So does the ACLU. What’s wrong with not making your membership list public?
Please read NAACP v. Alabama. Organizations have the right to keep membership lists private.
And oftentimes good reason.
Well, for one thing, in the case of the Federalist Society – or an analogous LW group such as the National Lawyers Guild – I should think there’s a compelling public interest in knowing whether a judicial nominee has ever been associated with it. This came up in 2005, in connection with John Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice. And in the case of the Family, I should think there’s a compelling public interest in knowing what politicians have been associated with it.
Do you actually have any comment on “The Family,” Moto?
Dunno if this is sarcasm or not but in case not…
Already gave my apology for this but you have it again.
My bad.
The Family of C-Street is still plenty creepy though.
Not sarcastic, it is a big difference – but it’s debatable on which organization the difference reflects worse.
I have seen nothing indicating he is a member.
Jeff Sharlet was plugging his book on Bill Maher’s show last week. This organization almost sounds too extremist to be real; but if it’s real, it’s proof positive just how morally destructive religion can be. Throughout history, the rich and powerful have used religion as an excuse to justify their immoral sadistic behavior, from Akhenaten to Genghis Khan, and “The Family” is this pro-God logic taken to its utter extreme.
As always, if you worship “God”, you are actually worshipping The Devil – or allowing yourself to be controlled by The Devil. Only by rejecting any notion of “God” can you find self-actualization and enlightenment. This “Family” cult is actually rather refreshing, because at least they’re up front about their genuine intentions.
No, but he is a person in power, therefore, by the Family’s world-view, presumptively chosen by God, so . . .
They are not up front to outsiders. They have been around for 50 years and have kept their message away from prying eyes .
OK, just examine this a bit please-
A super-secret fascistic fundamentalist cult has existed in the middle of DC for half a century.
It not only has participation from the country’s conservative party (Republican), but also some members or associates (Hillary) from the country’s liberal party (Democrat).
It excuses rape & pedophilia for the power-elite.
Every President for the past three decades has participated in its public ceremonies (the National Presidential Prayer Breakfast).
It is so deeply entrenched that no big-name politician dare denounce it, but a brave young journalist who actually entered the Belly of the Beast and lived to tell about it will tell us the truth about how evil it is! Oh! And while nothing has ever happened to him or no threats have ever been made, occasionally- he is still being followed!
So what I want to know is- do they get together with the Bohemian Grove for their sacrifices to Moloch? Or trade mistresses with the Elders of Zion?
It’s so cute when our liberal intelligensia play “Conspiracy Buff”.
Quick note- the other group “The Family International” used to be known as “The Children of God”.
OTOH, if Sharlet were wrong/lying about the Family, wouldn’t they at least have called a press conference by now to set the record straight?
Sharlet has not alleged they are criminal or violent or “evil.”
You don’t haul out a howitzer to take care of a gnat. Every few months when something happens in the news that’s “Family-related” (right now the two adulterers who were members), Sharlet jumps up “Look at me! Buy my book! Please!”
Dio, he may not use those terms but he doesn’t exactly portray them as harmless little fuzzballs either.
I dunno. I think most people would sue someone for slander/libel/defamation/whatever is applicable if the things Sharlet was saying were not true. You may call Sharlet a “gnat” but that gnat has a well selling book out and is on dozens of national media shows and newspapers alleging various awful things about The Family and people in it.
To me a “gnat” would be Sharlet posting his allegations here and leaving it at that.
I have not read Sharlet’s book but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I’d be surprised if his publisher let him make these allegations without something more to back it up than “I said so”.
Oh please. Publishers print countless books on numerous subjects. The Kennedy assassinations have spawned numerous books that have “implicated” countless public figures in concocted conspiracy theories.
If the book will sell and make money, it will be printed.
Yes, but their authors are rarely invited on high-profile talk shows.
Sure…people never sue publishers and publishers never try to assess the validity of a book before it is published. :rolleyes:
That is exactly what you do. You go for huge overkill. You would nuke them with all kinds of bad press, and send spokesmen everywhere to refute.