-3  -

You wrote:
“That is patently insensitive and offensive because you make no argument that the claims are definitely wrong. Ironically you later state ‘a rush to judgment, however normal for the media, is unworthy of civilized people.’ To say what you did about people for all you know may have been raped is inhumane.”

►  “Your post argues the point that Jung *might* be innocent, not that he *is.  . . . 
       To say what you did about people for all you know may have been raped is inhumane.”

And your posts argue that Jung is guilty, not that he “might be” or “probably is”.  To say what you did about someone who, for all you know, may be innocent, is evidence of an overriding prejudice.  You have a predisposition to think of the worst of JMS, and to search for the evidence necessary to prove that.  Your search for statements by Providence members is not to give a balanced view of Providence.  Your practice is obvious.  You seek documents, and you post them.  The purpose, it seems obvious, is not because Providence may be good and right, but so more criticism and scorn can be heaped upon them.  It does not seem that new information is being sought for the purpose of understanding Providence in a new light, let alone for the purpose of convincing yourself and others that Providence is worthwhile.

Prosecuting attorneys do at times introduce and admit evidence beneficial to the defendant.  That is not to say that the prosecutor is impartial or unbiased, let alone assisting the defendant in his defense.  The prosecutor’s admission of facts apparently beneficial to the defendant is itself part of the methodology of building a case against the defendant, to prove him ultimately guilty. 

A defense attorney seeks to defend his client by extolling his character, exposing inconsistencies and lies in testimonies by the prosecutor’s witnesses, and arguing why the defendant could not or would not have committed the crime. By your standard, one might imagine that virtually all defense attorneys would be declared “insensitive, offensive, and inhumane.” 

►  “To say what you did about people for all you know may have been raped is inhumane.” 

Nonsense. Rape, racism, multi-generational slavery, attempted assassination, embezzlement, do not grant automatic pardons for crimes the victims may themselves have committed, including perjury.  Victims of crime do not get a free pass to engage in slander, religious bigotry, counter-racism, armed robbery, or other evil deeds.  Co-conspirators ought not to be excused for crimes they commit in exchange for testifying against their partner in crime, in my opinion (I realize that judicial reality is contrary to that opinion). 

Victims are not granted a lesser standard of moral conduct to adhere to than are criminals.  If Justice is blind, it doesn’t matter whether a person is a rapist or a rapee, each must conduct himself according to a single judicial standard, each must be available for examination, each must be held to account for their words and actions.  A rape victim, perhaps unfortunately in some cases, does not have the right to lynch her attacker.  A rape victim does not have the right to railroad her attacker, nor to deny him rights under the law.  An alleged rape victim does not have the right to accuse a man of rape and then make herself unavailable for testimony and cross-examination.  The judicial process is not intended as an “inhumanity” against victims of crime, but a safeguard against other crimes, such as false accusation, false witness, perjury, and so on. 

Three illustrations:

Tawana Brawley

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id315.htm 

In November 1987 15-year old Tawana Brawley was found lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. She accused six men, some of them police officers, of having raped her.  After seven months of examining police and medical records, the jury determined that Brawley had fabricated her story.  Rev. Al Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason accused the County prosecutor of racism and of being one of the perpetrators(!) of the alleged abduction and rape. The three accusers were sued for slander and ordered to pay $345,000 in damages, the jury finding Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two, and Mason for one.

Tracy Denise Roberson

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=475

April 3rd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks

According to  this Associated Press article, a Texas grand jury is actually holding a woman accountable for making a false accusation of rape--an accusation which led to the killing of the man she accused. The jury, correctly, saw that the woman’s husband acted reasonably--his wife screamed to him that she was being raped, so, like any good Texan, he shot the "rapist." But it turns out that the man wasn't a rapist at all--she was having an extramarital affair with him. Believe it or not, they dropped the charges against the husband and indicted the wife for manslaughter.

According to the article, Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, `I would have shot the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife."'

Zoe Davydaitis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444298&in_page_id=1770

A lesbian falsely accused a complete stranger of rape in a bizarre bid to win back her former lover.

Zoe Davydaitis, picked the innocent man from a police line-up even though he had broken his back in eight places and had to wear a body brace.

