Exclusive Brethren Instructions to the Family Court – 2005

On June 29, 2009, in Background, Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

Many have been outraged at the recent Australian Family Court decision to separate an ex-member of the cult from his children. Most will look squarely at the Judge responsible and ask how this could happen?  But this is only the latest case in a series of similar lawsuits.

The Exclusive Brethren do not recruit; they do not evangelise in order to increase membership. They increase from within. Great pressure is brought to bear on the young to marry and produce offspring. The resulting children are their future – estimated to be approximately 17,000 strong following the 1970 Aberdeen Incident, the cult today numbers in excess of 46,000 worldwide in over 10 countries.

The Exclusive Brethren protect their young with survivalist intensity. Putting their (and tax-payer) money where their mouth is, they have created a large international network of fiercely private schools that are there for one sole purpose – to keep their children separate from the outside ‘evil’ world.  It is more than ironic that the Exclusive Brethren have to recruit non-member teachers to operate their growing number of schools as there is a worldwide ban on attending university for all children. The cult’s educational trusts are monitored closely by Exclusive Brethren ‘volunteers’ to ensure that there is no deviation from a carefully constructed EB-approved syllabus.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)
It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.
It would seem that Judge Brown followed the Exclusive Brethren tactical roadmap to the letter.
COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER
– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM
– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS
Key Points:
The key points made in this submission are:
• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;
• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;
• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;
• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.
The following are important matters that we firmly believe must be taken into account in evaluating the proposals for change put forward in the Discussion Paper.
1. The institution of marriage
In any discussion of issues relating to family law it is essential to take as the starting point the importance of the institution of marriage in Australia and the need to prevent the institution falling into further disregard. That the institution of marriage in this country has been seriously weakened is well described by one commentator as follows:
At the heart of the growing disarray of the Australian family is the decay of marriage…..
Family breakdown represents a massive body of child and adult misery and unhappiness. It is a common factor in wider social problems of crime, suicide, violence, poverty, child abuse and educational underperformance.
Over the last 30 years, marriage and family life have been transformed by a variety of social, cultural and economic changes. In conjunction with the advent of no-fault divorce in 1975, these changes have powerfully contributed to the fragility of marriage.”
(Barry Maley: Reforming Divorce Law, Centre of Independent Studies, Issue Analysis No. 39, 1 September 2003)
Against this background, the amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) last year by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 to specifically enact a definition of “marriage” for the purposes of Australian law (the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life) and to define certain relationships that will not be recognised in this country as a marriage even if they are so recognised in another country, was a significant development which we wholeheartedly support.
Parliament has, therefore, correctly in our view, made it very clear that the institution of marriage is basic to our society. Just as physical violence, whether against the other party of the marriage and/or the child(ren), is an important factor in relation to the welfare of children, so too, it is submitted, can what could be called “moral” violence to the institution of marriage, and in particular, the elements of the exclusion of all others and for life, as occurs all too frequently.
2. Children’s “rights”
The discussion paper (at page 10) states that the Government proposes to strengthen the underlying principles of children having a “right” to be known and cared for by both parents and a “right” to contact on a regular basis with both their parents and other people significant to them, subject always to the best interests of the child.
This proposal is stated as a “right” of a child. The nature of this “right”, however, needs to be articulated. Is it some abstract right or is it a more tangible right which a child can him or herself have a say in in appropriate circumstances? It is submitted that the concept of the “right” of a child extends to a child of suitable age being able to have substantial weight, sometimes decisive weight, placed on what his or her wishes are as to matters that effect his or her life, including living arrangements, contact, etc. See also 6 below.
3. Parenting Plans
The discussion paper (again at p. 10) states that the Government supports shared parenting and wants people to reach agreements about parenting, rather than using the courts. An issue, not address in the discussion paper, is at what point a parenting plan or agreement can be agreed to by the parties to the marriage.
For instance, can such a plan, whether comprehensive or not, be entered into at any time before the marriage breakdown, as in the case of financial arrangements? If, for example, at the time of marriage both parents have a common purpose as to one or more aspects of the lives of their children, why should this not be able to be put into a parenting plan, subject to appropriate safeguards? Or if not, why could not a parenting plan be entered into at some later time before the marriage breakdown?
To take the last point a step further, if parents are agreed on parental responsibility issues for their child(ren) (health, schooling, religion and so on) and have in fact given effect to this, this may effectively be a parenting plan or perhaps create some kind of rebuttable presumption. A child should not, without adequate and compelling grounds, be subject to a radical lifestyle change. Why should this not be a “right” of a child?
4. Equal shared parental responsibility
What the Government proposes is to make equal shared parental responsibility the starting point under the Family Law Act by making it a rebuttable presumption with the best interests of the child being the most important factor to be taken into account and decisions being made on the circumstances of each case. Having regard to what is said at 3, this proposal needs modification.
In addition, the proposed rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not represent a real advance and, indeed, could in many cases turn out to be detrimental. Such a rebuttable presumption will treat as being prima facie normal many situations that are not and may potentially place an “innocent” parent at a substantial disadvantage. After all, it is likely that where equal shared parental responsiblity is approriate, the parties will be in agrement between themselves in any event.
The discussion paper proposes that the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility be replaced by an opposing rebuttable presumption where there is evidence of violence, abuse or entrenched conflict involved in the case. Some of these concepts would need to be defined which could cause difficulty. For example, “abuse” would cover more than physical abuse and the concept of “entrenched conflict” is rather nebulous. For instance, is entrenched conflict meant to refer to some long standing conflict or could the nature of the issue in relation to which the conflict exists be sufficient to make it “entrenched” in appropriate circumstances?
5. Substantially shared parenting time
The proposed requirement that the Court consider substantially shared parenting time when both parents want half or more of the time with their child will need to be refined. But more fundamentally, having regard to what is submitted is the right of a child and what is stated above, particularly at 2, this proposal is deficient.
The compulsory dispute resolution mechanism that is proposed in the discussion paper (at page 12) will carry with it a sanction of a possible adverse cost order if the compulsory dispute resolution requirement is not complied with. It is submitted that this should be the only possible downside to a parent who does not attend “Dispute Resolution” and that this should be specifically stated in the legislation.
6. The age of a child
Insufficient attention has been directed to the possibility of making more appropriate provision for the wishes of a child to be determined and given effect to.
It is recognised in the discussion paper that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration and for something to be forced on a child against the child’s wishes and without adequate reason appears to be contrary to the “right” of a child which is referred to elsewhere in the discussion paper. As submitted above, in the case of a younger child, there should not be drastic lifestyle changes without adequate reason.
Date: 13 January 2005
[Committee note - The submission by the Exclusive Brethren to the family law reforms consultation process, received on 13 January 2005, is attached. The names and contact details of the persons signing the submission on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren have been omitted for privacy reasons.]

