It was revealed today that John Howard and several senior Cabinet Ministers have recently had meetings with members of the secretive Exclusive Brethren sect. Kevin Rudd has labelled the sect an "extremist cult" and called upon the Prime Minister to reveal what was discussed at the meetings.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22287969-2,00.html

The ultra-conservative Exclusive Brethren do not allow their members to vote, yet they have been exposed as having funded electoral advertising in both Australia and New Zealand, and are currently under AFP investigation for irregularities in campaign donations to the Liberal Party in the 2004 Federal election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren

John Howard, Peter Costello and Tony Abbott all claim that their meetings with Brethren leaders are above board.

I think that the privileged access this cult seems to have, to the Prime Minister and his most senior Ministers, is most definitely on the nose. What do others think?

Those who put the boot in to Rudd over his lap dance need to post here Rudd is a saint compared to this.
Howard a Christian? really John? this shameful sect breaks couples apart and is as near evil as any sect in the world.
John Howard must be desperate, to even think of meeting this grubby mob.
Surely each of us knows about the stolen family's this mob is involved in?
As bad as any group from any religion in the world the brethren should be barred from every members office.

I have no time for the religious beliefs of the Brethren but before criticising John Howard or anyone else for meeting with them could we look at a few facts?
The organisation is not illegal. It IS illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion. The Prime Minister is required to be the PM of ALL Australians.
There are also other groups which exclude and excommunicate their members, some of whom also claim to be Christian. There are groups which deny medical treatment and whose children have died as a result.
There are many other groups which behave in ways that are unacceptable to others.
We have all met, sometimes knowingly and other times unknowingly, these people and received support from them.
To suggest that John Howard should not meet them is wrong. He could and would be equally criticised if he did not meet them.
I suggest the real problem here is that there may have been donations to a political party. Naturally the ALP objects as they did not receive the same funding - not that they seem to mind accepting funding from another group whose behaviour at times has been no better than that of the EB.
If Kevin Rudd thinks he can pick and choose those he wants to meet and represent then he is unfit to be Prime Minister - he has to represent all of us...even the people we dislike.

John_Howard meets with.... the EVIL Brethren ? welllll that's what Current Affair would have us believe....right ?

But is there possibly more to the 'high profile media stories' than meets the ears ?

BREAK UP FAMILIES....or... a particular man decides he wants to fool around with THREE women (besides his wife)... and after:

1/ Being advised by 'one on one' after which the person is either restored (and its the end of the matter) or stubborn and it is..

2/taken to a couple of witnesses whereupon the man realizes his mistake, repents, and is restored, or.. is stubborn and then..

3/The matter is taken to the Church (Elders) and if he repents, he is restored or.. if he is stubborn...

HE IS TREATED LIKE A TAX COLLECTOR AND SINNER....shock_horror

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:15-20 is the relevant passage.

Now,at point 3, along comes Current Affair and they are given a mildly biased one sided account of the saga........

Do any of you in the 'crowd before Pilate' have the full facts or are you just screaming with the mob CRUCIFY THEM...CRUCIFY THEM...(while_holding_your_torches)

If the EB or the XYZ cult/sect/2headed monster group decide to pay for advertising in support of a particular party.. it's THEIR business.

If...they contravene laws about political donations...its OUR business via_the_law.

Personally, while I don't exactly feel I need to rush out and join them, or would feel comfortable with some of their practices, (I love a cuppa after morning worship, they don't) in all my dealings with them I've found them

-Generous
-Loving/warm hearted
-Highly ethical
-Have families which seem to have an extra dose of respect and love in them.

So...if you want to crucify them.. by all means, but make sure its based on 'facts' and not just 'the convenient, politically useful' ones at that... ALLL of the facts.

Show me a a perfect church and I'll show you pigs flying. Who can doubt that in the context of 'a large number of people' there would not be noses out of joint, misunderstandings, disagreements.. I mean..after all... that NEVER happens in the political social arena we all inhabit...right?

special interest group gets special deal from pollie!

pollie gets support from special interest group!

what a surprise.

