Thanks for the comment but I have a question: does possessing a gun and using it to intimidate, as you say, mean a person is violent or has the potential for being violent?
I don't doubt that there were some gun toting folks, waysider; I knew of certain bodyguards back in 1976-1977 who carried firearms to protect VP when a bunch of us went to Minnesota for a meeting.
Now if my friend had asked whether TWI PROMOTES violence publically as part of their dogma which thinking back on the context of our conversation is really what she meant, my "No" seems accurate not only regarding "the old VP days" but also for the version of TWI that exists today.
I do remember there were teachings (1970-1987) that included something like this: If we lived in Old Testament times, we could execute the unbelievers like Israel did.
I find that alarming and disgusting at best.
On TV I hear similar allusions cited on the fundamentalist/evangelist megachurch channels. Tomorrow is Sunday...maybe I'll tune in and get a few examples...maybe I won't. I have other things to do.
It may be a thin line, but there is a line between those who would without hesitation use violence and those who intimidate with the threat or implication of violence.
Most of what I observed in TWI, and the stories from others seem to be the same, is that many TWI "leaders" were bullies, but didn't have the guts to back up their tough words with tough actions.
Let's not overlook that small children were beaten with wooden spoons. There are enough threads here about the violence inflicted on little kids: beaten till badly bruised; beaten till spoons broke across their little bodies.
After that came the systematic beating down of women, claiming that they must be subject to their husbands. This involved severe emotional violence, bullying and intimidation. Physical violence was also perpetrated against some women by their husbands. If women dared to complain to Branch or Limb Coords, who was supported? The men! Who was told to be more submissive and not provoke fights? The women! Therefore, it seems clear that TWI did promote violence. Nothing was done to rein in violent males; on the contrary, violent males were encouraged; were told to exercise authority within their own households.
Two Way Corps women of my close acquaintance came home to find their husbands had guns ready which they threatened to use. Would those men have done that? Dunno, the women fled, not wishing to find out, but believing so because of the level of physical violence already shown to them and the lack of support from "higher" leadership. The incidents were years and hundreds of miles apart. It wasn't one cranky individual LC who was endorsing violent behavior.
Thanks for the comment but I have a question: does possessing a gun and using it to intimidate, as you say, mean a person is violent or has the potential for being violent?
I don't doubt that there were some gun toting folks, waysider; I knew of certain bodyguards back in 1976-1977 who carried firearms to protect VP when a bunch of us went to Minnesota for a meeting.
Now if my friend had asked whether TWI PROMOTES violence publically as part of their dogma which thinking back on the context of our conversation is really what she meant, my "No" seems accurate not only regarding "the old VP days" but also for the version of TWI that exists today.
I do remember there were teachings (1970-1987) that included something like this: If we lived in Old Testament times, we could execute the unbelievers like Israel did.
I find that alarming and disgusting at best.
On TV I hear similar allusions cited on the fundamentalist/evangelist megachurch channels. Tomorrow is Sunday...maybe I'll tune in and get a few examples...maybe I won't. I have other things to do.
The CRIME of "Threatening and Intimidating" is, in many instances a felony.
Arizona Revised Statutes cover this in Title 13 (Criminal Code), in Chapter 12 (Assault and related offenses). In other words, legally speaking, it is considered violent crime.
Well, I don`t know about physical violence to others, but within the family, that I was told (and believed) to never give my husband a *reason* to lift a hand to me, that if he ever were to resort to violence, undoubtedly that it was my fault. I hadn`t known when to shut up, or hadn`t been sharp or whatever.
Arizona Revised Statutes cover this in Title 13 (Criminal Code), in Chapter 12 (Assault and related offenses). In other words, legally speaking, it is considered violent crime.
Recommended Posts
waysider
Make no mistake.
VPW had armed thugs that he dispatched to threaten trouble makers.
Corporate meetings were held with firearms openly displayed to intimidate any non-compliant attendees.