Her false accusation led to Phillip Young being charged with rape, despite his protestations that his horrific injuries from an accident meant the attack was impossible. He went on to receive death threats, was assaulted and eventually attempted suicide.

But on Friday a court heard Davydaitis was a "self-centred attention seeker" as she was jailed for 18 months after admitting perverting the course of justice.

At the same time Mr Young, 49, was recovering from a horrific fall. That spring he had broken his spine in eight places after falling off the roof of his third floor flat while trying to get through a skylight after locking himself out.

Surgeons inserted three metal rods into his back, held in place by 96 screws, and he had to wear a body brace and walk with crutches.

I do not have a fail-proof way for a mortal to identify the Messiah or even a Prophet.  It seems messiahs are regularly sent in manners and with messages contrary to what is expected by the people to whom they are sent.  Therefore, any criticism of the identity or methodology of a Prophet or Messiah would seem to run the risk of ‘indivinity’, hence invasion by demonry.  One should not prematurely label as an “inhumanity” an impartial observation that a conspiracy of accusers could be acting from less than virtuous motives or with the encouragement of less than savory influences.  It really is possible that a coalition of accusers may be influenced in part or whole by their own prejudicial ignorance, their ideological hostility, or personal undiscovered vice. 

While religious sentiments, doctrines, and institutions cause problems, the problems caused by anti-religious sentiments, dogma, and institutions cause greater problems. 

Ω

Preface

I gave considerable thought to certain criticisms I have received as a result of observations and interpretations in my writings.  I would not want to put anyone in a position that they might think unfair or unduly difficult.  I would not want to inflame anyone more than they had already inflamed themselves.  Since those complaints may be held by others, a public reply may be preferable to repeating myself one by one to each complaintiff.  Asha prods me, seeking justice.  But Zurvan encircles me; I have limits.

- 1 -

Some wrote that they are interested in seeing both sides of the story.  One with such an interest will be expected to welcome this perspective, from another side of the story, regarding the relevance of certain of your messages, posts, opinions, and selection of facts.

However, you wrote: “The main reason I posted that was
because I wanted to see how you would react.
I thought, if you were not aggressively pushing a certain point,
then you wouldn't have any problem with a link to critical information.” 

► “How you would react”

I do not wish my xanga-pages to be used as testing sites of my character, to see how I “react” to statements or links, the “main reason” for, or purpose of, their posting being of no more virtue than to elicit and judge my reaction. 

I am not offering a free posting service. 

I do not wish my xanga-pages to be used by others to link to sites they feel important, whether I agree with those sites or not.  Contrary to your expressed assumption, this decision is not due to pre-existent prejudices nor to any imagined but unspecified hypothetical problems I possess, but has been my customary way to manage a web-site from the beginning.  I reserve the right to change this if and when I myself choose to.

I allowed my spirit of adventure to overrule my instinct for caution, in that instead of blocking my chatbox immediately, I patiently watched that activity till I could decide what to do with it.  What I decided was to close it.  I also hoped to forestall link-war battles on my site.  If there is moral turpitude in restricting access to one’s own personal website, the complaint should be addressed once and for all to the Provider of the website, since it is the Provider who makes it possible or impossible to restrict access to those websites, rather than attempt to persuade, browbeat, or bully that provider’s users, who may number in the thousands, one at a time.

► “if you were not aggressively pushing a certain point, then you wouldn't have any problem with a link to critical information.” 

There are other reasons to decline links than that one has a “problem” with a link to allegedly “critical information” per se.  My declension was not based on the criticality of the information, but on other factors.  Broaden thy mind. 

On the other hand, perhaps you, if you were not aggressively pushing a certain view – the evil and guilt of JMS and the ill-will and foolishness of Providence – then you wouldn’t have a problem when someone does not yield to your insistence that they post items of your choosing on their sites.

► “Critical Information”

Nonetheless, I reserve the right to decide what is “critical information” for my website, and which of that “critical information,” if any, I wish to post.  There is much that I consider critical, for example, in a particular religion, but whose members say it is unimportant, so should I be prevented from posting it?  And there are things they declare vital that I consider useless, so am I to be forced to post it anyway! 