BOAZ,

So you support the Exclusive Brethren practice of disobeying family court orders (breaking the law) and of demanding the son shun the father or mother?

What I find interesting is that if members of this group are not permitted to vote, then what possible reason would Howard have to meet with them?

As a pragmatic politician, he would only respond to a group if this would increase or maintain his voting base.

From the other side, what would be the EB have to offer Howard besides moral support. If they can't provide him with electoral support with votes then what are they good for?

If there was the chance that such a meeting could influence others outside the EB, then it would have been typically announced with the usual amount of positive publicity but it was kept somewhat quiet.

Therefore only reason why he would do this must be for financial assistance and the resulting donation to campaign funds.

It seems you are happy for Mr Rudd to meet with Mr Burke and then upset that Mr Rudd meets with someone from a Christian sect. How pathetic! Your loathing of Mr Howard has blinded you to your own hypocrisy!

runner please make a note to indicate who you're addressing your diatribes to. Makes it easier to figure out who you're talking to.

MR, HOWARD THIS CULT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN ARE THEY LIKE THE STAFF THAT ABUSED AND RAPED US CHILDREN WHILE WE WERE UNDER THE STATES CONTROL IN THE STATE RUN INSTITUTIONS BY THE GOVERMENT OF AUSTRALIA , SIR YOU WILL NOT SPEAK OUT LOUD FOR US FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS THAT WERE RAPED AND ABUSED BY THE STAFF PEDOPHILES THAT WORKED FOR YOUR GOVERMENTS , INSTITUTIONS, AND WHY IS THE GOVERMENT COVERING UP THE ABUSE THAT WE OCCURRED AND ENDURED BY THESE SICK PEDOPHILES , IM A VICTIM OF THE RAPES AND ABUSE OF DARUK BOYS HOME , HAVE SOME GUTS AND ADMITT THE TRUTH OF WHAT WE CHILDREN SUFFERED , WE WERE PUT IN THESE PLACES TO BE LOOKED AFTER AND TO LEARN RIGHT FROM WRONG , NOT TO BE THE PLAY TOYS FOR THE EMPLOYERS TO DO TO US WHAT THEY FELT AND LIKED TO DO TO US ,, WHY DON;T YOU JUST COME CLEAN AND THEN WE CAN ALL GET ON WITH OUR LIVES , AND TRY AND REGAIN SOME NORMAL LIFE STYLE , WE HAVE OUR OWN CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN , TO BE MORE FEARFUL ABOUT AS WE KNOW WHAT AND DOES AND CAN HAPPEN TO A CHILD AS WE WERE THE REAL VICTIMS , OF THE STATES PEDOPHILES THEY EMPLOYED ,KIND REGARDS MICHEAL BROWN

JOHN HOWARD
WHY DON;T YOU JUST COME CLEAN

I mean this is becoming ridiculous.

What I heard was one of those he met with is a constituent as he lives
in the Bennelong electorate. I suppose if John Howard refused to meet
with him the rants here would all be about how your member of
parliament is refusing to see a constituent !

Time for you all to take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

Bazz,

Meeting his constituents is fine, that's his job as a member, its the ongoing criminal investigation into the donation of very large chunks of money to the liberal party which is causing concern.

The problem for all those who are OK with John Howard meeting these people is they are ignoring the real issue. The fact that the PM meets with them isn't really the issue. It's that he accepts large amounts of money from them and meets them in order to make sure he keeps getting money. I have no problem with John Howard meeting with the EB if he gives back their money. The EB are using money to buy time and influence with the PM. That's the real issue which most of you have ignored.

BOAZ ~ If you think everyone gets their info off tabloid gutter press, you're a fool. The Brethren ARE a sect, no two ways about it. At the top you have one fella controlling the lives and businesses of the followers. Why WOULD a sect that doesn't allow members to vote be interested in financial involvement with a political party?. It seems they also have the PM in their pocket...a whole different plane of dodginess compared to getting shet faced at a strip club some years ago.

