom the rest of us poor
readers turn when we really need to be guided onto the paths of righteous
understanding of reality. Thank you for being here for us when we need you!
Christoph Arnold is a mendacious coward, using the children of the Bruderhof to
deflect criticism of himself - as when he told WCVB (Boston) that the children made
the two-thousand plus harrassing phone calls. That was a LIE and it was COWARDLY to
blame the children instead of taking personal responsibility. How can one take
seriously a book by such an author on any subject? What example does he set for the
children of his flock? Clearly, the message is that it is OK to lie if Christoph
says you should do so. How can one dialogue with a liar?
That people do take him serious is simply the effect of repeating that lie (and
others) sufficiently often that people come to believe he is simply the pastor of a
pacifist church with lofty ideals and an adherance to the words of Jesus given at
the Sermon on the Mount. Joseph Goebbels had pretty much the same philosophy - if
you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will accept it as truth.
Abe Lincoln had another idea that applies - it starts out that you can "fool some
of the people part of the time."
Another instance of the HORRIBLE treatment of Bruderhof children is the denial of
opportunity to visit with ailing and dying parents. I recall one situation in
which, according to what I was told by a servant, Christoph would have personally
welcomed the only child of a deceased mother to her Bruderhof funeral, but it was
that mothers expressed wish (according to the servant) that her son NOT attend.
That was a lie - because her son had spoken with his mother about this very issue
prior to her death. She wanted him to attend.
Christoph is again a coward because he used the alleged words of a dead mother to
(attempt to) deny a son the legal right to attend the funeral. Why not come out and
clearly state his pastoral position on the matter?
I quote an excerpt from one of JCAs early funeral sermons:
> snip <
> But what Jesus means by these words that each one of us, especially when we are a
baptized brother or sister, that we > promise at baptism to take a firm stand
against all emotional ties to father, mother, wife, and children,
> snip <
(does anyone have more of this funeral oration they can share??)
So JCA believes that Jesus teaches that we must take a "firm stand" against
"emotional ties" to family. Christoph said it privately; why does he not publish
THIS Bruderhof "sad-news" misinterpetation of scripture to the world - openly? By
the way, and in context, he was praising the deceased when the words above were
spoken - for insisting that some of his children not come to his funeral.
Why was Christoph spiritually afraid to take open responsibilty for the very
policies his church espouses? Why does he not step forward and clearly state
Bruderhof policy towards its own children? My opinion is that they fear a reduction
of sales of their ghost-written books. Who would buy from a church with such a
violently anti-child policy?
And this policy is nothing short of VIOLENT. It is anti-child, it is anti-family.
It is the justification used to pull families apart - it is the policy used to
coerce and intimidate leavers into not telling the world about the outrageous
things the Bruderhof does in the name of God. It is used to force leavers to return
on bended knee so as to keep families together.
This is a policy that kills families and children are among the victims.
Dakota, we believe our information about the firearms is accurate - that the
Bruderhof was stockpiling rifles, carbines and ammunition for defence purposes as
late as 1997 or 1998. Answer please (as part of the dialogue):
1. Is that true?
2. Is it continuing today?
3. Does the presence of such weapons at the Bruderhof endanger Bruderhof children?
4. If not, why not?
Blair Purcell
David E. Ostrom
Dakota,In the real world, in which most of us live, it is impossible to dialogue with people who resort to slander, defamation, unfounded accusations and worse. YOU wanted a discussion of Endangered based on the merits of the book. I make two observations based on your previous postings in order better understand the phantom to whom I am responding. Then, I proceed to discuss the book based on what the book revealed to me. This is the normal, logical progression in a discussion. I would expect to have a response to my understanding of the book, not a typical Bruderhof (tm) ranting, personal attack on the opposition.
As regards to Littleton, you speak of what you know not! As you hide behind your anonymity, I see no need to post my record of service. JCA took along or sponsored the placing of these same "endangered" children he writes about, in potentially deadly circumstances. Further, I did not write the book, tout my wisdom of complex issues, Mr. Arnold did. Therefor, any need for justification or substantiation falls to Mr. Arnold as the instigator.
u asking me? how should i know? who's Dr Moore? what's this got to do
with the
content of the book? ostrom, put down the vodka and sober up before
trying to
engage in serious discussion.
The above has ALL to do with the discussion. The veracity of the written material is only as valid as the integrity of the composers. Your last sentence is direct out of Bruderhof(tm) 101 How to libel.
here's the quote: "The greatest evil in the world is not anger or hatred,
but
indifference."
what's not to understand here, ostrom? which word don't u understand?
anger?
hatred? indifference? or maybe it's evil u don't understand. that would
be
revealing.
I understand Mr. Weisel's quote, I don't understand why it was used in this chapter and in what context it applies to the author's ramblings. Mr. Arnold has said nothing relevant, new or authoritative. He has just assembled some rhetoric seasoned with some some emotional "shoot from the hip one liners" What I mean is. Mr. Arnold has not provided, new, original or thought provoking material worthy of a book. He ineffectively tries to promote his name with an assortment of emotional snippets with no educational, philosophical or spiritual value.
i take it you've been to iraq yourself? perhaps placed yourself in harms
way to
show concern for the suffering going on there? that you're therefore
endowed
with authority to criticize arnold for his references to iraq? perhaps
you've
also been to cuba, to chiapas, mexico, to northern ireland, or other
hotspots?
share with us, ostrom, your insights based on this experience.
As previously stated, until you are more forthcoming, I feel no obligation to justify my position. This discussion is supposed to be about Mr. Arnold's rambling dissertation on child endangerment which reads much like a pin-ball bouncing off the rubbers. As for his trip to Iraq, didn't he also take along some of his "endangered" children? Taking children into a war zone has all the rationality of social deviant knowing about compassion and care. Dakota, you seem to be infected with some of Mr. Arnold's "pin-ballitis". You challenge the opposition to discuss the book on it's merits and when we do, you become personally confrontational. It is not my responsibility to tout my efforts and successes in this forum.
here's where u really lose me. u visit a town and can make pronouncements
like
that. talk about stereotyping. it's no wonder to me bruderhoff has
given up
hope of reaching any meaningful reconciliation if you've got people
like ostrom
spouting off. the proverbial loose cannon. ever heard the word "supercilious"?
dakota
Well Dakota, when a group of people, whether it be Littleton or Woodcrest and the BC of NY Inc. assume that they have THE way and are directed by God to wage war against anyone who has the audacity to question their (not God's but their) belief, these groups/towns then believe anything is justified in order to win their war. What is more insidious is that these towns and groups are convinced that ANY deviance from what the governing body thinks is hearsay punishable by death. That is in direct opposition to what Mr. Arnold writes about, yet, what he and his governing body adhere to. If a group of people select out an individual to harass, tease, humiliate and abase while refusing that individual any recourse to justice or freedom, that individual is going to react. The more vicious the treatment received by the individual, the more violent the reaction of that individual. Littleton espouses Christianity and wants the world to believe they are just a little group of God fearing Christians, following Jesus' commandments. Problem is, they forgot about the one, (Luke 6:27), that reads "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..."