I hasten to point out that I am under no obligation to post critical information about anything!  I am under no obligation, legal or moral, to post critical information regarding the worthiness of candidates for the office of President of the United States (prejudicially critical), nor regarding the sexual purity of religious leaders (unjustly critical), nor the pernicious motivation of religious critics (dangerously critical), nor the addresses of registered child molesters (vindictively critical), nor contradictions in the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (unnecessarily critical), nor the fearful symbolism of Mormon temple ceremonies (irrelevantly critical), nor the U.S. tax code (disgustingly critical), nor the dangers of driving without a seatbelt (futilely critical), nor proper grammar usage for English (impertinently critical), nor how to register at xanga (unduly critical), nor what medicines I take (that is certainly critical!), nor regarding the imperfections of any religion, philosophy, or ideology (ignorantly critical). 

As with all web-sites, here it is the Owner or Subscriber who decides what to post.  I may post some “critical information,” or none; it would be impossible to post all “critical information”.  I won’t even try.  Anyone who does, is being foolish. 

When Fascists take over, they may succeed in forcing me to run my website how they think I should.  They may force me to let them post whatever they consider important on it, and they may decide what I can and cannot say about people and events.  Until then, I will manage what appears on my website, myself, the best I am able.  I admit it will be neither complete nor perfect. 

You should recognize how this would benefit Jung Seok’s accusers, whose accusations you defend.  Under my system, they need not feel obligated nor condemned if they refused to post responses and counter-accusations drawn up by those they have been accusing.  They will have an advantage in that they will not have to dilute their message with a contrary message.   

♦                                       ♦

I have been listening to reports of Charles Chatman, a man released from prison after serving nearly 27 years of a sentence for rape, and comparing this man’s situation with reports I have read regarding Jung Myong Seok.

Wrongly convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1981 Charles Chatman was sentenced to 99 years in prison. Mr.Chatman said he believes his race led to his arrest and conviction.  A young woman picked him from a lineup, resulting in his incarceration at the age of 20.  He was 47 years old when released. 

Although Mr. Chatman had lived five houses from the victimfor over a decade before the rape, he had not known her personally. Nor had never raped her, and for that reason he stoutly refused any insinuation that he had.  Because of this, he lost three chances for earlier release.

“Every time I'd go to parole, they'd want a description of the crime or my version of the crime," Mr. Chatman said. "I don't have a version of the crime. I never committed the crime. I never will admit to doing this crime that I know I didn't do." For consistently proclaiming his innocence, for refusing to shame his family with a lie, he was kept incarcerated.  District Attorney Craig Watkins believed overly aggressive prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost also contributed to Mr. Chatman having been found guilty.

Exonerations have been making news elsewhere in the country.  Since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group specializing in capital punishment issues, 126 prisoners in 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their innocence. Eight of the cases were in Texas, but Florida led with 22, followed by Illinois with 18, the center said.

Instead of racial bigotry as Mr. Chatman experienced, it is religious bigotry that is the thorn in the side of the accusers of Jung Myong Seok.  The promoters, supporters, and well-heeled attorneys of these accusers, like those of Chatman’s, also seek “convictions at any cost.”

Unlike the Chatman case, however, where there was a mistaken identification of an actual perpetrator by an actual witness, Mr. Seok’s accusers strike from a dark veil of anonymity.  Their cowardly anonymity is protected by a spectacle-seeking, profit-motivated media with an inherent and insecretable dislike of religion.

As with Mr. Chatman, Mr. Soek also says he has no side of the story to tell.  It is understandable that a person not involved in a crime would have no version of it to tell.  If an American refuses to confess to a crime he did not commit in order to protect his own self-dignity and the honor of his family, should a Korean make a confession which would likewise unfairly diminish his dignity or unjustly scandalize his family, as well as the people who trust him and have committed to working with him for the betterment of mankind?

“What Would Jesus Do?” When an innocent man is declared guilty, what should he do?  Should he embrace his conviction without complaint?  Should he argue his innocence?  Should he flee as a fugitive?

Accusation, Audience, Timing

Jesus did all three. His response depended variously on the nature of the accusation, the audience, and the timing.

Jesus conscientiously avoided

those who were seeking to harm him

At John 7:1 –

After this, Jesus went about in Galilee;

he would not go about in Judea,

because the Jews sought to kill him.