"-Generous
-Loving/warm hearted
-Highly ethical
-Have families which seem to have an extra dose of respect and love in them." (Quote: BOAZ-ref:Exclusive Brethren)

Well, now you know folks!

DEMOS...well said mate :)

James.. 'the practice' you speak of.... can I suggest you contact the EB and ask them for a copy of their 'guide' book... they offered one to me and to residents in my area... they even offered to have them at one of their services.. as observers.
Make sure that the 'practice' you speak of is one that is real, and not a CA beatup mate... I've heard all the same media hype..and I also know what actually happens..... now..I'm speaking of the ones I am in contact with, I can't speak for all of them... that would be a bit err.. biased wouldnt it?

Are you sure ONE MAN 'controls' the businesses etc? or.. perhaps.. just perhaps... he is one to whom they (the Churches) look for counsel on issues which are bigger than they can handle at the local CHURCH level?
We had a 'field director' and a 'general director'.. (In the Mission) and anything which was of a common nature would never goto the GD.. its like any business.. has a structure.

I can tell you exactly when such a person would 'act' regarding someones 'business' and its if it became known that they were acting
a)Unbiblically
b)Unethically
c)Illegally

In such a chase, if the local group could not manage to discipline the person,(i.e. by possibly excluding them from fellowship until they put it right) perhaps the 'big man' would ? but their 'business' is entirely 'their' business other than that.

Stg.. Brudda... puh-lease make the distinction between 'open' Brethren and 'exclusive' it is rather important you know. They have a historic connection but parted ways longgggg ago.

Regarding the AFP investigation... if wrong has been done, they/whoever will pay the price.. as it should be.

Boazy, the only person on this thread who's mentioned 'A Current Affair' as their source for information on the Exclusive Brethren cult is you. You make a point of distinguishing between the 'Exclusive Brethren' and your own 'Open Brethren' sect, but the vehemence of your defence of them, and the fact that you parrot their propaganda regularly, belies any practical distinction.

My biggest problem with the EB cult is not that they exist - rather that they seek to influence covertly by the back door a political process in which they refuse, as conscientious objectors, to participate directly. Isn't that just a tad hypocritical, even by your standards?

BOAZ,

I am well aware of the distinction between the Open Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren, and given that it was the EB that Howard met with that is who I am discussing.

I have not seen the Current Affairs segment on the EB and am not likely too as I view both ACA and Today Tonight as the journalistic equivelants of McDonalds - lots of junk and no substance. Instead I have done my own research, including reading the Brethrens own web site (interesting they have one considering the view the Internet as a polluting influence).

The shunning practice has been well documented both here and in New Zealand, with former members being denied access to their children despite court orders to the contrary.

Though I don't know anyone in the closed or open Brethren I can't for the life of me see why Mr Howard should not meet with them. If he was meeting with the homosexual lobby or the pro abortion lobby no one would raise an eyebrow. The unions have funded sections of the Labour party for years (often secretly). If someone believes enough in someone to help out their election campaign then so what. I suspect the Greens are funded by some very weird people who support their policies. Does that mean Mr Brown should not meet with them? Even most Howard loathers can't be serious about this one!

I have known many exclusive brethren and I was raised among what is commonly known as open brethren. The term open or exclusive refers to whom may attends their meetings.

I belong to a Political Party of which many open brethren make regular legal donations. They are concerned at the decline in respect for ethics and the lack of morality in our society. I would suggest the exclusive brethren feel exactly the same. They being citizens of Australia are governed by Australian laws and have equal rights to contact a Government who makes those laws. They have done nothing illegal in making contact with Prime Minister Howard. It is merely the dirt rakers wishing to find a mud hole to sully Mr Howard's reputation. (By the way I am not a member of the Liberal Party)

If Mr Howard visited a brothel and kept it secret to several years similar to Mr Rudd then I'm sure the brethren would not be visiting him. I recognise several posters frequent brothels without conscience but when Mr Howard has the financial support of the Christian right they squeal some form of injustice.