A town or a group is represented by its agents, representatives (religious), officers of the law, or elected officials. When a minister comments, "Oh, you are a (or from the State of) queers and faggots?" when hearing I am from California is an indication of bias. When an illegal, brutal assault has been committed by the "good boys" the "Christian" element and the law enforcement refuses to take action because, " you deviants (the complainant does not belong to the "recognized churches of that town) don't have any rights here!" When an official of a church, be it a deacon, elder or witness brother states that, "you represent the Devil incarnate. I would never let my family near you!" just because one differs in the fundamental question of Christianity by Grace or through action. There is much more but this is a small sample. The group/town has to accept responsibility for these events when they are brought to the public's attention and the public refuses to acknowledge it. Or worse, when the group/town suppresses the fact these events have and continue to happen!
One last observation, you have identified yourself as an "insider" to
the Bruderhof (tm) by your closing comment. Only the people intimately
close ( being the inside leadership) are aware of the Bruderhof(tm)
version of and use of the term "loose cannon" with reference to me.
I will not be intimidated by Richard Domer Sr., Joe Kiderling, Christian
Domer, Ben Zumpe, Pete Mathis or any other of the Bruderhof(tm) agents
into being silent about my beliefs and experiences. Be VERY careful
you do not expose yourself or your treasured Bruderhof(tm) to severe legal
problems! I mean criminal, not civil!
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
Melchior J Fros
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:27:06 -0400 "purcell family" <pur...@erols.com>
writes:
> What's a Zwiesel or a Lehmis??
A slingshot and clay bullets. If you are a fairly good shot you can
dispatch a racoon with these. Christoph was not part of that scene in
Paraguay, but others of his contemporaries were, and should be able to
help him learn how to shoot.
What's more, if target shooting is such a pleasure, why not line up some
pop cans...or spent light bulbs. Shooting at them is so much more
wholesome fun...no killing of God's creatures can be considered "fun" by
those professing to be of Anabaptist stock.
Mel
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
wche...@ime.net
Dakota Wrote:
> i take it you've been to iraq yourself? perhaps placed
> yourself in harms way to show concern for the suffering
> going on there? that you're therefore endowed with
> authority to criticize arnold for his references to iraq?
> perhaps you've also been to cuba, to chiapas, mexico,
> to northern ireland, or other hotspots?
I bet if he had his own corporate jet with his son flying it he might.
Revolutionary chic is different from being a revolutionary. If what I
hear is true, Christoph not only doesn't ride in the back of the bus, he
doesn't ride in the bus.
Wayne
Melchior Fros
>
> who's hiding? and how am i any more anonymous than u, ostrom.
Dear Dakota: Ostrum is as open as he can be in this forum. He writes
straight forward...he's sincere. He signs his name. He is trying to be
honest with his thoughts and emotions. You have to know his story to
understand where he comes from. I don't see him and "us" trying to be
what we are not. If you have evidence to the contrary, please point it
out.
I asked you a few days ago to explain why you think the quote you
picked is important and deserves further discussion. I need to leave
this forum for a while. I will be back. Meanwhile, I hope you can
demonstrate why the book "Endangered" deserves due consideration from
those endangered by the author and the Bruderhof he leads.
Sincerely, Mel Fros
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
> ostrom pontificates thus:
>
> >The author continues to bounce off the pin-ball rubbers of his game
> >Endangered with unconnected dissertation on he and his
> >spouses' visit to areas of violent discontent. He makes
> >some very shallow and unsubstantiated charges about the
> >misery and desolation. He fails to mention that this ethnic
> >problem has been in existence for a hundred years or
> >more and in the case of Iraq, for more than a thousand
> >years.
>
> i take it you've been to iraq yourself? perhaps placed yourself in harms way to
> show concern for the suffering going on there? that you're therefore endowed
> with authority to criticize arnold for his references to iraq? perhaps you've
> also been to cuba, to chiapas, mexico, to northern ireland, or other hotspots?
> share with us, ostrom, your insights based on this experience.
No, Dave hasn't been to those places. He's been to the Bruderhof and his insights
are based on THAT experience.
Let's face it, everybody has a cause. That Dave's (or mine) does not parallel yours
or the Bruderhofs is simply a fact of life. To state that that we have not placed
ourselves in harms way (death threats, the suicide of a loved one) as a result of
our contact with the Bruderhof is to ignore the simple facts. And our personal
concerns, Daves and mine, pale in comparison to the collective concerns of others.
So, going to Chiapas is great for the PR value in promoting sales of books - but we
don't have anything to sell over here. The truth is free.
Blair
Dakota8800
answers. while i can't answer from personal knowledge, i can say that i took
the time and interest to ask bruderhoff a few questions directly. my source
responded unequivocally to my direct question about the outrageous claims that
have been made about stockpiling weapons. i am pleased to state the obvious: it
has never happened and will never happen at bruderhoff.
purcell, your source is unreliable in the extreme.
incidently, when i told my contact that mr purcell was the one raising these
questions, he suggested that christian domer would be willing to speak with
purcell at any time about any questions he might have. why don't u try that,
purcell?
dakota
David E. Ostrom
i take it you've been to iraq yourself? perhaps placed yourself in harms way to
show concern for the suffering going on there? that you're therefore endowed
with authority to criticize arnold for his references to iraq? perhaps you've
also been to cuba, to chiapas, mexico, to northern ireland, or other hotspots?
share with us, ostrom, your insights based on this experience.
Let me convey another illustration of Mr. Arnold's compassion. I had the fortune(?) to attend school with him, sharing the bus from Woodcrest to Kingston High. At that time I was experiencing their treasured form of compassion dealing with children, that is auschless (sp?), the enforced TOTAL isolation of children from their families and playmates. One might ask, if in isolation how/why were you attending school? Easy (for them) I was a non-entity! In my case, the stricture was to "not speak with, associate with, in any shape way or form under any circumstance was I to acknowledge or to be acknowledged by the other youth or members of Woodcrest. Knowing this, Mr. Arnold taunted, teased, abased and abused another youth under similar stricture and me, knowing we couldn't respond without further troubles to ourselves. Finally, to my embarrassment and shame even today, I physically attacked Mr. Arnold in a fit of frustration. As I attacked him, his comment was, " Oh Dave, we are Christians, we do not do fight!" I have seen many other instances of where Mr. Arnold "pulls the wings off flies" to see what reaction he could get.