It is therefore vital to protect the young assets, those whom the Exclusive Brethren are raising protectively within themselves, behind intentionally closed doors. With this in mind, they weed out the troublemakers (normally young men) and do their utmost to prevent any further contamination of the cult’s ideas and doctrinal restrictions.

Dated January 2005, the following submission was made to Australian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by the Exclusive Brethren following a request by then Senator Evans.  ((See original submission at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_0607/ag/qon_18.pdf)

It lays out clearly their tactical approach to Family Court cases.

COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S 10 NOVEMBER 2003 DISCUSSION PAPER

– A NEW APPROACH TO THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM

– IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS

Key Points:

The key points made in this submission are:

• The importance of the institution of marriage must be paramount in family law issues;

• The concept of a child’s rights is wider than assumed in the discussion paper;

• The time a parenting agreement can be entered into must be examined;

• The age at which a child’s wishes should be seriously considered must be reviewed and a younger child should not be subjected to radical lifestyle changes without compelling reasons.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren rip yet another family apart

On June 27, 2009, in Commentary, News, by Peebs.Net   Share
June 28th, 2009
In Australia’s The Age today, Michael Bachelard author of the acclaimed ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’, presents a heartbreaking report that proves beyond doubt that the Exclusive Brethren cult will go to any length to rip families apart.
In an astonishing judgement in Melbourne, Justice Brown allowed the cult to legally prevent their excommunicated father from having anything further to do with his two children.  As is usual in these cases, the Exclusive Brethren spared no effort or cost in their legal campaign:
“… The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor… “
Read the full article in todays Sunday Age:
Ex-Brethren father loses battle for children
The Age
Michael Bachelard
June 28, 2009 – 12:00AM
A grieving father’s only contact with his Exclusive Brethren children will be permission to buy their photographs from the sect’s school, as long as they are not there at the time, a Family Court judge has ruled.
Justice Sally Brown has comprehensively ruled against the father, who can be known only as Peter, denying him any contact with his son, 15, and daughter, 10, after a five-year court battle, waged mostly in their home state of Tasmania.
After spending $100,000 winning court orders in 2006 for access, then trying unsuccessfully to enforce them, Peter could only afford to represent himself in the most recent retrial.
The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor.
The church’s “doctrine of separation” prevents people who have left the fold having any relationship with those still inside, including their own children.
Early in 2007, Justice Robert Benjamin sentenced the mother and two male relatives to four-month suspended jail sentences for failing to encourage the children to go with their father. These sentences were overturned on appeal.
Justice Brown’s judgment, delivered in Melbourne on Thursday, ruled for the Brethren mother because during the course of the case the children’s relationship with the father had broken down, and there was no prospect of re-establishing it.
The judge blamed the father for this, saying that his attempts to make sure that earlier court orders were obeyed had alienated the children from him and that parts of his application were “cruel and punitive” towards the children.
The mother fell ill with a recurrence of breast cancer after Justice Benjamin’s ruling in 2007, and the “family narrative” blamed the father for this.
“It is clear that the mother attributes responsibility for the recurrence of her cancer, at least in part, to the trauma she experienced when sentenced,” Justice Brown said. Whether or not this was true was “less relevant than its currency in the home”.
The daughter had “taken on board” this message and had torn up and returned a card her father had sent her, saying if he wanted her to be happy “he should just leave us alone”.
However, she rejected the father’s suggestion that the Exclusive Brethren had prompted this behaviour, despite evidence over many years that the sect encourages young children to reject their lapsed parents.
