Reply
Mon 23 Jan, 2006 04:41 pm
Revoking Charter rights
On the page containing links to the Love Charter and the Amendments documents there is this statement in the introduction:
"There have been a number of significant additions and changes made to The Family's governing charter over the years, as it provided that any of the rights could be revoked at any time by Karen Zerby and Steven Kelly, and more responsibilities could be added."
The use of the word "provided" instead of "provides" suggests that the ability of Zerby and Kelly to revoke any of the rights at any time no longer exists. The use of the past tense suggests that the Charter did contain a provision that allowed Zerby & Kelly to revoke any right, but that it no longer contains such a provision.
I've looked through the Charter and the Amendments trying to find a clause that gives that power of revocation but can't find it. However, it seems to me that even if no such clause exists that spells out that right of revocation, Zerby and Kelly still retain that power. Since they claim that they hear directly from God through their Jesus and their dead prophet, that would give them the ability to override or revoke any clause in the Charter and to make any changes to TF that they wanted to. All they have to do is claim that it is God's will as revealed to them directly and then what good will the Charter do?
In my opinion, the Charter isn't worth the paper it is written on, especially since the Preface to the Charter makes it very clear that "The rule that should be emphasized above all is the Law Of Love. We should strive to make it the cardinal rule by which we all abide when exercising our rights, when fulfilling our responsibilities and when obeying the rules." I think we all know where the Law of Love leads to.
Re: Revoking Charter rights
Perry wrote:The use of the word "provided" instead of "provides" suggests that the ability of Zerby and Kelly to revoke any of the rights at any time no longer exists. The use of the past tense suggests that the Charter did contain a provision that allowed Zerby & Kelly to revoke any right, but that it no longer contains such a provision.
I believe you're reading a bit too much into the wording, though I agree "provides" would've been better.
Info regarding amending the Charter can be found at the following locations:
Section 21 "Responsibilities of World Services' Leadership and Homes", Subsection C. (pg.141)
..and..
Section 22 "Authority of WS Leadership", Subsection A. (pg.149)
Quote:If deemed necessary, WS leadership has the authority to:
A. Amend or suspend all or part of the “Charter of
Responsibilities and Rights,â€
Thanks Monger
That's very helpful. Not sure why I missed that. Btw, I don't think I was "reading a bit too much into the wording." Changing the past tense to the present completely changes the meaning.
Re: Thanks Monger
Thanks. And yeah, clearly they could stand to do a bit more editing work, but I maintain that assuming WS would give up their right to do what they wish with the Charter based on verb tense is a bit of a stretch.
By the way, welcome to xFamily.
Ah, Peter F. just fixed the sentence you mentioned in the xFamily article on the
Charter. Sorry, I'd thought it was something taken out of the Charter itself, and didn't realize it was something we had written. I guess that's why you posted this under 'Contact Editors'.
Thanks for pointing it out...
I was a bit confused by your take on the past/present tense thing. Now I see we were just on different "pages".
Thanks again for pointing out those provisions in the Charter. You saved me a lot of time.