Regarding auschless, it is a particularly sadistic, brutal, indifference
to a child's welfare. This is/was used on children as young as 6 or 7 years
old. There was a previous posting alluding to this. I would add to that
posting, the interrogation was conducted by individuals who did not have
a good command of the native language of the child. ( Germans interrogated
the English and U.S., Americans {Canadian or U.S.} would interrogate the
Germans) These sessions lasted from a few hours to several days WITHOUT
THE PARENTS IN ATTENDANCE! In some cases there were several adults
in attendance, none of them the child's parents, and these adults would
interrogate the child in a manner reminiscent of Gestapo 'hearings". The
only way to stop the interrogation was to admit to whatever one was charged
with.
A child is placed in a room about 10 x 12 feet with nothing but the
furniture. All meals are brought to the child and the person bringing the
meals is not supposed to speak with or to the child other than to address
a "life threatening" issue. The period of confinement can be from a few
days to several weeks months! A by product of this punishment is that when
the child is returned to the group, if ever, the child then becomes the
object of ridicule and harassment, often instigated by the adult in charge
of that group. This is not information from a "source in the Bruderhof(tm)",
this is direct personal experience along with several of my family and
friends!
What say you to this Dakota?
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
> purcell writes at length, asking many questions, most of them assuming i have
> answers. while i can't answer from personal knowledge, i can say that i took
> the time and interest to ask bruderhoff a few questions directly. my source
> responded unequivocally to my direct question about the outrageous claims that
> have been made about stockpiling weapons. i am pleased to state the obvious: it
> has never happened and will never happen at bruderhoff.
That's not what I've heard and while it is difficult for the Bruderhof (never
impossible) to prove a negative, I still find it difficult to believe this
statement.
> purcell, your source is unreliable in the extreme.
Why?
> incidently, when i told my contact that mr purcell was the one raising these
> questions, he suggested that christian domer would be willing to speak with
> purcell at any time about any questions he might have. why don't u try that,
> purcell?
First of all, I don't have any questions. I have spoken to Mr. Domer several times
without being able to resolve my concerns and the concerns of others. I will not
speak to him again privately but am perfectly willing to do so in any open forum or
private meeting hosted by the professional mediator(s) of his first choice and my
(our) approval (or vice versa). Other representatives (to be named from both sides)
would have to be with us and the results of the meeting would have to be made
public. In advance of the meeting, I would expect full payment for the cost of the
2000 + harrassing phone calls and an apology for the couple whose names were placed
on little pink stickers inviting calls of a sexual nature into their home - where,
dare we say it, ENDANGERED (by filthy sex calls) young children live. THEN, we can
talk.
He has my phone number if he wishes to pursue these arrangements. Sounds like JCA
is attempting to send a boy to do what he hasn't the courage to do himself.
Christoph Arnold has no business writing a book on endangered children.
Blair Purcell
pur...@erols.com
pur...@erols.com wrote:
>
>
> Dakota8800 wrote:
>
> > incidently, when i told my contact that mr purcell was the one
raising these
> > questions, he suggested that christian domer would be willing to
speak with
> > purcell at any time about any questions he might have. why don't u
try that,
> > purcell?
>
> First of all, I don't have any questions. I have spoken to Mr. Domer
> several times
> without being able to resolve my concerns and the concerns of others.
> I will not speak to him again privately but am perfectly willing to do
> so in any open forum or private meeting hosted by the professional
> mediator(s) of his first choice and my (our) approval (or vice versa).
> Other representatives (to be named from both sides) would have to be
> with us and the results of the meeting would have to be made public.
By public, I mean all former members would have to have the opportunity
for input and those on the outside would have to have assurance that the
minutes of the proceedings would be accurately reported to all current
Bruderhof members. While no one on the outside could possibly guarantee
confidentiallity, it is not our purpose, speaking generally, to make the
results of such a meeting known to the wider world.
I suspect it would be better to simply state that "the Bruderhof and its
former members and their families met to discuss issues of mutual
concern. The results were encouraging (or not)." Professional mediators
could give us guidance on these "conditions."
Specific details would be kept confidential to the people involved but
fully "public" within those concerned.
> He has my phone number if he wishes to pursue these arrangements.
> Sounds like JCA is attempting to send a boy to do what he hasn't the
> courage to do himself.
Christoph is the elder; not Christian Domer.
Blair Purcell
pur...@erols.com
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:
> purcell writes at length, asking many questions, most of them assuming
> i have answers. while i can't answer from personal knowledge, i can
> say that i took the time and interest to ask bruderhoff a few
> question about the outrageous claims that have been made about
> stockpiling weapons. i am pleased to state the obvious: it
> has never happened and will never happen at bruderhoff.
>
From a previous post of mine:
quote:
Are you willing, under your own name (dakota just doesn't cut it for
credibility) to attest that the Bruderhof did NOT acquire rifles,
carbines and ammunition in 1996, 1997, and/or 1998? Are you willing to
put up a $10,000.00 bond, forfeit if I am wrong?
endquote.
Ebong Ebong
Let me clarify something that I just read. When Betty Chesley
just asked why the Nigerian men are kept from seeing there children?
You responded right of with ABUSE. What does the word ABUSE mean to
you? I think that you need to get your damn facts straight. I am
speaking on behalf of all of us. I have NEVER "ABUSED or NEGLECTED" my
children.
Since you are such buddies with the so called "LEADERS" why don't
you ask about when we call to come and visit or children what we are
told? Do you think this "RELIGION" shit will hold up in a court of law?
Hell No. Do you think I am scared of Child Support? Hell No. There is
Fathers Rights laws in this country and we will exercise our rights.
They would have to prove with substantial evidence that there is
ABUSE!!!!!!
All this smack that you are talking is bull and we will show
you what the word NIGERIAN means. That can't brainwash a NIGERIAN
childs mind to keep them from us. They are just wasting there damn
time. Stay clear, and make sure you know what in the hell you are
talking about first.
When our children see us in the court room and they come
running to there Papas' what do you think the judge will think then?
Oh. i forgot that is abuse. Like Joe K told me in Union Town that I
will never see my children again, I would guess again. Your just
wasting your time and I think that you need to hire a new lawyer, he is
giving you some dumb ass advice.
Look at the Elian case......let me guess that was abuse
also. The dad is with another women and they have a baby? Shame on
the government for letting him return to his father.
That goes to show you that we "FATHERS" have rights to our babies as
well. It took two to tango and now it takes to raise them. There are
plenty of divorce families here in the world. The children turn out to
be fine adults. So, you lighten up, chump.
Ebong
Dakota8800
>" MR. Dakota "
>
> Let me clarify something that I just read. When Betty Chesley
>just asked why the Nigerian men are kept from seeing there children?