In 2006, a court-appointed psychologist described the Brethren’s attempts to turn the children against Peter as “psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive” to the children and at “the highest end of psychological abuse”.
But Justice Brown’s views on the Brethren were generally positive: their religious conviction was as “vital to them as the air they breathe”, and “they perceive a life lived outside their faith as unsustainable”. She questioned whether it was their policy to remove children from non-Brethren parents, quoting a report to her that said that “the church says in its publication this is not the case”.
Justice Brown said it was false to think, as the father did, that this case was “a duel between law and religion”.
The father said the few times he had had contact, the children had “warmed up” to him, but the opinion of a court-appointed consultant, Ineke Stierman, was that the daughter’s “youth and courtesy explain her relatively polite responses”. As for the son, one visit had ended with him curled in a foetal position in the cubby house and refusing to eat.
Having “nothing to do with them now might show ultimate caring”, Ms Stierman recommended.
Justice Brown accepted that the result of her judgment was that “the children will not spend time with anyone who speaks positively about the father”.
The father had applied for custody of both children but late in the case changed his position, asking for custody of his daughter and access to his son. The judge condemned this as “indicative of a significant lack of understanding of the children’s needs” .
The mother’s application was to have custody of the children until she died, following which they be cared for by an older sister and her husband.
Although Justice Brown did not rule on what would happen after the mother’s death, she agreed the children needed support by their extended family “during these traumatic years”, that the girl had bonded with her older sister, and that this must take priority over any relationship with the father, or “any questions about the Exclusive Brethren’s compliance with court orders”.
Although Ms Stierman suggested contact of “an hour or two, once or twice a year”, Justice Brown said she could see no benefit to that. Instead, Peter could, at his expense, be provided with a copy of their school reports, photos and newsletters as long he obtained them at a time when any family members “are not likely to be on the school premises”.
Asked by The Sunday Age if he had a message for his children, Peter, who himself grew up without a father because of the Brethren’s doctrine of separation, said: “I just want them to know I tried my best.”
The Exclusive Brethren declined to comment, saying it was a private family matter.
Michael Bachelard
The Age
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/exbrethren-father-loses-battle-for-children-20090627-d0lc.html
This is most certainly not the first time that the Australian Family Court has caved in under the pressure tactics of the cult.  Retired Chief Justice of the Family Court Alistair Nicholson has spoken openly about the tactics the cult uses in the past:
Stephen Crittenden: Isn’t part of the problem that the Family Court has with the Exclusive Brethren, just the simple fact that the Exclusive Brethren don’t recognise the validity of the court, of the laws, and that there’s just a general sense, a problem of members of the Exclusive Brethren defying court orders?
Alistair Nicholson: Yes, and I think they can be dealt with by the usual method of punishment of people who do defy court orders. There’s no problem about that.
Read the full transcript on ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1871059.htm#anchor1
In 2007, ABC’s Four Corners broadcast ‘The Brethren Express’ (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2057172.htm) where some superb investigative journalism dug into the finances of the Exclsuive Brethren cult. Former Chief Justice Nicholson was interviewed again.  You can watch his extended interview and the full program on the Brethren Express website:  http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20071015/brethren/default.htm

June 28th, 2009

In Australia’s The Age today, Michael Bachelard author of the acclaimed ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren‘, presents a heartbreaking report that proves beyond doubt that the Exclusive Brethren cult will go to any length to rip families apart.

