Instead of detailing how the sect’s theology differed from that of orthodox interpretations of Christianity or even the questionable recruitment techniques utilized by Moonie organizations, the episode spent an inordinate amount of time harping upon the sect’s admittedly idiosyncratic incorporation of firearms into certain aspects of its liturgy.
While such might not be a normal part of spiritual practice, such is not without historic precedent.
As such does Elizabeth Vargas intend to broadcast similar exposes with accompanying ominous voice over narration asking do Sikhs really need those ceremonial daggers and just why does a sword play a role in certain Masonic rituals?
Not once do I recall anything said as to the legality of the guns depicted which had been deliberately emptied of ammunition.
Instead, a lengthy reflection dwelt upon the tragedy that could result should the firearm end up being misused by a less rational adherent of this theology.
For as you know, the line of argumentation continued, anyone that doesn't embrace the transgender movement and believes that legitimate marriage can only be between a man and a woman is by definition well on their way to being diagnosed as mentally deficient.
As proof, the plight is followed of a former Unification member whose mother was paralyzed when she was accidentally shot by his brother because the youths in the sect enjoyed recreational shooting.
One cannot help but sympathize with a family that has experienced such a tragedy.
But isn't it the fault of the one that shot her, her own child?
Off all of the abridgments of human decency perpetrated over the years by the Unification Church and now apparently its offshoots, this incident really isn't one for which these parties bear responsibility.
Elizabeth Vargas has been open regarding her struggles with alcoholism.
As such, because some people can't control themselves around alcohol to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others, does that mean no one should be allowed to utilize the substance in ways otherwise considered legal?
If not, then why this journalistic production where one constitutional liberty is invoked for the purposes of subverting another?
By Frederick Meekins
There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network