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.