In an astonishing judgement in Melbourne, Justice Brown allowed the cult to legally prevent their excommunicated father from having anything further to do with his two children.  As is usual in these cases, the Exclusive Brethren spared no effort or cost in their legal campaign:

“… The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor… “

Read the full article in todays Sunday Age:

Ex-Brethren father loses battle for children

The Age

Michael Bachelard

June 28, 2009 – 12:00AM

A grieving father’s only contact with his Exclusive Brethren children will be permission to buy their photographs from the sect’s school, as long as they are not there at the time, a Family Court judge has ruled.

Justice Sally Brown has comprehensively ruled against the father, who can be known only as Peter, denying him any contact with his son, 15, and daughter, 10, after a five-year court battle, waged mostly in their home state of Tasmania.

After spending $100,000 winning court orders in 2006 for access, then trying unsuccessfully to enforce them, Peter could only afford to represent himself in the most recent retrial.

The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor.

The church’s “doctrine of separation” prevents people who have left the fold having any relationship with those still inside, including their own children.

Continue reading »

8 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren accept planning defeat in UK

On June 5, 2009, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

June 4th, 2009

In a hoped-for but unexpected reversal, the Exclusive Brethren have given up their fight to build a significantly large compound on the outskirts of Stow in rural England.  Despite using their tactics of intentionally appearing to be part of the comparatively harmless ‘open’ Plymouth Brethren, over 400 members of the small Cotswold community objected fiercely to having the cult build one of their windowless fortresses in ground adjacent to a grocery supermarket.

The Exclusive Brethren have increasingly been trying to obfuscate their planning applications by referring to their Meeting Rooms as ‘gospel halls’ and even forming ‘gospel hall’ Trusts to add credence to their self-description of being an ‘evangelical christian’ movement. As the citizens of Stow came to realize, the planned development would not benefit anyone in the community due to the Exclusive Brethren doctrine of ‘Separation’ where anyone not a cult member is deemed ‘unclean’.

Their decision to withdraw a threatened appeal against the Stow Planning Committee’s refusal of their planning application is a welcome sign that municipalities are starting to understand the true nature of the group who have been accurately described as “an extremist cult and sect … who break up families“.

From the Tewkesbury Admag:

Brethren withdraw appeal against Stow gospel hall refusal

Tewksbury Admag, UK

Thursday 4th June 2009

by Simon Crump

A religious group has withdrawn its appeal against a refusal to approve its controversial proposal to build a gospel hall at Stow.

Continue reading »

2 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • •  

Exclusive Brethren battle Peebs.Net in Vermont, USA

On April 5, 2009, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

Examples of media attention focused on the Exclusive Brethren are very hard to find in the United States. The ability of the group that Kevin Rudd, now the Australian Prime Minister, described as “an extremist cult and sect” to “fly under the radar” is well-known.  Peebs.Net, has attempted to ‘pull back the covers’ since the site started in May 2004.  As you might imagine, this process has not been encouraged!

Unlike the USA, most citizens of Australia and New Zealand know of the Exclusive Brethren and of their track record in recent years. Perhaps the closest the US press came to looking at this “dangerous group” in any detail was following the secretive activities surrounding the ‘Thanksgiving 2004 Committee’, a political 527 group that funded pro- G.W. Bush advertisements in various US papers during the last president’s second run for office in 2004.

Today in Burlington, Vermont a news article appears that shows signs that this lack of exposure might change.  The Burlington Free Press describes what it calls a ‘Contentious Lawsuit’ that has been raging in the New England state since early 2007. 

As far as Peebs.Net is concerned, it is vital to maintain Truth and therefore,  it is interesting to note how quickly the Exclusive Brethren resort to the smear tactics that has brought them increasing negative press exposure in Australia and New Zealand.

It is estimated that there are now over 46,000 Exclusive Brethren members worldwide, with as many as 10,000 located in USA.  The closest North American Exclusive Brethren gatherings to Vermont are Boston, MA and Montreal, Quebec.

Secretive worldwide sect battles Vermonter in court

The Burlington Free Press, USA

By Sam Hemingway 

Free Press Staff Writer 

April 5, 2009

Timothy Twinam of Williston says he just wants to tell the truth about what’s really going on inside the Exclusive Brethren, a well-heeled, reclusive evangelical Christian group with 43,000 members around the world.

