Allan Harvey brought me up to date on the Jonathan Wells case in an off
line email. This is my response. Allan wrote:
"Maybe you were away a few weeks ago. I am referring to the situation
with Jonathan Wells ... ."
Interesting. I know very little about the Moonies; what little I do
know leads me to a (tentative) conclusion paralleling yours. But...
Has anyone asked Wells directly about this?
It is hard to fathom what is in the mind of a person joining ASA as a
member.
Perhaps he did not read the faith statement carefully enough? Perhaps he
read it and decided, in honesty, that he qualified OK? Perhaps there is
yet another explanation we've not thought of? What does he say?
I just looked at the faith statement again; although the case for the
prosecution
looks strong, I've not yet heard from the defense. Without so hearing,
I'd have to, as a juror, vote not guilty.
If Wells chooses to stand mute, the case is harder. But I'd still vote
not guilty in that situation. The accusation that someone deliberately
lied in this instance is a strong one, and demands a stronger case. IMHO
of course. And confrontation of the issue with Wells at an appropriate
opportunity is very much in order.
Happy new year.
Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2000 - 20:23:19 EST