I believe that qualifies them, at the very least, as a POTENTIALLY violent organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thanks for the comment but I have a question: does possessing a gun and using it to intimidate, as you say, mean a person is violent or has the potential for being violent?
I don't doubt that there were some gun toting folks, waysider; I knew of certain bodyguards back in 1976-1977 who carried firearms to protect VP when a bunch of us went to Minnesota for a meeting.
Now if my friend had asked whether TWI PROMOTES violence publically as part of their dogma which thinking back on the context of our conversation is really what she meant, my "No" seems accurate not only regarding "the old VP days" but also for the version of TWI that exists today.
I do remember there were teachings (1970-1987) that included something like this: If we lived in Old Testament times, we could execute the unbelievers like Israel did.
I find that alarming and disgusting at best.
On TV I hear similar allusions cited on the fundamentalist/evangelist megachurch channels. Tomorrow is Sunday...maybe I'll tune in and get a few examples...maybe I won't. I have other things to do.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It may be a thin line, but there is a line between those who would without hesitation use violence and those who intimidate with the threat or implication of violence.
Most of what I observed in TWI, and the stories from others seem to be the same, is that many TWI "leaders" were bullies, but didn't have the guts to back up their tough words with tough actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Most bullies don't follow through with tough actions. That's what mindless minions are for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Let's not overlook that small children were beaten with wooden spoons. There are enough threads here about the violence inflicted on little kids: beaten till badly bruised; beaten till spoons broke across their little bodies.
After that came the systematic beating down of women, claiming that they must be subject to their husbands. This involved severe emotional violence, bullying and intimidation. Physical violence was also perpetrated against some women by their husbands. If women dared to complain to Branch or Limb Coords, who was supported? The men! Who was told to be more submissive and not provoke fights? The women! Therefore, it seems clear that TWI did promote violence. Nothing was done to rein in violent males; on the contrary, violent males were encouraged; were told to exercise authority within their own households.
Two Way Corps women of my close acquaintance came home to find their husbands had guns ready which they threatened to use. Would those men have done that? Dunno, the women fled, not wishing to find out, but believing so because of the level of physical violence already shown to them and the lack of support from "higher" leadership. The incidents were years and hundreds of miles apart. It wasn't one cranky individual LC who was endorsing violent behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
when you paste the embed code, go to post options at the bottom and select "auto line break" instead of "HTML off"
<object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param'>http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=how_the_mind_works;event=TED2007;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=how_the_mind_works;event=TED2007;"></embed></object>
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Spiritually speaking this is how I now see The Way International and other Cults.
People searching for Truth ..and end up on the side of the road with an AIDS like virus if you will dying of spiritual malnutrician!
<< Proverbs 7 >>
King James Bible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee.
2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.
3 Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart.
4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:
5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.
6 For at the window of my house I looked through my casement,
7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
8 Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
9 In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:
10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,
14 I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.
19 For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey:
20 He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
22 He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
23 Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.
24 Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth.
25 Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths.
26 For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her.
27 Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Yin and the Yang.
or two sides of the same coin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and if I might add.. they don't, unless..
1. They are convinced that they will achieve the desired "result"
2. There are no substantial "penalties" for doing so..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The impression I got, all those years ago, was that these guys weren't bullies, they were hired thugs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
hhmmm. . . kinda like "why the stay" . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the key difference between bullies and hired thugs.. the bullies are self-employed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That's gotta make it rough when trying to get health-insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Even tougher getting life insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The CRIME of "Threatening and Intimidating" is, in many instances a felony.
Arizona Criminal Code on Threatening or Intimidating
Arizona Revised Statutes cover this in Title 13 (Criminal Code), in Chapter 12 (Assault and related offenses). In other words, legally speaking, it is considered violent crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well, I don`t know about physical violence to others, but within the family, that I was told (and believed) to never give my husband a *reason* to lift a hand to me, that if he ever were to resort to violence, undoubtedly that it was my fault. I hadn`t known when to shut up, or hadn`t been sharp or whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.