“This is a very closed group,” said Twinam, 54, a native of Great Britain. “They don’t circulate much with people, and over the years they’ve become ever more exclusive and cultish.”

Continue reading »

9 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren face local objections for yet another Meeting Room

On March 30, 2009, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

The Exclusive Brethren love spending money – after all they have very little else to do with it!  They don’t take vacations, there is no TV or radio and only highly filtered Internet access.  The job for the young men is to make money and the task of the young women is to breed. They aren’t a very attractive group to join and so their only form of growth is from within.

This then explains their growing network of Exclusive Brethren only schools and the long-standing university education bans – ‘we make them and we need to keep them’.

As communities begin to understand the true nature of their ‘shy’, ‘retiring’, but vaguely unfriendly neighbors and begin to see how little they offer or care about the wider communities in which they take up residence, a very understandable backlash is developing. 

It is difficult to encourage a group of people (described by Australian Premier Kevin Rudd as “an extremist cult and sect”) who treat others with such disdain and yet have the audacity to call themselves ‘Christian’!

 

Objections to church

The Daily Advertiser, Australiu

by Ken Grimson

30/03/2009 

Australian residents in Stirling Boulevard object to Exclusive Brethren plans

Australian residents in Stirling Boulevard object to Exclusive Brethren plans

Residents in Stirling Boulevard at Tatton are objecting to plans for an Exclusive Brethren meeting hall to be built in their street, arguing it will devalue properties and create traffic dangers.

“We are not against the Exclusive Brethren, we just don’t think this is the right location for their meeting place,” said neighbouring resident, Eileen Steel.

Spokesman for the Exclusive Brethren, Tim Pridham, said yesterday the planned place of public worship would be designed to look like any other house in the street and his church would work with residents to overcome any concerns they had about the development.

“We have tried to design it like a house so it fits in with other buildings. It will not look like a church,” Mr Pridham said.

Another Stirling Boulevard resident, Barry Bloodworth said everyone who bought land in the street had done so in the belief the street would be for residential purposes only.

Continue reading »

0 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • •  

Exclusive Brethren Schools Gain AUS$ 3 Million

On October 19, 2008, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

October 19th, 2008

One of the largest payments into the Exclusive Brethren ‘indoctrination’ schools came not from the mega-wealthy leaders of the cult, but from the Australian government – or to be more accurate, from the hard-working Australian tax-payers.

How do you feel about your tax dollars being used to perpetuate “an extremist sect and cult”?

How do you feel when you are told that they could afford to fund their schools ten-times over – but prefer not to … as long as they can find someone willing to pay on their behalf.

What’s up with you Kevin?

Brethren’s Qld schools gain $3m

Brisbane Times
by Kate Dennehy
October 19, 2008

Queensland schools run by the Exclusive Brethren  which Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described as “an extremist cult”  received more than $3.1 million in taxpayer funding this year.

Continue reading »

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • •  

The Exclusive Brethren – a spiral into decay

On August 3, 2008, in Background, News, by Peebs.Net   Share

The Exclusive Brethren – a spiral into decay

Two news items from different sides of the world today, highlight the Exclusive Brethren.  An almost throw-away comment in  New Zealand Parliament a few days ago and a commentary in UK’s The Observer.

New Zealand Parliament
Questions And Answers – Thursday, 31 July 2008

Extract

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has been assured by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he has committed no illegality, and the member has yet to demonstrate anything to the reverse.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister see any similarity between the advertising campaign paid for by leading bloodstock breeder Patrick Hogan, overtly supporting New Zealand First during the 2005 election campaign, and the covert campaign run by the Exclusive Brethren Church in that year, and does she have any concerns about the connection between that campaign and the fact that Mr Winston Peters subsequently became the Minister for Racing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it would be absolutely apparent to everybody that there was no covert campaign on behalf of the racing industry in 2005. There was a very overt campaign; it was overtly against the Labour Party at that time, including signs on horses at racetracks. The Exclusive Brethren, however, decided to follow a biblical injunction, and hide their lights well under any large number of bushels.

New Zealand Parliament Questions And Answers – Thursday, 31 July 2008

A cast-iron case for a secular society
The Observer,
by Nick Cohen
Sunday August 3 2008

Extract

So imbued with discriminatory thinking have politicians and judges become that they are shocked when citizens ask for equality before the law. When the hapless Ed Balls was at the Treasury, the Plymouth Brethren told him that they and their more fundamentalist offshoot – the Exclusive Brethren – were the victims of religious prejudice at the hands of that unlikely source of bigotry, the tax authorities.