>You responded right of with ABUSE. What does the word ABUSE mean to
>you? I think that you need to get your damn facts straight. I am
>speaking on behalf of all of us. I have NEVER "ABUSED or NEGLECTED" my
>children.
wow! inadvertently touched a raw nerve here. please accept my apologies. i
never intended to claim that u had abused your child. i don't recall what i
said, but i know i speculated at one point that perhaps there was abuse, which
would explain to me why bruderhoff might refuse visits. but again, that was
only speculation.
u clearly feel strongly about this, and i guess any father would.
> Since you are such buddies with the so called "LEADERS" why don't
>you ask about when we call to come and visit or children what we are
>told? Do you think this "RELIGION" shit will hold up in a court of law?
>Hell No. Do you think I am scared of Child Support? Hell No. There is
>Fathers Rights laws in this country and we will exercise our rights.
>They would have to prove with substantial evidence that there is
>ABUSE!!!!!!
i don't know family law, but i'm sure you're right.
> All this smack that you are talking is bull and we will show
>you what the word NIGERIAN means. That can't brainwash a NIGERIAN
>childs mind to keep them from us. They are just wasting there damn
>time. Stay clear, and make sure you know what in the hell you are
>talking about first.
again, my apologies if anything i said sounded presumptuous or inaccurate.
> When our children see us in the court room and they come
>running to there Papas' what do you think the judge will think then?
>Oh. i forgot that is abuse. Like Joe K told me in Union Town that I
>will never see my children again, I would guess again. Your just
>wasting your time and I think that you need to hire a new lawyer, he is
>giving you some dumb ass advice.
i'm not getting any advice from a lawyer. have u used the courts to try to
enforce your rights? i take it your lawyer feels u have a strong case.
> Look at the Elian case......let me guess that was abuse
>also. The dad is with another women and they have a baby? Shame on
>the government for letting him return to his father.
>That goes to show you that we "FATHERS" have rights to our babies as
>well. It took two to tango and now it takes to raise them. There are
>plenty of divorce families here in the world. The children turn out to
>be fine adults. So, you lighten up, chump.
believe me, i never intended to get in the middle of a custody matter between u
and bruderhoff. i certainly hope everything works out in the end. i do know
that family law can get pretty messy. how many kids are involved?
dakota
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
>
> wow! inadvertently touched a raw nerve here. please accept my apologies. i
> never intended to claim that u had abused your child. i don't recall what i
> said, but i know i speculated at one point that perhaps there was abuse, which
> would explain to me why bruderhoff might refuse visits. but again, that was
> only speculation.
Why don't you check your sources?
wche...@ime.net
>
> Why don't you check your sources?
Exactly and precisely what I was going to say.
Wayne
David E. Ostrom
believe me, i never intended to get in the middle of a custody matter between u
and bruderhoff. i certainly hope everything works out in the end. i do know
that family law can get pretty messy. how many kids are involved?dakota
Dakota,
If you had no intention of getting involved why post? To create more tension and adversity? To date you have NEVER in any of your postings offered a Christian solution, showed any signs of compassion or indicated any sense of honor. You continue to hide behind a mask of anonymity. From the direct responses I get from J.C.Arnold, I am lead to believe you and he are one and the same.
David E. Ostrom
Dakota8800
>Dakota,
>
>If you had no intention of getting involved why post?
>To create more tension and adversity?
not at all.i posted originally to speak out where i feel u have worked
yourselves into such a frenzy that your criticisms of bruderhoff no longer are
rational or accurate.
> To date you have NEVER in any of your postings
>offered a Christian solution, showed any signs of
>compassion or indicated any sense of honor.
oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered solutions and
shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments. i've encouraged time
out. reconsideration. accuracy when making claims about bruderhoff. all these
are rational, honorable concerns. or perhpas u believe u accomplish more by
ranting and raving to the point of lunacy?
>You continue to hide behind a mask of anonymity.
>From the direct responses I get from J.C.Arnold,
>I am lead to believe you and he are one and the same.
this is almost laughable. a more perverted mind than mine would be tempted to
make a game out of this: pretend to be inside bruderhoff and goad u to more
outlandish statements. unfortunately, this isn't a game.
and to purcell and chesley, let me say that i am indeed checking with my
sources. there's no point causing unecessary pain through public postings.
however, all indications so far suggest that the story of the nigerian is not
as simple as u would like to pretend. but i don't want to comment further than
that, at least here and now.
dakota
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
ostrom writes:>Dakota,
>
>If you had no intention of getting involved why post?
>To create more tension and adversity?not at all.i posted originally to speak out where i feel u have worked
yourselves into such a frenzy that your criticisms of bruderhoff no longer are
rational or accurate.
You wouldn't call us rabid, would you?? 8 ^ ) And, speaking of rationality, regard the correspondence from JCA to my wife and myself over the past couple of weeks.
I posted the following note to JCA with the promise of confidentiality if he answered the questions. He could have lied - and I would still have kept his response private. Read my note - his response follows:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 8886kinder [SMTP:8886k...@my-Deja.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:15 PM
> To: Christoph Arnold
> Subject: Honesty
>
> Christoph Arnold wrote:
>
> >> Blair to raise a child on the Bruderhof is a Challenge.
We cant be
> that bad. Otherwise you would have never married
your wife.
>
> I have often said that my wife's heritage
is certainly one of the most
> important reasons we married. I find
it extremely unfortunate she cannot
> effectively share that heritage with
our daughter.
>
> >> So read the book and write to me any B.S.
> that you would like. I hate it if people would agree
with me. Be as
> honest as Mumia and you would rock.
>
> Let me ask you three questions
- which I would expect you to answer
> honestly (since you brought
up the subject of honesty):
>
> 1. Did the Bruderhof make over
1700 harassing phone calls at my expense?
>
> 2. Did the Bruderhof attempt
to place some sort of listening device in
> Arlene Dawber's church in Kingston?
>
> 3. Did the Bruderhof wiretap
(a former minister's) home in western Maryland?
>
> Let's make it four questions:
>
> 4. Has the Bruderhof changed
its policies in regards to harassment and
> wiretapping efforts directed
towards former members?
>
> If you answer these questions,
I will keep your answers completely to
> myself and Margot. We will share
the answers with no one. If you can be
> honest with your answers, then
I will be as honest as Mumia, as you have
> suggested. Fair enough?
>
> And if I am as honest as Mumia,
you can be confident that what I've said
> about keeping your answers to
my questions to myself is true. Right?
>
> Blair
To which he responded thusly:
"Blair are you not proud of your wife who was raised in the Community?"
There seems to be some sort of short-circuit here. And he failed to answer the questions.
Here's another note from JCA:
Subject: Amen Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:59:33 -0400 From: Christoph Arnold To: pur...@erols.com Amen the truth is free: So there is still hope for Blair Purcell himself and for all of us. finally I have courage again
And another:
Subject: Wow Blair Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:04:17 -0400 From: Christoph Arnold To: pur...@erols.com
Wow Blair you really must have had a bad night's sleep. Hopefully tonight you can sleep better. We are rooting for you and Margot All the best.