The real concern here is the fact that the ALP was not given the same funding - if they had been you would not have heard a word from the ALP about this issue.
All political parties get funding from a wide variety of sources and some of it is bound to be suspect.
While it may, in theory, no longer be possible to demand that someone belong to a union the reality is different. Once a member some of your dues are going to go to the ALP no matter what your own voting intentions. That, to me, is far worse than funding a political party of your choice...not that I want to fund any political party.
It could be worse, much worse. The EB could be funding drug running or some other criminal activity. They could be demanding the death penalty or that everyone always wore Mao tunics or...well, you get the picture.
In my dealings with the Brethren I have found them to be reserved but not unpleasant and when I had occasion to assist one her son was courteous enough to seek me out and thank me personally. There are plenty of other people who would not have bothered.

BOAZ ~ We all know we're talking about the 'exclusive'. That's why the references to the exclusive brethren in the articles and news items...brudda.

who are we to dare to judge anyone! if these people have done any wrong they will be judged by the supreme judge!a lot of people judge in total ignorance of facts,let those who are without sin throw the first stone!!because as a christian i am taught to respect all faiths, people who belong to the E B and are sinners will be punished!

Get ready Irish, stand by Boaz David, I am about to throw a crimson big rock at both of you.
May as well include the fool who thinks I hate Howard, ready?
THEY ARE A SECT! nothing less, three wives? crimson hell BD! one family was broken up because dad refused to give his book keeping over to the church!
David! is it not true such groups are infecting Christianity? weakening it by association?
And final, that statement from the gutter about us who oppose John Howard hating him!
Do you truly believe your own rants?
Sitting one meter above my head is a framed letter from him to me.
It thanks me for my support, states it understands I vote Labor but tells me of his understanding why I would write a letter of congratulations in 2004 to him.
Hate?
wake up to your self like Australia I do not like or trust him I hate no man, but will never respect you.

James... glad you did some original research... I didn't even know they had a web site till now.

Belly.. 3 'WIVES' ? mate.. not sure what you mean there ... there was a case of a bloke who was fooling around with 3 women who was disciplined and then gained a high media profile.

I'm not defending everything about them, I'm defending their right to a fair go.

If, for example, I state "A woman is worth only half that of a man in court in Islamic societies" that is not a defamatory comment it is a proven fact and reality. Just this morning on CNN one of the senior nobel prize winning Iranian Judges stated that... If I say "Islam allows stoning a woman to death for adultery" another Iranian woman politician said "If Islamic law proscribes a specific punishment for a specific vice, I'll defend it even though the whole world is against me" her words...not mine. To say as much is giving them a fair go, because it is factual. But if we said things which are NOT true about them, it would be defamatory.

The EB have some habits I find uncomfortable. The issue of the 'handing over the books' is not one I know about, and I'd take serious issue with that,.... so if that is 'Church Policy' then by all means report it, that also is a 'fair go'. If it is just an over zealous local church going further than they should, it needs to be reported as such and not used to tar the whole movement with the same brush.

BELLY.. mate... I've not said you 'hate' them or Howard ? where do you get that from ? I just checked my posts..can't see me saying that.

That remark was not aimed at you BD is was a rebuttal of a rant often aimed at me or other up the thread.
It comes each time some one says anything against Howard.
We should remember however John Howard once held this country in his hands, he knew what people wanted.
At that time only fools did not know this.
It is no longer the case he has lost his followers and the term ex Liberal voter is common.
John Howard will see that as clearly as I do post election.
BD this is no church, no follower of your Christ I am amazed you did not watch the very in depth doco about the dread full damage this CULT has inflicted on good honest people.
You quote your God very often this is no product of his.
Howard knows this his desperation to be elected drives him nothing else.