Both sects believed that God decides when you died. To their members, compliance with the state’s requirement to take out an annuity at 75 forced them to second-guess God by blasphemously betting on the date of their deaths.

The obliging Balls created an alternative pension scheme and then spluttered when pensioners of all faiths and none saw his generous loophole and shifted large sums of money through it. He seemed to think he could legislate for one group without the law applying equally to everyone.

If he did not have the strength of principle to stand up for equality, he ought to have had the wit to realise that the Plymouth Brethren may not have been as devout as they appeared. If you sincerely believe that an omnipotent God controls every aspect of your life, you place your fate in his hands. You do not ask accountants to lobby ministers for tax-efficient changes to pension law.

The Observer – A cast-iron case for a secular society

The UK press is starting to improve both their history and their accuracy regarding the Exclusive Brethren.  Their confusion is understandable of course.  The UK has known of the Plymouth Brethren since inception in the late 1820′s, or rather when they started to gather together in greater numbers during the 1830′s.  The Exclusive Brethren offshoot commenced in the late 1840′s when J.N. Darby was instrumental in forcing a division.

To call the Exclusive Brethren ‘Plymouth’ is a genus/species error that insults the far larger and evangelically successful Plymouth Brethren.  Indeed, many Plymouth Brethren websites carry a ‘We are not Exclusive Brethren’ disclaimer!

Continue reading »

4 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • •  

Aleister Crowley – “The Wickedest Man Alive” (until 1947)

On July 12, 2008, in Background, by Peebs.Net   Share

Aleister CrowleyThat is quite a statement!  The quotation refers directly to ex-Plymouth Brother Aleister Crowley.  Much has been written about this man, who was brought up in a strict Plymouth Brethren home full of rules and enforced piety.  It is a psychologist’s dream – the study of what could turn a member of a Plymouth Brethren home into one of the most influential Paganists of the 20th century.

Most professional opinion seems centered upon a simple rebellion against a restrictive childhood. It is a topic that strikes home with any person who was born into the Exclusive (Plymouth) Brethren and who decided one day that they were not sheep, not to be forced into submission and gradually begin to summon the courage and energy to break free …

Continue reading »

7 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • •  

David Tchappat won the Real Big Brother contest

On May 26, 2008, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

May 26, 2008

David Tchappat - ex-Exclusive Brethren member - Big Brother contestant 2008David Tchappat is already a winner.

For those mentally and physically trapped within the Exclusive Brethren, leaving is not a rational option. From the moment you are taken as a child a few days old and immersed in a tub of luke warm water under the watchful eyes of your family members and a few local Exclusive Brethren representatives, you are given no choices. Your future is mapped and your ambitions will become sublimated to become part of ‘supporting the Assembly’.

The concept of ‘Household Baptism’ is just one example of where the Exclusive Brethren take choices out of the hands of an individual. To most Christians, Baptism is quite simply a personal decision and an outward expression of a life ‘reborn’. Although Christening is a common practice in many denominations, this is simpler to view as a dedication by the parents to bring up a child in the Christian tradition.

There is no ‘Believers Baptism’ in the Exclusive Brethren. This is the most common form of Baptism in the Christian community where a new believer will decide voluntarily to ‘be baptized’ as a public expression of their new faith and that they have left their old life behind them. It is this form of Baptism that many feel has the greatest meaning and significance – because they made the decision.

Continue reading »

4 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • • • • • •  

New Exclusive Brethren school being constructed in Armidale

On May 12, 2008, in News, by Peebs.Net   Share

May 12th, 2008

The announcement that another Exclusive Brethren school is being constructed in Armidale, Australia continues to surprise those who have been waiting for the freshly appointed Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to add muscle to his public denunciation of the cult.

Those who follow the ‘progress’ of the Exclusive Brethren will understand that the policy of leader Bruce Hales of continued educational infrastructure development is both a necessary preparation to receive and educate a whole new generation of Exclusive Brethren, as well as being a continuation of the financial benefits enjoyed under the previous Howard government.

Many still hope that Rudd is merely biding his time before becoming involved in what some hope will be his first public action against a group that he described as an “extremist sect and cult“ during his campaign in 2007.

One thing is for certain, The Exclusive Brethren will continue to indoctrinate a whole new generation of young ‘separatists’ in Australia, United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Canada and in several other countries until the media and general public realize the truth behind their activities.

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • •  
Page 5 of 512345