And another:
Subject: Wow are you Blair and Margot on the Ball Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:06:06 -0400 From: Christoph Arnold To: pur...@erols.com I can hardly believe the positive atitude you Blair and Margot have on the book: "Endangered; Your Child in a Hostile World." Personally I think this book sucks and is just not worth mentioning at all. Your poor sorry yahoos have it all wrong get a freaking life
These are unedited quotations from Chairman Christoph. Those
who are collecting the wit and wisdom of the Bruderhof, take note. These
are valuable additions to your accumulated dreck.
I suspect those within the Bruderhof who are allowed computer access ( like Christian and Joe ) cringe when they read this trash here. But how in the world do you tell the elder to unplug and stop playing with his computer? Now that's a delicate matter - I don't envy them.
And Dakota was speaking of rationality??? Christoph has no business writing book about endangered children.
Blair Purcell
David E. Ostrom
ostrom writes:>Dakota,
>
>If you had no intention of getting involved why post?
>To create more tension and adversity?not at all.i posted originally to speak out where i feel u have worked
yourselves into such a frenzy that your criticisms of bruderhoff no longer are
rational or accurate.
> To date you have NEVER in any of your postings
>offered a Christian solution, showed any signs of
>compassion or indicated any sense of honor.oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered solutions and
shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments. i've encouraged time
out. reconsideration. accuracy when making claims about bruderhoff. all these
are rational, honorable concerns. or perhpas u believe u accomplish more by
ranting and raving to the point of lunacy?
>You continue to hide behind a mask of anonymity.
>From the direct responses I get from J.C.Arnold,
>I am lead to believe you and he are one and the same.this is almost laughable. a more perverted mind than mine would be tempted to
make a game out of this: pretend to be inside bruderhoff and goad u to more
outlandish statements. unfortunately, this isn't a game.
and to purcell and chesley, let me say that i am indeed checking with my
sources. there's no point causing unecessary pain through public postings.
however, all indications so far suggest that the story of the nigerian is not
as simple as u would like to pretend. but i don't want to comment further than
that, at least here and now.dakota
Dakota, why would the Bruderhof(tm) give you information or access
to personal information?
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
David E. Ostrom
ostrom writes:>Dakota,
>
>If you had no intention of getting involved why post?
>To create more tension and adversity?not at all.i posted originally to speak out where i feel u have worked
yourselves into such a frenzy that your criticisms of bruderhoff no longer are
rational or accurate.
> To date you have NEVER in any of your postings
>offered a Christian solution, showed any signs of
>compassion or indicated any sense of honor.oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered solutions and
shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments. i've encouraged time
out. reconsideration. accuracy when making claims about bruderhoff. all these
are rational, honorable concerns. or perhpas u believe u accomplish more by
ranting and raving to the point of lunacy?
You trivialize and mock the sufferings of hundreds and thousands of people in your self avowed attempt to goad distressed people into reacting in an un Christian manner. As posted previously, this was a trait of J.C.Arnold's, to goad and then sit back and say, "But my dear chap, we are Christians, we don't fight!".
>You continue to hide behind a mask of anonymity.
>From the direct responses I get from J.C.Arnold,
>I am lead to believe you and he are one and the same.this is almost laughable. a more perverted mind than mine would be tempted to
make a game out of this: pretend to be inside bruderhoff and goad u to more
outlandish statements. unfortunately, this isn't a game.
however all indications so far suggest that the story of the nigerian is notas simple as u would like to pretend. but i don't want to comment further thanthat, at least here and now. We have read some of the Nigerian's claims and reports. Those reports coincide with outside independent data that the Bruderhof cannot/will not acknowledge.
To date you have not answered these questions with a candid answer,
you have cited the "official" Bruferhof(tm) answer that we have all heard
since the events have occurred. What evidence, what proof do they provide
to counter our assertions? You have not satisfactorily answered the
pertinent questions below.
> 2. Did the Bruderhof attempt
to place some sort of listening device in
> Arlene Dawber's church in Kingston?
>
> 3. Did the Bruderhof wiretap
(a former minister's) home in western Maryland?
>
> Let's make it four questions:
>
> 4. Has the Bruderhof changed
its policies in regards to harassment and
> wiretapping efforts directed
towards former members?
Ask your sources this:
Has the Bruderhof sued anyone? Did the BRuderhof sue the Palm Grove
community? Were the members of the brotherhood aware of this happening?
Did brotherhood members make hundreds of call to the Children of the
Bruderhof 800 number? Did Christoph lie about who was responsible for
the calls in a television interview?
Are people denied visitation rights with family members inside the
Bruderhof simply for reading the KIT newsletter?
Does the Bruderhof have weapons on their hofs?
Does the presence of such weapons at the Bruderhof
endanger Bruderhof children?
What do your sources say about shots being fired into inhabited neighboring housing by Bruderhof(tm) personnel?
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
purcell family
Dakota8800 wrote:
>
>
> oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered solutions and
> shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments. i've encouraged time
> out. reconsideration.
What's to reconsider? Reconsideration requires new information. You claim ours is
inaccurate - what's the straight scoop? And, what happens during the time out? Any
possible initiatives from the Bruderhof leadership towards reconciliation? Or just
a breather so they can consolidate, regroup and again go on the attack? The time
for time-outs is past unless a positive gesture is perceived and believed. That's
a tough assignment.
> accuracy when making claims about bruderhoff.
Supply truthful rebuttals to what I (we've) said.
> all these
> are rational,
Rational if you provide useful information.
> honorable concerns.
Honor? Come on now - we're talking about the leadership of the Bruderhof here.
> or perhpas u believe u accomplish more by
> ranting and raving to the point of lunacy?
Your rants are worse than my rants.
Blair Purcell
David E. Ostrom
> Dakota8800 wrote:
>
>
> > or perhpas u believe u accomplish more by
> > ranting and raving to the point of lunacy?
>
> Your rants are worse than my rants.
>
> Blair Purcell
Dakota,
I have been re-reading and thinking about this thread of postings regarding the
Bruderhof(tm). You quoted scripture from the Christian Bible in the opening salvo. It
is interesting to see how far this has degenerated. I was tempted to introduce a
thought then but held off. I will now put it forth to you..
Galatians 5:25, "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have
no self conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another." Just as KIT was
born out of the Bruderhof's baiting the abused "outers", provoking cynicism and anger,
your postings have done nothing but, as you have admitted, "goaded" me/us into un
Christian behavior. I make no excuses for my self, I did not listen to the Spirit,
rather I responded to your childish, ignorant, libelous hate provoking comments. At
this point, I shall continue to rebut your inaccuracies but only to the facts as you
state them God have mercy on you!