Calm down Belly. It should not be a sackable offence to meet someone. If it was then Kevin Rudd should have been sacked over the Burke affair.
The EB may be a cult but that does not mean that those who meet them support or approve of them. I know members of the EB, indeed have just returned from speaking to one. Does that make me a bad person? Are all members of the EB bad people or are they, as some might see it, misguided and unfortunate people? Remember the EB is their life and their family and breaking away takes an enormous amount of courage when it means losing your family. Could you do it?
May I remind you that they are not the only people in the community who do not vote but still seek support from their elected members?
There are other groups who do not vote for reasons of religion, others who are not on the electoral roll and some who do not bother even though they are on the electoral roll.
There is no need for hysteria over this group. There are plenty of other groups and individuals out there which are just as dangerous but have the support of all sides of politics.

John Howard can visit Hitler's grave for all i care...he's dead in the water.

A question remains unanswered - why bother to meet with somebody who does not vote and can't influence others to vote for you or for your party?
It's a bit like having meetings with non-resident tourists passing through the country.

This cult holds its children hostage and they are not to get an education about the world as it is.
They do not allow radio or TV so very much is denied these children yet the real concern is they use money to influence elections.
Now it is true Howard is gone, yesterdays man lost in a space of his own, but he knew better.
He must have known he had nothing to gain by seeing this sect, this abuser of a religion.
Those among you who are Christian ask your selfs would your God approve of the cult?
Or Howard's actions.?

As I said Belly - quit belly aching! Howard is PM. He has a responsibility to meet all sorts of people and you can bet your last dollar that he does not like or approve of many of them - but as PM he has to meet them.
If he did not meet them then people would be screaming that he was discriminating and breaking the anti-discrimination laws about religion.
You are also guilty of using religion to make a political point for the ALP. Other ALP members are doing the same thing...is that any better?
As I said before - point you did not answer - there are other people in the community who do not vote on religious grounds. Would you stop JH OR KR from meeting them? Would you even know if they did meeet them? Of course not! Can you be sure you have never met someone who does not vote? Of course not!
This has nothing to do with support or otherwise for the EB. I do not like their beliefs but, as a legal organisation, I will defend their right in law to meet the PM and the PM's right to meet them.

Communicat it has nothing to do with not voting, less with religious freedom.
Zero to do with Howard's duty's as Prime Minister, is your answer to community concerns with Howard actions to us me or other to stop complaining?
To hide our concerns about Iraq? children over board? tax on fuel? interest rates? truth in government?
Five posts that is what it would take to list my concerns with the outgoing prime minister.
However you will not silence debate in these pages.

Well Belly what are you concerned about? I cannot understand why you object to a PM (any PM) meeting a legal group. He or she does not have to agree with the beliefs of that group. He or she may even try to dissuade them.
You seem to be saying "I do not like the PM. I do not like the people he meets. Therefore he should not meet them."
We all know you are a supporter of the ALP. Would you let Kevin Rudd meet these people and accept donations from them? Would you still vote for Kevin Rudd if he did?
You have not addressed the issue...indeed seem to be taking a detour to avoid it.

"Accepted large amounts of money from the EB"...err can anyone actually offer documented evidence for this ?

Lets keep in mind.. that any group it the community can spend its own money to promote the interests of a party they favor.. they don't have to give a CENT to the party to do this...

Seems to me a lot of assumptions are suddenly gaining credence without a shred of actual evidence..oh..whats that I see.. villagers with torches ambling up the main street......

If they give something to the Coalition..... woopdy doo...UNIONS also give to Labor..is that 'evil' ? :) c'mon.. all take a bex etc..

CJ... you too mate.

BOAZ,

Well according to the Coalition, Labor receiving money from the unions means the Unions have undue influence, so why can't the same inference be drawn from large donations to the Coalition from the Exclusive Brethren?

Although I welcome the donations I would hate to know that they have influence (The Brethren) over John how can we find out because so far it is only allegations. Gloria Jeans and Hillside is very popular and it is heartening to see so many clean young people giving us support it is so important we have the Christian vote. When I see all that riff raff on the demonstrations assaulting our wonderful Police force they are nothing but Terrorist supporters. When will they wake up they must be brainwashed by the left wing press.