In this case, Jesus refused, for a period of time, to enter the land of the people who sought his destruction.  Likewise, Mr. Seok refused, for a period of time, to enter the land of the people who sought his destruction.

Jesus did not allow himself to be taken

because the time was not right

At another time, Jesus did not permit himself to be taken because “his hour had not yet come”:

John 7:30 –

So they sought to arrest him; but no one laid hands on him,

because his hour had not yet come.

It simply was not the right time for Jesus to give up his freedom to travel and speak to the common people.  Likewise, Mr. Seok did not allow himself to be arrested until he had completed an aspect of his mission that required that he travel beyond the walls of a prison.

Jesus refuted his accusers

At times Jesus refuted his accusers and returned new truth for their old beliefs, as in

Luke 11:14-20 –

¹⁴And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon was gone out the dumb man spake; and the multitudes marvelled. ¹⁵But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. ¹⁶And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven. ¹⁷But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. ¹⁸And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub. ¹⁹And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. ²⁰But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.

 Accused of performing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, Jesus exposed his accusers' lack of logic. In other words, he stood his ground, faced his accusers, and demolished their false accusation with reason and truth. Mr. Seok, we might imagine, had or yet has occasion to refute his accusers and to offer new truth for their old mistaken beliefs.

Jesus removed himself from harm’s way

At John 8:59 –

So they took up stones to throw at him;

but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

 This situation had gone beyond calm discussion, even beyond the heated argument of Luke 11.  Jesus was in a dialogue with “the Jews”.  In fact, if his audience is the same through chapter eight, they are not just “the Jews”, but a specific sort of Jew – “the Jews who had believed in him” (verse 31).  These are Jews who had believed Jesus, perhaps had been following him as disciples, and now for some reason came to turn upon him.  They had been so swayed in the opposite direction, away from Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness, that they prepared to kill Jesus.  We see many such things happening today, a time which mirrors the time of Jesus’ ministry in many respects.  Mr. Seok has come under attack by those very ones who had believed in him.  Now they throw stones.

Jesus slipped – or perhaps even ran – away from those who had once believed in him. He left the Temple and hid. 

Jesus stood his ground

at the proper time and in the proper place

 John 18:4-5, 7-8 –

Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek? They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus said to them, “I am he.”  . . . 

Again he asked them, “Whom do you seek?”  And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”  Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these men go.”

Jesus prohibited any effort to remove him from danger

 Nor would he allow any defense of himself at this time, as we read in the eleventh verse of the same chapter of John –

Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath;

shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?”

When his identity was certain in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was arrested.  He neither argued against his arrest nor attempted to flee his captors. He identified himself more than once, waiting for the arrest.  In fact, he told his followers not to fight those who were arresting him, but to let him go with them.  Finally, his time had come.

Jung Myong Seok

Has JMS experienced three types of encounters?  I have only just begun looking into the life and teachings of JMS.  I am willing to listen to alternatives to what his mission is and how he is to accomplish it.

With strong, concrete evidence against him, a man can naturally be found guilty of a crime.  But in the absence of a proven strong motive, in the absence of concrete evidence, in the absence of reliable witnesses - that means the witnesses can be interviewed and cross-examined - then, a rush to judgment, however normal for the media, is unworthy of civilized people.

It seems to me that the three types of caution shown by Jesus in avoiding arrest or harm have also been shown by Jung Myong Seok.

He has fled an attempted media ambush – that singular secular institution whose main purpose is to present an only secular view of events and relationships, and remove all spiritual influence from society.

He himself has not needed to point out the illogic and prejudice in these accusers because others have done so.  If Jesus’ apostles had had greater understanding and greater courage, they might have stood up for Jesus more boldly in their day, saving Jesus the necessity of doing so much without help.

When the discussion phase had passed, or when it was obvious that there was little use in discussion, the arrest in a nearby garden became an inevitable step in the unfolding of the providence of Jesus' life, and perhaps in the unfolding of the providence of the life of Pastor Joshua also..

First there was restraint from futile argument with the media, then necessary confrontation of the accusations, finally an arrest so that the defendant might proceed from the great numbers of people whose lives he had affected for the better, to face the uncommon and powerful judicial powers in person.  

edited 25 January 2008