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
wche...@ime.net
> oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered
> solutions and shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments.
> i've encouraged time out. reconsideration. accuracy when
> making claims about bruderhoff.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, I have checked the accuracy of the
events I have reported -you have not commented on them or answered the
awkward questions I have raised. Your only "solution" is for the
Bruderhof's critics to stop criticizing the Bruderhof. I'll offer a
solution: The Bruderhof leadership should admit to the specific provable
offenses they have committed, make things right with the parties
involved.
> and to purcell and chesley, let me say that i am indeed
> checking with my sources. there's no point causing
> unecessary pain through public postings. however, all
> indications so far suggest that the story of the nigerian
> is not as simple as u would like to pretend. but i
> don't want to comment further than that, at least here
> and now.
What are you suggesting, that the Bruderhof is perfectly justified in
keeping these men from seeing their children? Unless they have a
restraining order from the courts they have no such right.
Well it's really no use arguing with you as I still have no evidence
whatsoever that you aren't a fictitious character created by one of the
Bruderhofers. I see that this is the only news group you ever post to.
wche...@ime.net
> > Date:
> > Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:06:06 -0400
> > From:
> > Christoph Arnold
> > To:
> > pur...@erols.com
> >
> > I can hardly believe the positive atitude you Blair and Margot have
>> on the book: "Endangered; Your Child in a Hostile World." Personally
>> I think this book sucks and is just not worth mentioning at all.
>> Your poor sorry yahoos have it all wrong get a freaking life
Isn't it a bit strange that Christoph, as an author, would write to
someone that his own book "sucks"? Or is he just laughing all the way
to the bank?
> (Blair): I suspect those within the Bruderhof who are allowed computer
> access ( like Christian and Joe ) cringe when they read this trash
> here. But how in the world do you tell the elder to unplug and stop
> playing with his computer? Now that's a delicate matter - I don't
> envy them.
Seeing the letters you've received from Christoph, and the letters we
have received from Christoph (and we haven't posted all of those gems
here), I have wondered why they haven't taken away his computer yet.
> And Dakota was speaking of rationality??? Christoph has no business
> writing book about endangered children.
Obviously.
Betty Chesley
purcell family
wche...@ime.net wrote:
dakot...@aol.com (Dakota8800) wrote:> oh but ostrom you're not reading carefully then. i have offered
> solutions and shown signs of compassion, just not for your arguments.
> i've encouraged time out. reconsideration. accuracy when
> making claims about bruderhoff.I can't speak for anyone but myself, I have checked the accuracy of the
events I have reported -you have not commented on them or answered the
awkward questions I have raised. Your only "solution" is for the
Bruderhof's critics to stop criticizing the Bruderhof. I'll offer a
solution: The Bruderhof leadership should admit to the specific provable
offenses they have committed, make things right with the parties
involved.
I would agree with that. It could have been so simple and so private.
> and to purcell and chesley, let me say that i am indeed
> checking with my sources. there's no point causing
> unecessary pain through public postings. however, all
> indications so far suggest that the story of the nigerian
> is not as simple as u would like to pretend. but i
> don't want to comment further than that, at least here
> and now.What are you suggesting, that the Bruderhof is perfectly justified in
keeping these men from seeing their children? Unless they have a
restraining order from the courts they have no such right.
Ahh, but the RIGHT of the church to deny parents their basic rights is the right at question. Seems to me that any church that does that is on perilous ground. Time will tell.
Read the latest KIT issue on how the Nigerian men were excommunicated by fax (ain't technology wonderful??) during a power struggle between the Nigerians at Palm Grove and the Bruderhof in New York:
http://www.perefound.org/KIT7_00.html
Here's a quote from the Nigerian pastor:
Another meeting was convened at 10 am. Steve Wiser read a fax from Christian Domer by order of Christoph Arnold stating that Inno and Mary Idiong, Joe Idiong and Enobong Ebong were excluded from the Brotherhood. Steve also told the brotherhood that if there was anyone who was loyal to Inno or Enobong, they should leave the Brotherhood. In other words, anyone who joined the Church because of Inno or Enobong, they should leave.
Unquote.
And an example of chicanery:
Quote:
Thursday June 16th:
Today was another April fool type of day, like April 1st. Steve Wiser brought a fax, claiming it originated from Jake of Crystal Springs. The fax read as follows:
"Dear Brother Inno,
"In the name of Christ, I greet you and plead with you that you consider in haste coming to Woodcrest. I would so love to meet you together with Sam Waldner (Decker), Sam Kleinsasser (Glenway), and Mike Wollman (Springhill) and Christoph Arnold with the brothers in Woodcrest. Then we could resolve the issues that are causing such disunity and separation. Longing in love to hear from you very soon.
"Your brother, Uncle Jake"
This letter was proven to be a fake when Travis Kleinsasser called his grandfather to ask whether or not he, Travis, should leave Palmgrove. That fax message did not come from Jake Vetter. This again illustrates the dishonesty practiced by Woodcrest.
Unquote.
Blair
David E. Ostrom
I have finally completed my review of Endangered your child in a hostile world purportedly written by J.C.Arnold. Mr. Arnold attempts to address a very complex subject by identifying eight descriptions of social behavior, then using emotionally charged examples, show how these eight descriptions create a hostile environment. The eight description are indifference, materialism, success, emotion, conduct, individualism, respect and freedom.
Mr. Arnold's sweeping analysis fails in it's basic simplicity. Beginning
in chapter one, he presents a scenario Mr. Arnold introduces a couple who
are apparently trying to decide whether to begin a family or not. Mr.
Arnold's choice to present this couple's situation is vague and unclear
as they are not indifferent to their child. Mr. Arnold then proceeds to
over worked rhetoric condemning the United States and the world for, in
his opinion, their indifference to children. Mr. Arnold cites news clippings
and reports on child abuse and other atrocities which have been exhaustively
reported previously.
Mr Arnold fails to apply the other seven descriptions of causation of
a hostile environment in this presentation of hostility. If one can wade
through the simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip one-liner emotional dissertation
Mr. Arnold presents, one finds the entire book repeated as the first chapter
in varied form.
Mr. Arnold does not develop his thesis of how the eight descriptions
of social behavior effect child endangerment. Mr. Arnold has missed a great
opportunity to write an authoritative book on child endangerment through
his lack of understanding the complex interaction of the other seven social
description on the one he is dealing with. Example, serious analysis begs
the question, "How much effect and influence do materialism, success, emotion,
conduct, individualism, respect and freedom in creating the situation of
indifference?" This can be applied to each chapter. The answer is nada,
nothing. It appears that Mr. Arnold randomly selected eight emotionally
charged news items, spiced it up with some personal narrative, then presented
the entire package as a nugget of wisdom. Far from it, readers beware,
your money spent would be better spent in subscribing to the Star
or Enquirer as a source of information or news!
One last observation, the concept of a hostile world is valid. The world is hostile! In raising a child, parents must know this and prepare their children to function in socially acceptable ways in this hostile world. Mr. Arnold apparently does not understand the fact the human world is very hostile. Mr. Arnold, in his simplistic approach to the dangers children face in today's world ignores this basic fact of hostility, proceeds to ignore the interaction of various factors that significantly influence the facet of endangerment he is discussing.
Respectfully,
Dave Ostrom
Dakota8800
in part:
>If one can wade through the simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip one-liner
>emotional dissertation Mr. Arnold presents, one finds the entire book
>repeated as the first chapter in varied form.
>Mr. Arnold has missed a great opportunity to write an authoritative
>book on child endangerment....
>readers beware, your money spent would be better spent in
>subscribing to the Star or Enquirer as a source of information or news!
>Mr. Arnold apparently does not understand the fact the human world is
>very hostile. Mr. Arnold, in his simplistic approach to the dangers
>children face in today's world ignores this basic fact of hostility,
>proceeds to ignore the interaction of various factors that significantly
>influence the facet of endangerment he is discussing.
here's a classic example of the type of rhetoric that prompted me to get
involved in this discussion to begin with. i gotta say it again: u have become
so frenzied in your bruderhoff bashing that u can't see clearly at all anymore.
the fact remains that anyone reading this book on its own merits has to admit
that it's a groundbreaking book and is going to do enormous good in the world.
the reviews that are appearing elsewhere speak for themselves. anyone involved
in education or parenting has to recognize it.
isn't it possible for at least some of u to admit that the book, dammit, is
good? have u become so fixated on the negative that u can't recognize any good
at all anymore? what ostrom writes in his review is so cavalier and
ill-informed that it would seem to me u guys would be embarrassed to be
associated with that kind of thinking. it hurts your cause immensely. DON'T U
SEE THAT? why is this obvious only to me? (or maybe i'm the only one dumb
enough to try to inject some reason and balance into this discussion).
dakota
wche...@ime.net
"dakota" wrote:
> isn't it possible for at least some of u to admit that the book,
> dammit, is good? have u become so fixated on the negative that u can't
> recognize any good at all anymore?
When the Bruderhof's and Mr. Arnold's walks match their talk, maybe then
we will be able to see something good. When the expelled Nigerian
fathers can see their own children in the communities, when outside
family members can see their Bruderhof families and aging parents in
the communities, when the light of Christ shines so brightly that there
is no question, THEN there will be recognition! Otherwise, it is only
words.
>what ostrom writes in his review is so cavalier and
> ill-informed that it would seem to me u guys would be embarrassed to
> be associated with that kind of thinking. it hurts your cause
> immensely. DON'T U SEE THAT? why is this obvious only to me? (or maybe
> i'm the only one
> dumb enough to try to inject some reason and balance into this >
discussion).
You flatter yourself. You are only dumb enough to believe in a system
gone bad and dumb enough to think you can fool everyone reading here.
Mr.Arnold has no business writing a book about endangered children until
he cleans up in his own house first.
wche...@ime.net
> here's a classic example of the type of rhetoric that
> prompted me to get involved in this discussion to begin
> with. i gotta say it again: u have become so frenzied in your
> bruderhoff bashing that u can't see clearly at all
> anymore.
> the fact remains that anyone reading this book on its own
> merits has to admit that it's a groundbreaking book and
> is going to do enormous good in the world.
Oh, I doubt that it's really groundbreaking. An in any cas i believe
sincerely that a book of thais sort can't simply be read "on it's own
merits". If the author (who no doubt was not Christoph Arnold) is not
sincere and honest in what he writes, then how can the analysis and
advice in the book be trusted to have any true merits. The "success" of
such a book only goes to prove that anyone can write a book -and anyone
so desiring can market a book.
> the reviews that are appearing elsewhere speak for
> themselves. anyone involved in education or parenting
> has to recognize it.
And I think perhaps anyone writing reviews for the book should recognize
the degree of fraud involved in the Bruderhof's attempt to market
itself. I hope the sort of discussions we are seeing here will come to
their attention. We know at least one reviewer who has begun to pay
attention to the man behind the curtain.
> isn't it possible for at least some of u to admit that the book,
> dammit, is good?
I haven't read it. Send me a copy and I will give an honest review.
> ... u guys would be embarrassed to be associated with
> that kind of thinking. it hurts your cause immensely.
How are "us guys" associated with that kind of thinking. Dave is not "in
unity" with us, we are not even members of the same church or any group.
So in what way are we "associated" with Dave other than sharing common
concerns and experiences. He has his opinions, I have mine, my wife even
has hers. You do sound more convincingly like a Bruderhofer everytime
you lump the writers on this forum into one unified group with one
cause. It was that mentality and attitude toward the Bruderhof's
"enemies" that sickened me when I was still in residence there.
> DON'T U
> SEE THAT?
See what?
> why is this obvious only to me?
You have a unique perspective, one that we seldom see on this newsgroup
We only see it when some Bruderhofer writes in (usually under some false
identity).
> or maybe i'm the only one dumb enough to try to inject some
> reason and balance into this discussion.
Written with true humility and a real open heartedness and open
mindedness.
> dakota
I ask again, who are you really?
I am,
Wayne Chesley (my real name)
Honesty Counts!
David E. Ostrom
Wayne and Betty,
Thank you-
Dave Ostrom
David E. Ostrom
ostrom, writing a review of arnold's new book on children and education, writes
in part:
>If one can wade through the simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip one-liner
>emotional dissertation Mr. Arnold presents, one finds the entire book
>repeated as the first chapter in varied form.
Reviewed on it's merits Endangered.. does not develop the thesis of Child Endangerment. There are specific references to isolated cases of abuse and or endangerment but there has been no development as to how the eight descriptions apply in each case and how the effects and influences of Mr. Arnold's chosen parameters (descriptions) interact in each case.
Example, in the second chapter, "Material Child", the choice for or against abortion, if that is what Mr. Arnold was trying to imply by the conversation (hypothetical or real?) between the student and professor doesn't really fall in this chapter, rather a more appropriate would have been Indifference, Deeds or Reverence. This related back to the first Chapter, Indifference. What is the perception of the potential parents regarding reverence of birth? What effect does individualism have on the couple's perceived scope of options? In chapters one and two, what are the parent's (or potential parent's) motivations for being where they are? By a simplistic approach, using a different case study for each description, he fails to develop how the descriptions effect and have influence on child endangerment It is very easy for people who live in a closed society to make judgment calls about people in the "real world" where life and death decisions have to be made daily. In the closed community, financed through the efforts and support of people outside that community, the individual does not have to make that choice, just follow the dictates of the leaders, right or wrong.
>Mr. Arnold apparently does not understand the fact the human world is
>very hostile. Mr. Arnold, in his simplistic approach to the dangers
>children face in today's world ignores this basic fact of hostility,
>proceeds to ignore the interaction of various factors that significantly
>influence the facet of endangerment he is discussing.
. DON'T UDon't see what Dakota? What is obvious? I stated in the review why I did not believe the author developed his thesis. I cited examples of the author's lack of application and failure to develop the thesis.
SEE THAT? why is this obvious only to me? (or maybe i'm the only one dumb
enough to try to inject some reason and balance into this discussion).
Do you disagree, do you believe the world is a warm, fuzzy, safe, touchy-feely world? Or do you disagree that children must be raised in such a manner they are capable of functioning in this world?
dakotaThere are many approaches to discussing the book Endangered... , philosophical, religious, as a social concern, politically or emotionally. As I have stated, I am reviewing Endangered... on it's merits. To date, I have reviewed strictly on the scholarly value. If one reviews it from a Christian perspective, it again is a total failure as there is no acknowledgment of scripture.
Sincerely,
Dave Ostrom
Paul Fox
news:20000718090636...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> anyone reading this book on its own merits has to admit
> that it's a groundbreaking book and is going to do enormous good in the
world.
involved
> in education or parenting has to recognize it.
Groundbreaking? Hardly! The book is a patchwork of quotes from other
peoples' writings. This ground has been thoroughly plowed, planted, and
harvested by more original writers. Arnold has nothing to offer that has
not been said better and more clearly by others.
Having read the book, I can say honestly that I would have said the same
about it no matter who the author happened to be. Nor do I agree with those
who suggest that Charles Moore actually wrote it. Charles can write much
better than that.
Paul
Dakota8800
frustrated by what i read in this forum. since my last posting i have heard
from several who regularly (i assume) monitor this discussion and who share my
exasperation with the narrow-mindedness frequently displayed here. these people
have given up trying to "dialogue" here.
chesley (or was it purcell): you chide arnold for "playing" on his computer and
saying things that might embarrass bruderhoff. i gotta tell u, it appears that
u might apply this to yourself. u spend serious time at the computer and some
of your writings, no doubt, bring embarrassment to your family, no?
chesley writes about "endangered":
>The "success" of
>such a book only goes to prove that anyone can write a book -and anyone
>so desiring can market a book.
okay, chesley: u do it. go ahead. write a book half as good as this one and
i'll buy u a case of bud (or your choice of beer).
>And I think perhaps anyone writing reviews for the book should recognize
>the degree of fraud involved in the Bruderhof's attempt to market
>itself. I hope the sort of discussions we are seeing here will come to
>their attention. We know at least one reviewer who has begun to pay
>attention to the man behind the curtain.
u referring to ostrom, or a serious, published reviewer?
>> isn't it possible for at least some of u to admit that the book,
>> dammit, is good?
>
>I haven't read it. Send me a copy and I will give an honest review.
shame on u. pontificating on a book you haven't bothered to read. i am
genuinely surprised, no shocked. after all this, i honestly assumed u had read
it.
>You have a unique perspective, one that we seldom see on this newsgroup
that's why i bothered to write in the first place. now i'm learning why there
are so few who bother to comment unless they share your narrow-minded views.
dakota
wche...@ime.net
> it is with considerable relief that i can report that i'm
> not the only one frustrated by what i read in this forum.
> since my last posting i have heard from several who regularly
> (i assume) monitor this discussion and who share my
> exasperation...
Greet them for me. Encourage them to write, either to this forum or to
me directly. _Unless they are not permitted to write to me?
> these people have given up trying to "dialogue" here.
Because some folks who write to this list don't think the Bruderhof and
Christoph Arnold are so keen as they think?
> your writings, no doubt, bring embarrassment to your family, no?
No.
> okay, chesley: u do it. go ahead. write a book half as good as this
> one and i'll buy u a case of bud (or your choice of beer).
I don't have the ghost writing team and financial resources that
Christoph Arnold does to propel me to fame as a beloved author. I don't
want either in any case.
> We know at least one reviewer who has begun to pay
> >attention to the man behind the curtain.
>
> u referring to ostrom, or a serious, published reviewer?
I'm referring to a well known Christian author and speaker whom the
Bruderhof used to ask for reviews of Christoph's books. Said reviewer
looked a little more closely into the Bruderhof.
> shame on u. pontificating on a book you haven't bothered to read. i am
> genuinely surprised, no shocked. after all this, i honestly assumed u
had read
> it.
I have not pontificated on the book or the merits of its contents, I
have written about it's authorship and the organization behind its
marketing. It is because of its authorship that I can't take the book
seriously, no matter what the content. Unless, are you hinting, that
Christoph admits to his being wrong (and his father before him) in his
role in separating children from their families. That would be worth
reading indeed.
If my local library gets a copy I will likely read it.
> >You have a unique perspective, one that we seldom see on this
> > newsgroup
>
> that's why i bothered to write in the first place. now i'm learning
> why there are so few who bother to comment unless they share your >
narrow-minded views.
I / we don't own this news group. I assumed that few people post the
Bruderhof "party line" because so few Bruderhofers are allowed access to
the internet, particularly to sources of information which contradict
what their leaders are telling them.
You must be highly trusted. I don't think you are Christoph, perhaps you
are Joe Keiderling? Or maybe one of their collagers (do they permit
their young people to go to college anymore?). We could dialogue better
if we were all honest and open about our identities.
Wayne Chesley
pur...@erols.com
am
> > genuinely surprised, no shocked. after all this, i honestly assumed
u
> had read
> > it.
>
> I have not pontificated on the book or the merits of its contents, I
> have written about it's authorship and the organization behind its
> marketing. It is because of its authorship that I can't take the book
> seriously, no matter what the content.
Absolutely - Christoph is the elder of a so-called religious community
that condones and encourages the breaking up of families on the basis
of expediency and what the leadership perceives as being in the best
interest of the church rather than the interest of helpless children
caught in power struggles beyond their comprehension.
And this man writes about the endangerment of children in a hostile
world? As a first step towards cleaning up his own back yard, JCA
should reach out to the Nigerian fathers and encourage them to come to
visit their children on a regular basis without requiring them to bow
down to the church on bended knee. The issue of a child's relationship
to its parent is far more important than whether the Nigerians return
to the fold of this arrogant family-killing church.
Christoph has no business writing about endangered children until he
stops endangering those in his flock.
Blair Purcell
David Ostrom
Paul Fox wrote in message ...
. Nor do I agree with those
>who suggest that Charles Moore actually wrote it. Charles can write much
>better than that.
>
>Paul
Paul,
Maybe Charlie did write it but had to "tone it down" so it would be a
believeable paper? :-)
Dave Ostrom